approval from:
Mark Z 
| Wow, what a piece of trash! 1150 / 30 = less than 40 minutes/month, about.
Using the phone for less than an hour a day is "excessive"?
Between the shaw, comcast, OOL, and now even voip caps, a large chunk of the internet is becoming a joke. Is it really that hard to let your customers use what they pay for?
If you got cut off for watching your cable more than two hours a day because it was abuse, how would you feel? If your phone company cut you off for using the phone more than an hour a day, how would you feel?
Why does it apply differently with the internet? It shouldn't, and let's show them it shouldn't by putting them into bankrupcy. |
|
|
|
 Rogue WolfAte Your Homework, And Framed The Dog
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | said by Thasp_without_post_w:
1150 / 30 = less than 40 minutes/month, about. Your math is off, I'm afraid. That was 1150 minutes a MONTH, not a YEAR. If it had been per year, there would be peasants with pitchforks and torches storming RocketVOIP's offices this very moment. 
--
No matter how tempted I am with the prospect of unlimited power, I will not consume any energy field bigger than my head.
The Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord |
|
 JoshNJPremium
join:2001-12-25
Freehold, NJ | reply to Thasp_without_post_w
said by Thasp_without_post_w:
Is it really that hard to let your customers use what they pay for? That is the point, residential users AREN'T paying for UNLIMITED use.
--
I support the RIAA |
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1
 ·Vonage
·ViaTalk
| said by JoshNJ:said by Thasp_without_post_w:
Is it really that hard to let your customers use what they pay for? That is the point, residential users AREN'T paying for UNLIMITED use. But didnt they sign up for unlimited use, or did the dictionary defintion of unlimited suddenly change to fit corporate america ? |
|
JoshNJPremium
join:2001-12-25
Freehold, NJ | said by DaveDude:But didnt they sign up for unlimited use they signed up for RESIDENTIAL unlimited use, the situation here seems to be that the company believes that it is unlikely 19 hours on the phone per month is not being used for a business, I base this on the fact that the company sent the guy an email that implies they do not believe he is not using it for business purposes (and he even says in the thread that he NEEDS that many minutes per month)
--
I support the RIAA |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Bullshit.
19 hours a month = ~40 minutes a day. Hardly "business use".
Quit defending these scumbags. You sound like a stockholder. |
|
JoshNJPremium
join:2001-12-25
Freehold, NJ | said by RadioDoc:19 hours a month = ~40 minutes a day. Hardly "business use". You are missing something else very important in the equation, the op is making international calls, 19 hours overseas for residential use is even more excessive than calling down the street.
said by RadioDoc:You sound like a stockholder. I never even heard of this voip company until I read the article, thank you very much.
--
I support the RIAA |
|
| reply to Rogue Wolf
No, his math was right, it was his English that was wrong. Change minutes/month to mintues/day. |
|
 jarablueAlways be true to yourself
join:2001-06-11
Boxborough, MA | So your telling me he was talking on the phone 19 hours per day? Hmmmm. I doubt that but if it's true then yeah that is a tad exessive. |
|
JoshNJPremium
join:2001-12-25
Freehold, NJ | said by jarablue:So your telling me he was talking on the phone 19 hours per day? what are you talking about? change the word "day" to "month" in his first sentence and you will understand he typed the wrong word the first time, and didn't repeat the mistake again.
--
I support the RIAA |
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | reply to JoshNJ
If they advertise "unlimited", I don't care if he's calling Mars. Catch a clue. |
|
| reply to JoshNJ
Bullshit JoshNJ
»www.rocketvoip.com/default.aspx?···ountries
UNLIMITED shows on every page.
These people should be heavily fined by the FTC and a class action suit filed for FRAUD. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12
1 edit | reply to jarablue
said by jarablue:So your telling me he was talking on the phone 19 hours per day? Hmmmm. I doubt that but if it's true then yeah that is a tad exessive. No, apparently he was on the phone 38 minutes/average per day.
(1150 minutes divided by 30 average days per month equals 38 minutes per day)
I am betting he was doing something illegal if the total minutes per month is right.
(EDIT)
There are 1440 minutes in a day, so this article makes more sense if he was using 1150 minutes per day... |
|
DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Vonage
·ViaTalk
1 edit | reply to JoshNJ
Re: Wow, what a piece of trash! said by JoshNJ:said by DaveDude:But didnt they sign up for unlimited use they signed up for RESIDENTIAL unlimited use, the situation here seems to be that the company believes that it is unlikely 19 hours on the phone per month is not being used for a business, I base this on the fact that the company sent the guy an email that implies they do not believe he is not using it for business purposes (and he even says in the thread that he NEEDS that many minutes per month) 19 hrs is not excessive, i used more on sprint unlimited, AND. to put things into perpective i have a 1000 mins on my cellphone. 16 hrs, so you mean to tell me that this silly voip company cant do better then a cellphone ? BTW Josh your constant defense of Big corp america is obvious, it seems you defend without thinking it through. If something says unlimited for X $ then the customer deserves unlimited. Not unlike a shirt at a store that label 5$ and you get to the register and they says it 10$. illegal on the sellers part. |
|
| reply to RadioDoc
well that guy is always defending the companies for some obscure reason..... and i also agree that if they advertise unlimited then they better mean it and if they do say "switch to business or be disconnected" then they should have proof that the account in question is being used for business use |
|
 mph300Two Thirds The Way There
join:2000-11-09 | reply to JoshNJ
said by JoshNJ:
they signed up for RESIDENTIAL unlimited use, the situation here seems to be that the company believes that it is unlikely 19 hours on the phone per month is not being used for a business
Uhhhh, try on a wife and 2 teen girls and 19 hours a month is a drop in the bucket! I KNOW the hourly usage on my pots line is at least 28 hours a WEEK!!
And by the way, the definition of UNLIMITED
un·lim·it·ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-lm-td)
adj.
Having no restrictions or controls: an unlimited travel ticket.
Having or seeming to have no boundaries; infinite: an unlimited horizon.
Without qualification or exception; absolute: unlimited self-confidence. |
|
| reply to Voyager2K2
Agreed. This is consumer fraud and false advertising. I wish that consumer protection agencies and state attorney generals would prosecute the outfits that do this to the fullest extent of the law - they are acting like common criminals conning consumers, and they ought to be officially branded as such. Just my opinion. |
|
| reply to mph300
said by mph300:And by the way, the definition of UNLIMITEDun·lim·it·ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-lm-td) adj. Having no restrictions or controls: an unlimited travel ticket. Having or seeming to have no boundaries; infinite: an unlimited horizon. Without qualification or exception; absolute: unlimited self-confidence. Quoting this definition makes no sense. A company can not sell an infinite of usage in a finite amount of time. The definition is meaningless in context. We need to discover what the industry considers to be unlimited to understand the claim. I don't think that unlimited is yet an industry term for VoIP - this and cases like it will determine what is meant by unlimited in this context.
Related industries (long distance and cellular) sell unlimited residential calling plans; however these plans do in fact have restrictions that are acceptable.
--
If it is not recorded, it simply does not exist. |
|
| reply to WhyADuck
This sort of situation is why the Republican Congress has it soooo wrong about eliminating/reducing class action cases. Obviously it would not be worthwhile for an attorney to bring a case for a single consumer who has been defrauded by the VOIP providers advertising "unlimited" residential service but if you aggregate enough of these claims it would be financially feasible and the VOIP scumbags would feel the pain. |
|
