Sorenson nTouchVP Terms Information
This is a shocking news. It came to my eyes and was surprised that Sorenson Communications provided a legal information in regarding about nTouchVP Terms in regarding porting number and fees. Why would such do this crazy thing? I felt that customers like us shall not be billed for any reasons. VRS Providers is the sole responsbiity to pay all fees because we pay TRS Tax fee and that what it is for.
Let’s take a look at the one section that explains about $400 fee and so forth:
What do you have to say about this? For myself, I think this is plainly silly. Again, deaf customers SHALL not be held responsbility for any FEES whoesever owed, period.
Any comments?
That’s Sorenson CEO or Vice President can pay from VRS provide to FCC.
Comment by Nathaniel Caudill on October 25, 2011 at 9:57 pm
It’s probably because the ntouch VP is so new, and they have had just paid a lot ot $$$$ to have them manufactured. Still….the early termination fees set down by Sorenson is indeed startling. Isn’t there FCC ruling that says we deaf people cannot be made to pay fees just for porting the numbers?
Comment by Deaf Wolf on October 25, 2011 at 10:02 pm
In the fine print somewhere I think it says if you return the N Touch VP to Sorenson when you port to different VRS provider there will be no early termination fee.
Comment by ZackS on October 25, 2011 at 10:38 pm
The fee isn’t for porting the number. The fee is for the subsidization of hardware. The cost of the videophone you received is an amortized capital asset of the VRS provider that provided it to you. They have to explain that to their investors, and write those down in their accounting ledger.
If you return the videophone, the ETF is waved. Sorenson just doesn’t want their subsidized asset sitting in a box under your bed: they would much rather it be in another deaf consumer’s hands making them VRS minutes.
Sorenson set the precedent. ZVRS now does this as well, if you port away from Sorenson to a free Z20 phone, you must also pay an ETF:
http://www.zvrs.com/company/the-z/legal-disclaimer/product-agreement
Just as with Sorenson’s agreement, you can return the Z20 and have the ETF waved.
Comment by vrsengineer on October 25, 2011 at 10:45 pm
I may have not made that clear:
” if you port away from Sorenson to a free Z20 phone, you must also pay an ETF:”
I should have said: if you port away from Sorenson to a free Z20 phone, and then later decide to port back or port to another provider, you must also pay an ETF or return the phone.
The ZVRS policy is no different than Sorenson’s policy. Both companies are merely recovering the cost of lost utility of that physical phone.
VideoPhones are not free. You don’t get a cellphone for free: you sign up for a service plan commitment, and must pay an ETF if you cancel your service plan.
That providers were willing to write off “dead assets” before is a testimony to their previous business attitude as they tried to build their customer base. Sorenson has set a precedent. As the market leader, other VRS providers are going to follow.
Comment by vrsengineer on October 25, 2011 at 10:52 pm
That’s them countering the interoperability requirements of the videophones. That’s something worth complaining to FCC about. $400 is a big nasty bite of the users SSI check.
Comment by Richard Roehm on October 26, 2011 at 4:40 am
FCC does not pay for videophones. FCC only pays VRS companies for VRS calls by the minute. The videophones comes out of the VRS companies’ pockets and they have every right to charge ETF fees or to sell/lease their videophones. Although I don’t use SorensonVRS, I support SorensonVRS’ right to charge ETF or whatever they deem fit for their videophones.
Comment by CommonSense on October 26, 2011 at 12:15 pm
I do not see the source where does the ETF come from Sorenson site?
Comment by Sam the Deaf on October 26, 2011 at 2:53 pm
I ported my vp 200 to a Z20 phone, now I have the vp 200 all packed up in the original box….not sure where to sent it. If any sorenson’s rep are here, please advise where I can sent it back to. As far as I know, there’s no charge for me to pay any fees to sorenson. the VP 200 belongs to sorenson. Whereas Z20 is MINE. I own it. I rather have a phone that is MINE. I think this fee for porting to ntouch is risky…. truth is, it’s better to buy or get a free video phone that is YOURS. Not company’s.
Comment by Candy on October 26, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Sam,
You can find at:
http://www.sorensonvrs.com/assets/pdf/ntvp_agreement.pdf
Thanks
Comment by admin on October 26, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Sorenson made ntouch VP chips and cords! That’s real riches! Must replace VP-200 to ntouch VP for each states.
Comment by Nathaniel Caudill on October 26, 2011 at 8:25 pm
That is so f**King LAME! THAT TOTALLY BS! Thank god, I quit about year go.. I had VP200 for 4 years and got really worst and I decided to switch to Z.. I got Z340 and I was so happy I quit Sorenson because is garbage THINK! Sorenson only have 1 deaf VP and all rest are hearing, including Board Directors, Lawyer and CEO.. Z Services has mix 60% Deaf/HoH and 40% Hearing (Already know ASL!) and plus over top ZVRS Interpreters! Think before you decide Switch service. I think it soooo stupid to pay $400 BS!
For Sorenson.. Kiss my ass! ZVRS is Rules!
Comment by Anthony on November 8, 2011 at 3:57 am
I am very fusturating between ZVRS and Sorenson. Sorenson seems to be the source of the problem. I am HoH and I want to use VCO without landline phone. I had 2 VP200. I pulled the port from one of VP200 and put it on ZVRS Z340. I still use VP200 as my default providor. Sorenson came back saying that I must pull port back to VP200 or I will not get nTouch equipments. They told me I will get VCO built in nTouch in the equipment. I ended up paying 80 dollars to purcause Z430 equipments and router with a new phone number. I just got two new nTouch equipments, but the problem is worse with new equipments, because the second line does not work like it did with VP200. The tech decided to leave my house leaving me a mess with second nTouch not working, but first nTouch is working. I am so confused and upset about it. I was told nTouch does not work with VCO unless I have a land line. I am so mad!!!! What can I do? Z340 does not work very well with wireless and have bad NIC port.
Comment by Steve on January 1, 2012 at 2:58 pm
I would advice Steve to call Captioncall and this is like a VCO w voice recognition. This is better than Captel product. I just recently applied for a job with Caption Call.
Comment by Neal Golden on January 2, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Bottom line: it is all about Return of Investment–in short: ROI. Sorenson and ZVRS both, in fact, have made bad decision-making with their ROI. If they think they can rely and win out their ROI based on expecting and betting on customers using their VRS minutes, they have another thing coming. Why? They did not think how many VRS minutes will customers be using their service in order to recoup the ROI to begin with in the first place. Does that mean they’re making BIG Las Vegas gamble on crap table and hope they “hit” something BIG? From my experience and knowledge seeing inside the sources that were given to me, all I can say: BAD R.O.I., yours truly!
Comment by anoymous on January 10, 2012 at 2:37 pm
To Steve about the VCO – I would try Captel first and see if you like it. I have used it in the past and it is very good however you need to be aware of two things about Captel. One is if you have hearing children or hearing person in the house and they pick up the same phone you use it will automatically hook up to the captel. To avoid this problem you need a second line or phone for the hearing person. Second problem is a slight delay after you talk to the person and the type message come back on the screen. some hearing caller dont understand why you dont reply fast enuf. so you have to explain the situation.
What I have done is switched from sorenson (3 yrs ago) to zvrs using z150 with a single line phone VCO. This works great since the other end does not know you have a third person on line. I never get hang ups as I did with vp200. Good luck…
Comment by Steven Hammersmith on February 11, 2012 at 7:31 am