Deaf Firefighter’s Blog

There’s been a lot of excitement surrounding the recent unveiling of Viable’s VPAD wireless VRS device. Right now, there’s a lot of questions that people have that need to be answered. The best questions I’ve seen so far are from Amy Cohen Efron who does a great job recognizing Viable for their achievement but doesn’t let them get away with the usual marketing hype by asking very pointed questions. –> Link <—

I would add a two more questions to that excellent list:

1. Is the device truly interoperable?

2. What communication protocols is it using in making the call?

If you remember a few years ago, the big issue was interoperability. Many VRS providers railed against a particular company’s virtual lock-up on the market in which it prevented their videophones from calling other VRS providers. After a concerted effort involving VRS providers and advocacy groups (see below for disclosure), the FCC released clarification that videophones must be openly accessible to all VRS providers.

What resulted from that ruling was a boon in competition but a virtual stranglehold in R&D. In other words, the FCC’s ruling essentially locked in the antiquated H.323 protocol as the standard du jour since that standard was used by the aforementioned company. Any new videophones that come out have to be able to accommodate their new standard with the old H.323 standard.

Since the FCC’s ruling in 2006, there has been virtually no new developments in R&D with the exception of SnapVRS’s Ojo (which I have). I know from that the Ojo doesn’t natively support the H.323 protocol (it currently uses the SIP protocol) but the company had to purchase a “translation” service to convert those calls.

One of the biggest selling points for any SIP provider for me is the ability to have multiple videophones behind one router. Currently, the H.323 protocol only allows you to have one videophone behind each IP address. This means you have to basically call your ISP, get additional IP addresses, etc. etc. while SIP protocol is literally a plug-and-play affair. Right now, we have two ojos in our household which is great since I work from home, my wife and I can make calls without having to bother the other person.

Back to my point: the FCC’s interoperability mandate has given us a great deal of competition in the marketplace but it’s also had the effect of stifling the development of newer and better technologies. In other words, many of the vendors are simply content to piggyback on the current H.323 protocol. I’m thrilled to see Viable, HOVRS, and SNAP! bucking this trend but I have to wonder what the price is for this innovation?

Would we be better served by changing the approach the FCC takes in regards to the question of interoperability? Should we allow companies who develop new technologies that aren’t fully interoperable to apply for NECA reimbursements at a reduced rates while companies that have fully-interoperable solutions can benefit from the current full reimbursement rate? This would enable companies to begin to recoup their investments while giving consumers new and improved videophone devices and at the same time, holding the promise for increased reward if they make the effort to become fully interoperable with previous devices.

(Full disclosure: I work for Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.. My opinion and statements do not reflect those of my employer.)