Comments on: Purple reacts to FCC rate decision

By: debby

debby — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 03:18:42 +0000

Observer….
Sorenson is NOT greedy!….How can you say that? They do not make any profits from the D/deaf communities. You should appreciate for what they have done to the Deaf communities. They gave 5 millions to Gallaudet University, donated many schools, and sponsored many different deaf’s events. If you own business of course you would want to make profit to keep it running. However, remember that videophone Free install Free Repair Free…They hire many deaf workers and interpreters….Who pay to make videophones, routers, remote, extension cords….the reason other VRS (P3, ZVRS, etc) survive is because they sell videophones that Sorenson doesn’t.

By: An Observer

An Observer — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:42:22 +0000

To answer VRS Observer, simple.. It is a pure greed by Sorenson for wanting MORE profit. It is like FCC giving everyone one lollipop and Sorenson wants 4 more.

TheHolism, I agree with you about worrying about other companies’ business. Just focus on its own business and provide their services & products (if any).

Kelby, why do you keep asking us what we think about the FCC rates? Truthfully, it is not for us to worry but it is for the VRS companies to tell US the truth if they are good or not. How the world we are supposed to know if it is good or bad by not looking at VRS’ ENTIRE books.

You tell us!

Thank you.

By: Kelby

Kelby — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:05:32 +0000

Good comments and questions here.
Shirley and Holism, thanks for sharing your perspectives, they are appreciated.
Tousi, your question would be best answered by a government official.
VRS Observer, your question would be best answered by Sorenson.

By: VRS Observer

VRS Observer — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:36:47 +0000

I don’t understand one thing. I hope you can explain.

I understand that Sorenson has lowest costs than everyone else. They said so themselves cuz they are so efficient with their management (whether you believe them or not is another thing).

If they have lowest costs, that means tier 3 $5.07 hurt Purple and everyone else more than Sorenson. Sorenson will make lots of profit on $5.07 because FCC says that their costs are lower than that.

Now my question: if Sorenson will make more profit than anyone else, why did Sorenson announce that they will challenge FCC decision? Their profit, according to Convo’s Ed Bosson, will still be $140 MILLION! Isn’t that enough? If other companies can survive at $5.07, why not Sorenson?

By: Tousi

Tousi — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:16:23 +0000

This is a slight aside but I think it has back-door-related ramifications: Has the FCC or the appropriate related Federal agency entertained the thought whether or not Sorenson’s 84% share rises to the level of violating any laws against being a suffocating monopoly?

By: theholism

theholism — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:15:05 +0000

Thanks for the update. It does not matter who controls the majority of the market. Such status does not guarantee them anything. Creativity is the name of the game here so, quit worrying about Sorenson’s 84% control of the market and stay focused on the good things Purple does. Whining about Sorenson is not going to help Purple’s image.

By: Shirley Rippy

Shirley Rippy — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:13:49 +0000

I’m enjoy you communtion lot that wonder someone fir the able and vp keep herself love it deaf of hearing! Thank you so much! Smile god bless you!