dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20952
share rss forum feed


SmokChsr
Who let the magic smoke out?
Premium
join:2006-03-17
Saint Augustine, FL
reply to JOESTRITA1975

Re: magicjack is a RIPOFF

Well Joe doesn't seem to want to say anymore. I'm wondering if those complaining might be using them for things like telemarketing? That might get you capped real fast when FTC & FCC complaints start to show up.


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

2 edits
reply to swanboy

said by swanboy:

If you're using your MJ in excess of 5000 minutes per month, its probably going to catch their attention. This seems like a decent limit to me.
It sounds like that may be optimistic. This guy said the industry average is around 3000, and he heard MJ is well below that.[1]

Someone else reported they used 8100 minutes the first month, then 3150 the next month.[2]

Someone else reported they used 2700 minutes per month. But, used 3100 minutes over two days due to an unusual work-related event.[3]

FWIW: That last person eventually found out that you can purchase international minutes at your my.magicjack.com page, and MJ will let you continue to make outgoing calls at 0.01 per minute.[4]

That's not a bad deal. But, as he points out, if you use 2000 minutes per month, you're better off buying a new MJ. Which just goes to show that, as unpleasant (or unprofessional) MJ may be handling this condition (just shutting off users without warning), the people being shut down didn't lose money.

[1] »Re: magicjack is a RIPOFF
[2] »www.magicjacksupport.com/post235···ml#23510
[3] »www.magicjacksupport.com/post239···ml#23947
[4] »www.magicjacksupport.com/post245···ml#24507

Mark

AJICQ499087

join:2001-12-01
Louisville, KY
reply to JOESTRITA1975

I had no idea there is some unstated usage cap with magicJack. I have 4 Jacks and use them a lot. I guess spreading the calls over 4 different Jacks is what is saving me. I call some people that also have magicJack numbers. I wonder if they count against some unknown cap limit? Do incoming calls apply to some unknown cap?

magicJack should just be honest and tell us what are the caps.
--
low cost and fast speed is what customers want in broadband


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

3 edits

said by AJICQ499087:

I had no idea there is some unstated usage cap with magicJack. I have 4 Jacks and use them a lot. I guess spreading the calls over 4 different Jacks is what is saving me.
One ding-a-ling filed a "ripoff" report because her service was terminated. She said she was using it for telemarketing, making 200 calls per day:

»www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/3···4639.htm

It's unbelievable how someone can complain about a $3 per-month service when their usage would have cost $120 to $240 a month with other VOIP services. If she was smart (like you), she'd buy 10 MJs for $400, and put 20 calls per day on each one. That would cost her a whopping $30 per month. After the first year it would only cost $15 per month.

I agree that MJ's limits should be better defined, with warnings and usage indicators. But, at $1.60 per month, it seems like straining at a gnat. If I were Dan, I'd be wondering why the heck I got into this low-end business (when people expend so much energy over $1.60 per month, or expect so much for so little.). Do these people go to all-you-can-eat buffets and complain that they can't fill their car with food because "you never said *where* I have to eat it?"

Mark


mozerd
Light Will Pierce The Darkness
Premium,MVM
join:2004-04-23
Nepean, ON

said by amigo_boy:

I agree that MJ's limits should be better defined, with warnings and usage indicators. But, at $1.60 per month, it seems like straining at a gnat. If I were Dan, I'd be wondering why the heck I got into this low-end business (when people expend so much energy over $1.60 per month, or expect so much for so little.).

Do these people go to all-you-can-eat buffets and complain that they can't fill their car with food because "you never said *where* I have to eat it?"
Mark, I love your sense of humor -- and you've hit the nail squarely on it's head!
--
David Mozer
IT-Expert on Call
Information Technology for Home and Business


pat2008

@dsl.bell.ca
reply to amigo_boy

I wouldn't call her some "ding-a-ling" for being upset for what would in my eyes and many others considered false advertising. If i buy a service, product or anything (no matter if its $0.50 to $39.95) i expect to get what im paying you for.

Just because its a cheap service doesn't make it right. You mayt it seem becaue its a $3 stfu and get over it.

Thats not how it is, and people need to get this through their heads that when a company (business) advertising UNLIMITED"

Meaning of Unlimited:
[adjective]
1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

If i pay you ANY amount of money for a service of which you tell me is all the above i expect to get what i purchased. Plain, simple, no arguement needed from anyone. I find it frustrating that people think just because a service is cheap we don't have a right to complain.

We all work hard for our money and being lied to to be sold is not fun and if you feel "privileged" to have such a cheap service then good for you, i bet people like this don't also mind getting throttled internet (also not getting what they paid for)

You advertise fuel @ x.xx amount i expect to get what i pay if i want to fill my tank, don't limit me because i drive to much for work.



Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed

I don't know how to edit my post but the following quote below was meant to be

"You mayt it seem becaue its a $3 stfu and get over it."

was supposed to say

"You make it seem because it's a $3 service stfu and get over it"

Not sure what my fingers where trying to say


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

4 edits
reply to pat2008

said by Tx:

If i pay you ANY amount of money for a service of which you tell me is all the above i expect to get what i purchased.
I think that's the problem. MJ never (to my knowledge) uses the word "unlimited." They say things like "call your friends, talk as long as you want, for $19.99."

Successful advertising helps people hear what they want to hear. But, nothing in that sentence literally says "unlimited." For example, it doesn't say how often you can call your friends. And, it doesn't say you can call 200 strangers (every day, racking up 12000 minutes per month).

But, the bottom line is: customers are required to agree to the ToS (which says MJ may terminate for "excessive use"). They are given 30 days to return it if they don't agree. Anyone who felt they'd been lied to should have voiced that concern at that point -- not 6000-calls-per-month later.

You said people should expect to get what they paid for. That telemarketer did. In just one or two days of use she got her money's worth (considering vbuzzer, Skype or voipvoip would have charged anywhere between $120 to $240 per month for that kind of usage.).

There has to be some expectation of reasonableness. When 1) the ToS (which you're required to read and accept prior to use) says they can terminate you for excessive use. And, 2) the price of service is 1/100th that of competitors. And, 3) the product is sold through infomercial-style advertising, it should cause anyone to be a bit critical of what they're hearing.

I'm sympathetic to those who fall on the cusp (terminated after a few months of 2000-2500 minutes use?). But, even those people admit that buying a 2nd unit to spread usage across is a tremendous value compared to other services.

But a telemarketer, filing a "ripoff" report after 5 months (30,000 calls, and 60,000 minutes for $40)? That's crazy. Especially when the telemarketer had every opportunity to question the ToS and return the product on the very first day, if she felt she was being "ripped off."

Mark


RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO
reply to pat2008

said by Tx:

I find it frustrating that people think just because a service is cheap we don't have a right to complain.
you certainly have a right to complain, but it won't do you any good. there are plenty of industry precedents for the "understood" asterisk that "unlimited" has a limit. Even "all you can eat" restaurants mean all you can eat in one sitting, not all year long.

What I find curious is your selective indignation. Why are you singling out the usage caps to be upset about? Why aren't you upset at the advertising software that they are loading onto every PC that has connected a MJ regardless of account status, software that cannot easily be removed? Why aren't you upset that MJ is the only phone company in the world that does not have a phone number? Why aren't you upset that MJ is an internet marketing company that doesn't have an email address? Why aren't you upset the MJ fulfills its service through the US Mail, but itself does not have a street address?

It seems that, as you're concerned about the caps, that the device actually works for you. So you don't care about the software or the phone number or email and street addresses. You're only complaining about what is impacting you right now. As I've shown, there are other things to complain about. For your sake, I hope you don't have to complain about them, too.

PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms

Agree with RockyBB's post.

As far as mailing address, this is obtainable from state tariff filings:

MagicJack
YMax Communications Corp.
5700 Georgia Avenue
PO Box 6785
West Palm Beach, FL 33405-6785

(Of course, they may have changed it by now).

Interesting link:

»uninstallmagicjack.com/


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to RockyBB

said by RockyBB:

Why aren't you upset that MJ is the only phone company in the world that does not have a phone number? Why aren't you upset that MJ is an internet marketing company that doesn't have an email address? Why aren't you upset the MJ fulfills its service through the US Mail, but itself does not have a street address?
Like the "ripped off" telemarketer (who wasn't upset about the ToS as she considered 200 calls per day), it sure looks good right now?

If I get a phone number, voice mail (which emails the msg to me), and ~2000 minutes per month for $2.00 per month, I don't care about anything else... for now.

Mark


RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO

said by amigo_boy:

If I get a phone number, voice mail (which emails the msg to me), and ~2000 minutes per month for $2.00 per month, I don't care about anything else...
if not for the unremoveable advertising software loaded on the PC, I would be right there with ya.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

said by RockyBB:

if not for the unremoveable advertising software loaded on the PC
I've always deleted the "profiles\{user}\application data\mjusbsp" folder. How does that not remove all of MJ's software?

I know there are registry entries that remain. But, those are inanimate by themselves? A registry entry won't do anything by itself?

I understand the principled angst over the absence of an "uninstall." But, practically speaking, I've yet to understand how it will affect me and my $2.00-per-month service.

Mark


RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO

said by amigo_boy:

I've yet to understand how it will affect me and my $2.00-per-month service.
to those who have already installed the device, and are able to use it, that software has no negative impact (other than for a few folks that use other software with which it conflicts). That's today. But you have to ask yourself why they don't include an UNINSTALL function with that software.

You are a member of a small subset of sophisticated users that understand software, and understand how to remove stuff that doesn't want to be removed. A much larger subset of users have no clue about anything in their PCs, and that is who I am worried about. You don't have to care about them. I choose to warn.

In my view, MJ is simply a trojan horse ... they provide something that on the outside looks like something that consumers want ... but on the inside is something else entirely -- it's a view into your computer. At some point MJ will have this little infection inside millions of PCs, some which were never subscribers to the service. The software stays even if the user stops using the device. MJ may "upgrade" that software at any time. Those upgrades can make the software do more than it does today. Why would they want to update software on a PC that does not belong to an active subscriber? What's on their mind? Do they simply want to monitor your internet usage supporting pushing relevant advertising images or "we want you back" messages? Or do they have some more nefarious intent? Do they want to log your passwords? Do they want to see what buttons you press after you land at www.bankofamerica.com? Perhaps they just want to keep their options open!

A functional UNINSTALL option makes all my crazy conjecture go away. It would probably gain me as a customer (I like cheap as much as the next guy). But they don't have it. They don't have it on purpose.

The absence of an UNINSTALL routine means that they don't want that software taken off the PC, ever. (Personally, I don't buy the "they're a small company" nonsense.) What is their motive for that desire? Some might believe that I am crying wolf and I'm some type of wacky conspiracy theorist. Those who have that belief have never answered my question -- they have insulted me for asking it, but they have never answered it: if my reasoning is false, then given that connecting the device makes the software load anyway, what is the real reason they don't want it taken off any computer?

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 edit

said by RockyBB:

to those who have already installed the device, and are able to use it, that software has no negative impact ... That's today.
Today's all I can deal with as I make cost/benefit choices about saving $100-$200 a month. Little green men may invade from outer space. (And there's always Planet X, AKA "Niburu" which is rumored to be smashing into Earth in 4 years).

Having to manually delete a folder when the love is gone (so MJ will never execute on my computer) doesn't seem bad to me.

If your suggestions come true, that MJ is really a "trojan horse" which the company is planning to unleash someday (sinister laugh, rubbing my hands together), it will be in the news very quickly. There are a lot of technical people using MJ, poking around with it, watching TCP traces. I think we'd know within a week.

If your concern is that some folks will never hear about it, I'd encourage them to keep an eye on the forums. If enough hear about this supposed plot, it would hardly be in MJ's interests to follow through on it.

said by RockyBB:

A functional UNINSTALL option makes all my crazy conjecture go away.
Personally, that's why I think you keep raising the preposterous. It's just a weapon to shame MJ into providing what you want when there apparently isn't enough popular support to drive it. Your theories aren't designed to help users, just hurt MJ.

Mark

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
reply to RockyBB

said by RockyBB:

The absence of an UNINSTALL routine means that they don't want that software taken off the PC, ever.
Two things.

1. If that were true, they do a bad job hiding their software. It's easy to find and delete.

2. If someone stops using MJ, what will cause the software to execute? This is what I originally asked. Even if someone doesn't delete the folder, they'd have to intentionally execute the program to make it run. Right?

Mark

PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms

I'm going to be a "moderate".

They say that a "moderate" is someone who gets shot from both sides....

Here goes.

amigo_boy, you make very good points. But putting in an uninstall program is so easy, one wonders why MagicJack just doesn't do it already. Pretty much every piece of software I've ever seen comes with an uninstaller.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND:

RockyBB, if MagicJack was actually so evil, then what they would do would be to HAVE an uninstaller, but a SNEAKY one that would only PRETEND to remove MagicJack. The uninstaller would actually leave behind the trojan potential, thus misleading people and giving them false confidence.

In other words, RockyBB, if MagicJack DID have an uninstaller, would you trust it?!

The fact that they do not have an uninstaller, at least proves that they are not providing a fake one!


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

said by PX Eliezer7:

putting in an uninstall program is so easy, one wonders why MagicJack just doesn't do it already. Pretty much every piece of software I've ever seen comes with an uninstaller.
I'd say: the way MJ engages in distasteful marketing to sell more units, if they had some sense that the lack of an uninstaller bothered enough people, they'd add one immediately. (From their advertising tactics, I get the impression they'd sell their grandmother if there was a profit in it.).

I'd also say: if MJ's stated behavioral monitoring and advertising is the basis for suggested malware/spying behavior, they haven't been very good at it. For over a year there has been no targeted advertising. If we were being served a variety of ads, I'd be a little sympathetic concerning MJ's aleged capabilities and motives. But, right now it looks like they're going nowhere with their gmail-like snooping for money.

Mark


RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO
reply to PX Eliezer7

said by PX Eliezer7:

if MagicJack was actually so evil
I didn't say that they're evil. I said that the possibility exists that they could do bad things. And I asked the still unanswered question of why they don't want the software removed from any computer ever attached to a device. I don't think that MJ is in the phone business ... I think they're in the eyeballs business. It seems that they're not yet large enough, with the correct demographic, to interest significant mass or targeted advertising, so they don't do it yet. But that changes one day. I'm not worried about the day they send down advertising. I'm worried about the day that some off-shore dude conveniently finds a back door hack into MJ servers and starts getting info from the software -- personally identifiable info from user PCs. As all money guys in Florida know money guys in Grand Cayman, it's not so far fetched. Why won't they allow their software to be taken off? Would it disrupt some master plan? I'm just pointing out the clue, prior to the crime. Do you remember the big stink when Teleblend started taking over the gizmos in end users homes? How you gonna feel when little bots start looking at your personal info through MJ's software? And remember, that software gets left behind on every computer a MJ was ever connected to, like your friends and neighbors and family members ... most of who really didn't understand what you were showing them, and didn't buy one, don't remember ever being connected to one, but still have that software resident on their computers, waiting, waiting, waiting, for the signal.

PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms

RockyBB, as always, you make interesting points.

Let me get back to what I think was the crux of my post:

At this point, if MagicJack DID have an uninstaller, would we want to trust it? Think about it.

Thus, for folks who want to uninstall, I think that these remain good options:

»uninstallmagicjack.com/

»www.snapfiles.com/get/revouninstaller.html

By the way, I always use something like Revo Uninstaller to supplement a manufacturer's uninstall program!

-------------------------------------------------------

Let's suppose that one fine day, some future manager at MJ tries to use the software for data crawling instead of phone calling.

Among all the users with MJ installed, there will be a huge number of (choose your term): techies, nerds, geeks, hackers, boffins. And all of these people will be using a wide variety of security programs of all types. And even if improper behavior is missed by many or most of the security measures, some of the programs will pick it up. And about 10 minutes after that, it's going to be all over the internet. Game over.

This is especially true because the longer any inactive MJ code remains on computers, the more obsolete it is. 2006 software won't be a match for the firewalls, rootkit detectors, virus scanners, HIPS programs, anti-trojans, routers, and so forth, from 2010 or 2012 or beyond.


JimF
Premium
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA
reply to RockyBB

said by RockyBB:

The absence of an UNINSTALL routine means that they don't want that software taken off the PC, ever.
There is nothing to uninstall, since MJ does not install anything on your PC. The program is located in the flash memory of the MJ dongle, and is loaded into your PC main memory when you plug it in. It RUNS on your PC, but does not INSTALL on it; there is a difference. So all you have to do is unplug MJ and reboot your PC, and it is gone.

PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms

1 edit

said by JimF:

There is nothing to uninstall, since MJ does not install anything on your PC.
If you will carefully review the detailed instructions here:
»uninstallmagicjack.com/
then I believe that you will find that MJ does indeed install folders and registry entries on your PC.

JimF
Premium
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA

I think we have a difference in terminology. MJ will copy some files to your PC, but the only process that I see running is "magicJack.exe". And that goes away when I unplug MJ; I don't even need to reboot. So simply having some files copied is not a problem if nothing is running on your PC.


PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms

I agree. This is a difference in terminology and maybe more so in philosophy.

I find myself in the unusual position of siding with RockyBB.

JimF, just because something does not show up as running in TaskManager does not mean that it's not running. That's a very important point.

Now, I am NOT saying this is the case with MJ.

Let's switch to some hypothetical program---let's call it Glork.

Now, IF Glork had some type of Trojan or other backdoor activity, it would NOT show up as running.

In fact, a successful Trojan, Rootkit program, or other malware, will do its best to NOT show up at all.

Take a look at this, please:

»windowssecrets.com/2008/11/20/03···r-Trojan

Now, I am NOT saying that this applies to MJ. No!

But there is more to computer security than whether or not something shows up as running in TaskManager.


JimF
Premium
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA

That is an interesting read, and rootkits (or Bootkits) are certainly possible. But it appears that Sinowal (or any other one that I have heard of) are blocked by Vista's UAC, which I use. It is a good reason to upgrade from XP.


amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

1 edit
reply to RockyBB

said by RockyBB:

I said that the possibility exists that they could do bad things.
Some bad things are worse than others. What you've suggested falls into the "evil" category.

said by RockyBB:

And I asked the still unanswered question of why they don't want the software removed from any computer ever attached to a device.
But this is a classic component of your argument. You constantly overstate the problem. If a customer contacts tech support, they tell them how to uninstall it. If they didn't want it uninstalled, they wouldn't do that.

They would also do a better job of hiding what they installed. Or, as was mentioned previously, they would provide a fake uninstall feature that leaves the program in place.

You've ascribed evil intent to someone who, at every turn, has demonstrated none. It's at this point that you backpeddle, saying "I didn't say *evil*, just that they could do something" (and then proceed to describe the most outrageous and preposterous scenario which isn't supported at all by MJ's actions.).

said by RockyBB:

I don't think that MJ is in the phone business ... I think they're in the eyeballs business.
As mentioned in another post, if that's true, they've failed miserably. After over a year we haven't seen a single third-party advertisement. Evidently they can't sell the information gathered from phone numbers called. And, they haven't done anything to eavesdrop on behaviors on the computer.

Based upon MJ's actions so far, I'd be about a million times more concerned about Google (relatively speaking).

said by RockyBB:

Why won't they allow their software to be taken off?
Again, this is your signature trait (overstating, drama). They make it very easy to uninstall. If you contact them, they'll tell you how to do it. They don't obfuscate their install. They don't even run as a daemon. They require you to execute the software. Therefore, anyone who stops using it, it does nothing (even if not uninstalled).

For someone who "won't allow" it, they sure go out of their way to allow it.

Mark


RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO
reply to PX Eliezer7

said by PX Eliezer7:

I find myself in the unusual position of siding with RockyBB.
What's wrong with you? You really should consult with a therapist.


RockyBB
Premium
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO
reply to PX Eliezer7

said by PX Eliezer7:

Now, I am NOT saying that this applies to MJ. No!
see recent trade article mentioning compromised computers: »www.networkworld.com/news/2008/1···000.html The takeaway of the story is that the bad guys were stopped, but consider the mess in the meantime.

amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22

said by RockyBB:

The takeaway of the story is that the bad guys were stopped, but consider the mess in the meantime.
I think that's an incorrect comparison for 2 reasons:

1) The web hosting company was well known problem for a long time. Upstream providers nor the government would take action. It took the threat of a newspaper story to get the upstream providers to shut down the hosting company, which hosted sites that controlled the remote bot-infected computers.

2) There's a big difference between a general knowledge that some people are infected with something, from someone they have no knowledge of interacting with, and news that a specific software product is conducting malicious activity.

For example, when it became known that Sears/AOL/Prodigy (whatever it was called back in '91) was scanning customer computers, uploading results to the server, it was very clear who was affected.

Your suggestions about MJ's "potential" to go malevolent could apply to any software maker/product. It's a valid warning concerning anything anyone runs. But, there's nothing specific about MJ to warrant concern.

The lack of an uninstall feature probably has more to do with the fact that very few people are animated about it. (Only one person is animated as much as you are.).

- They don't hide (or obfuscate) their software.
- They tell people how to uninstall it.
- They don't run as a daemon (meaning it requires the user to execute the software for it to run, and thus it doesn't run if they stop using it, but don't remove it.).

As mentioned earlier, if they provided an uninstall program you probably wouldn't trust it. You'd claim that it's a sign of their intent to "mislead" their customers. "Someday.... they'll disable it, or not uninstall one component, and, voila!, you've been turned into a zombie"

As long as readers aren't misled, I'm ok with your hypothesis.

Mark


JoP

@verizon.net
reply to JOESTRITA1975

I've been contemplating purchasing mj and was reading these forums for more info. I still have not made any purchase decision yet. I was curious if calling was truly "unlimited" (I already know it isn't free), so I decided to chat with mj customer service. I find it interesting that I got a completely different response from others who posted their chats. Here's the text from my chat with Rhett a few moments ago:

Rhett: Hello, how may I help you?

Joe: Are there "excessive usage" time limits? If so, can you please tell me the approx. number of "free minutes" allowed per month?

Rhett: Hi joe

Rhett: not really.

Joe: Hello. What does not really mean.

Rhett: Yes, no excessive usage time limits Joe.

Joe: So, calling time is "unlimited", as in no restrictions? And there would be no service interruptions for using too much time. Is that correct?

Rhett: Yes.

Joe: ok, thanks!

Rhett: Your welcome.

Rhett: Is there anything else I may help you with today?

Joe: no, you have been very helpful. Thanks again.