Added by on 2012-01-30


  • Mr. Gary Kazen

    I am very impressed with your fully information about VRS (FNPRM) Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Good job to all of you. I have one question that bothers me a quite alot. One of you mention that it requires to provide “all” Deaf and Hard of Hearing population to access information about VRS user. How can you provide some Deaf and/or Hard of Hearing person who live far away from the city that the company (cablevision) doesn’t provide any accessable. For example, any hearing people who have no problem to use telephone or mobility in deep out of town like forest area without any barrier. They can’t use VP at all. They are force customer to buy dish which is not very successful. That is why I am very concern about purchase some property that I really like to live there but there is no provide access for me. It sounds like I can’t make my preference to live where I want to. Is that fair? No, it is not. That is why I had been wondering how can you provide to serve “ALL.” Got my picture?
    Again, I want to thank for your work hard to satisfy FCC’s requirement and individual customers all over the country.

  • Antonia Mueller

    Very good about ASL show me to understand why FCC/ADA need provide better for deaf and hearing people in the future. I am gonna vote and I need ask you question and want you answer me back.
    Thank you for share information of FNPRM!

  • chris

    I do see many postive improvement but per user is something that will hurt the community using vrs service. I do believe it will reduce qualitiy of service and equipment.
    Lock in- i do see bad part of this and good. the bad part is to port will be restricted to communiity the good part is will reduce many problems and also when any vrs provider give “free equipment” should remain with the company. Now if anyone buys off shelves vp the vrs lock in must not be part of lock in because user bought the equipment same as when a person buy a cell phone the cell phone can be program to change to diffrent service provider.
    access to techonlogy go for web cam included must be equal and smooth acess because i notice that vp a to vp c or vp c to vp a are not very good quaility, again it is about the control of business it must be equal to user’s acessaibility to connect to anyone without any problems.
    overall my prepesctive of this new proposal still to be adjusted and equal to all user must vrs company must meet all user acess to techonlolgy. this has been ongoing problems. such as able to contact diffrent vp with bad connection, and also for vp requirement to have broadband must change, why web cam work very well with dail up when vp dont work with dial up?

  • Leahy Hernadenez (if I could not spell her name correctly. I apologize) . Leahy was really great at interviewing people with very ASL signing styles for inquiries. Very Deaf-friendly interview format and setting. Very impressive ASL interview!

    ASLize yours,
    Robert L. Mason
    RLMDEAF blog

  • Steven Hammersmith

    Good video!!!!! Here is my opinion
    VRS pay by mins – keep but have fewer VRS like 3 or 6 providers
    lock in one VRS provider – NO
    interoperability – YES
    off the shelves – YES
    provide better internet – yes


  • Debby Buchan

    Please also take into consideration Deaf individuals who either have low vision and are having difficulties using VP services. Two things: 1) can research for improved equipment or quality of TVs be researched to advise individuals as to which equipment might be better for them; 2) can there be training with VRS interpreters on how to best work with and provide effective services to those with low vision. I dont know the solution, but feel research and options should be developed to assist a growing number of individuals who either may not be able to access services now or may be faced with having to stop use of services. thank you.