I have questions and hope to get some answers and clarification on the concepts, not related to VRS itself. I am going to illustrate an example along with questions and hope to get some answers regarding to it if possible.

I used to own a 3650 Nokia cell phone model, which is definitely out of date at this point. I do recalled having different providers at different locations and towers. For example, my cell phone provider was under T-mobile. I lived in a small city and had Epstein as my local area to utilize text message to whomever I sent to. Then, I would go over to my sister’s place and would be under Cingular phone company, which is now under AT & T. Also, when I traveled to other place, I would see different companies on my cell phones at different locations. In other words, all of the companies had worked together to make it possible for the cell phone callers to call from anywhere except for places that do not have towers.

There are several questions to this particular concept. While using different providers and locations during my travels throughout USA, how does the funding for those cell phone companies operate? In other words, does T-mobile have an agreement with those companies to channel a certain portion of the monies to each of those companies? How does FCC comes to play with those primary and non-primary cell phone companies? Does FCC provide monetary support for those non-primary cell phone companies?

Since this whole issues of sharing the VRS and TRS fundings, what and how will the funds be distribute to the primary and non-primary VRS/TRS? How will you all share the same general funds from the FCC? I understand that some of the VRS/TRS will support with each other despite of the competition especially we live in capitalist country. Can someone help me to understand better?

I hope I am asking the right questions in regards to VRS/TRS issue. Forgive me. Thank you.

We have 2 MVPs, one Sorenson, 3 computers and one IPOD …

I rather pay at least something small instead of getting everything for FREE!

Hope this helps?

I may be a late reader. But never too late to share my thoughts about this issue.

It is an important issue to be addressed.

In my experience in the past, I have used different providers. Only CSDVRS representative TOLD me that I am entitled to use any provider. The rest of others TOLD me to use their services. Can you guess which provider I use the most? CSDVRS. I chose to use CSDVRS because of how they sold their business.

To be able to use different providers is all about how the business runs. America is full of competitors. I am not easily confused. It is about how one sells his business. Just like how you retain a car salesman.

I am a firm believer that every American is entitled to to receive any provider and is entitled to use it as we see fit. It’s all about how a business sells their business.

I hope I am making sense here.

Severely limited to one VP provider per household???

It is good because it is to save the landfills from too many e-waste junk devices (Ojo, Z340, Dlink, Viable, MVP, etc) that they don’t really used them often but use them as paperweight or door block.

The majority of the VP users in USA are using VP100/VP200 which is good enough. FYI: If they have technical problems with VP100/VP200, they can always e-mail to Sorenson Tech Support as an alternative communication. That e-mail address is support@sorenson.com or visit their website at http://www.sorensonvrs.com/support/cs.php or use the old fashioned way, TTY/TDD call at 1-866-877-9826.

The point is that one IP address with limited bandwidth can provide highest video quality. Too many VP providers in a single IP addy would not be possible and degrades the video quality.

If an user made a call to a VP provider (A) while another VP provider (B) attempts to call the same user, what would it happened to the user? Crash? Busy line? Ringing up another device? Just to remember that user can’t do multi-tasking on more than one device as much as the user cannot text and drive at the same time or answering more than one call at the same time as the front receptionist do.

I support Sorenson’s proposal due to today’s technology limited availability and of course, human nature (can’t do multi-tasking).

A tech note: Video eats up most of the bandwidth than anything else such as file downloads, VoIPs, etc.

To solve it, add another IP address.

Unfortunately, nearly all of the users have just one IP addy. Unless you are super-rich, please go and buy and own at least 10 IP addresses (that is “One IP for each VP Provider”) to maintain highest video quality. Then, Sorenson’s filing with FCC wouldn’t be necessary.

Any volunteers who can come forward to tell Kelly that you can afford 10 IP addies???

My opinion on this is stupid to have one provider in each house.. Think about it.. Since we have MVP, Viable, zvrs anything that are mobility, Sorenson don’t have one. So I feel that Sorenson is trying to be in control and prevent us from having a mobility VP? Sorenson have seen the number on the rise of mobility users. I suggest to veto on that proposal to FCC to have us to have ONE provider in household. Think about what if.. What if the sorenson is not working, and we have back-up VP device, Mobility.. We can take them out to make calls and call to Sorenson and report the VP-200 is not working.. I am sure they didn’t think of that. Someone who made a appeal to FCC to have one per household.. IS STUPIDITY…