| reply to RockyBB
Re: Avoid Onebox and j2 at all costs! I suspect that if the company being taken over has a contractual obligation with customer per TOS, that the new owner will have to honor it unless assets where acquired in bankruptcy and the judge set aside customer claims of TOS. I doubt that would be granted for this specific issue without some customer grace period to transfer out sent by letter citing trustee terms. Why not write the attorney general (CC'd to Onebox) of the OneBox home office state to put a stop to it. Onebox will certainly free your line up instantly hoping to stop the AG from looking into it further. Otherwise the AG may go through their books and force all parties to be reimbursed including other VOIP folks charged the $50 each time. |
|
| said by deskjockey:I suspect that if the company being taken over has a contractual obligation with customer per TOS, that the new owner will have to honor it unless assets where acquired in bankruptcy and the judge set aside customer claims of TOS. The above is, unfortunately, a combination of "what should be" and "what legal rights you can pay for (and hope it works)". The only legal rights you have are those you can afford to enforce unless you can impell some government consumer-type agency to act on your behalf. All the rest is fiction best viewed on TV.
One hint for those following this thread: keep all your hard-copy details of your toll-free setups even if this means just printing out web pages showing your name/address and your tollfree #s. When you get to my stage, after your tollfree number has been captured by the bad guys, you need all the proof you can muster. Be sure to keep the details of your initial application for the number if you later transfer it - you must prove it's yours, else crooks like this can apparently easily steal and ransom it.
Still waiting .... |
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | reply to deskjockey
There is no such thing as "contractual obligation from TOS". A TOS is not a contract and has little legal value whatsoever.
A company cannot legally change their TOS drastically after-the-fact regardless of who took them over. If they do they will lose in court should you sue them.
A company cannot put a clause in their TOS which says "we don't support number porting" and all of a sudden they're in the clear legally. From a legal standpoint a TOS clause which is illegal or against regulations is null and void no matter how great they phrase it.
The problem with all of this, as mentioned by deliberate, is that it doesn't matter what the law says - in order to enforce it you'd have to file a very expensive lawsuit and in most cases consumers and even small companies don't want to go that far.
All companies like this are doing something they're not supposed to be doing. This is anti-consumer and they should be penalized for it. Unfortunately this is not going to happen unless many many people complain to authorities such as the FCC, FTC, etc.
They will probably not do anything about your specific case - but if they get enough complaints they'll do something about the offending company - which is good for everyone. |
|
| I haven't done so in a long while, but in the past when I filed a complaint with the FCC they were proactive in contacting the carrier in question. |
|
| reply to nitzan
said by nitzan:There is no such thing as "contractual obligation from TOS". A TOS is not a contract and has little legal value whatsoever
There is a written offer of service including terms that each party agrees to and financial consideration given. Seems like a contract.
said by nitzan:A company cannot legally change their TOS drastically after-the-fact regardless of who took them over. If they do they will lose in court should you sue them. Contradicts your first claim TOS is not a legal contract and has little legal value.
said by nitzan: A company cannot put a clause in their TOS which says "we don't support number porting" and all of a sudden they're in the clear legally. From a legal standpoint a TOS clause which is illegal or against regulations is null and void no matter how great they phrase it.
One party can agree to set aside the other's legal obligation to it and that being different than we entering into a contract to rob a bank, the bank not party to the agreement. (All that being different than I setting aside your obligation to the government where the statute protects some public interest such as toxic waste). Obviously a party does not have to set aside an obligation but demand the law be followed and therefore usually demands some compensation for the set aside. In over 100 business sale transactions I've participated in, almost always the parties agree NOT to notify the creditors prior to the sale as required by UCC regs. Naturally the buyer will require the seller to indemnify him against any legal action the creditors may take. This is the norm in nonpublic business asset sale structures.
Regarding having to spend a fortune to litigate, I previously suggested contacting the AG or appropriate agency rather than litigate. I have had excellent success with various government agencies with a well written letter copied to the company. The companies instantly rectify the issue and will respond to the government it has done so, hoping to avoid an audit and turning a $300 item into a million dollar issue with all aggrieved parties found by audit. You can get back more money than you request because they usually are sticking it to you in ways you didn't know. The corp. wants a clean audit of your account hoping the government doesn't look at other accounts. In your letter you should mention RICO because the forums show an ongoing activity to violate this law. Provide copies of the forum pages showing aggrieved parties complaining. That will more than likely get the government involved. Also RICO triples the damages. Finally keep it short and to the point and cite the statute or code being violated. If you are going to the state agency then cite their RICO statute, if the FED then the FED RICO citation do the same for th specific FCC code people mention here and also see what the company state statute might be on the issue if going to the state, but never the less provide the FED citation. |
|
|
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | »www.networkworld.com/columnists/···ner.html
In essence you can't just tell a user "oh by the way we just changed terms on you". This would 100% apply in the case of a company taking over another company. They can't just change the terms to say "we don't allow number porting anymore".
To begin with- a company cannot have "we don't allow number porting" in their TOS to begin with. It's against FCC regulations. A company cannot enter into a contract that violates consumer rights even if the customer agrees to it. The offending clause is null and void even if the customer agreed to it and a court would declare it null and void should the customer sue.
That's like entering a contract with a landlord that says that even though the apartment is coated with hazardous materials - you as a customer agree to it. You cannot legally agree to it, and the landlord cannot legally ask you to agree to it. Same thing with number porting! |
|
 RockyBBPremium
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO | reply to porter
This whole discussion triggered a thought to me that I've been trying to boil down to a few words, and here they are: "google is not your friend."
These cheater companies would be nowhere without internet search engines like google. The search engines are simply matching customer interest with business offers, with no evaluations or warnings. There is no guidance about evaluation criteria -- consumers know they have to do their own homework, but they don't know what homework to do. That creates the opportunities for cheaters. You don't know what questions to ask, so the cheaters don't have to give answers you won't like.
That's why businesses really need to use a telecom agent or consultant to guide them through the marketplace ... individuals who have been in the industry and who have seen all the tricks and all the traps and rescued customers from problem situations are best qualified to help you avoid them. An old sales manager of mine preached "make new mistakes." Any business that makes significant purchasing decisions based solely on google searches will be making mistakes that others could have advised them to avoid.
You guys keep hearing me preach about price. Well, what do you think these internet telecom cheater companies use as the hook? Price. $10 a month for a virtual PBX? HA HA HA!!!! You've just melted down the key to your handcuffs!
Google is not your friend. It opens you up to jeopardies and risks with the siren song of price. As seen in this thread, the telecom space is a bazaar of services and offers with no stop signs or green lights.
And that's what makes this forum so special and unique. Those considering purchases can stop off here first for free guidance. As we've seen, those who find this forum after the fact are oftentimes too late. |
|
RockyBBPremium
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO | reply to nitzan
said by nitzan:To begin with- a company cannot have "we don't allow number porting" in their TOS to begin with. It's against FCC regulations. Not for an "enhanced service provider." The portability requirements are for companies that assign phone service for two-way calling, essentially POTS and "interconnected VOIP providers." J2 and the other "virtual" service providers are not covered by the portability requirements for local phone numbers. |
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | Sadly you're probably right. That is one thing the FCC should fix yesterday. |
|
1 edit | reply to deskjockey
said by deskjockey:There is a written offer of service including terms that each party agrees to and financial consideration given. Seems like a contract. However, in my case, I never agreed to any terms with OneBox, my account was simply taken over by them and they allowed me no option (and, in fact, have only given me partial notice on one of the three numbers).
Resporg LOA submitted - waiting to see intial results.
Again, as pointed out here, one only has legal rights to the extent that one has 1) the money to hire legal talent, and/or 2) the time and personal talent to persue on one's own behalf - such as writing to AGs etc.
I agree that everyone so affected should file an FCC complaint at some time in the process.
By the way, IMO, conversion of my property (toll free number) by OneBox, no matter how they do it and especially with no proir business contact, is theft.
Thanks to the other posters here. |
|
| reply to nitzan
said by nitzan: ..... you can't just tell a user "oh by the way we just changed terms on you". First which of your arguments are you making 1) TOS is not a contract, 2) TOS is a contract.
Secondly this is a straw man argument because I have already stated that our forum member should take action, not that he is subject to the buyer changing a prior agreement.
Thirdly, in your Harris v Blockbuster example, this District Court cited and confirmed the TX Supreme Court opinion in Halliburton Corp. saying that the subject clause of Harris could be modified without being illusionary, if Blockbuster had merely applied the same "saving clause" to the change as Halliburton did, by giving actual notice and a time period before such became effective.
said by nitzan: To begin with- a company cannot have "we don't allow number porting" in their TOS to begin with. It's against FCC regulations. A company cannot enter into a contract that violates consumer rights even if the customer agrees to it. The offending clause is null and void even if the customer agreed to it and a court would declare it null and void should the customer sue. That's like entering a contract with a landlord that says that even though the apartment is coated with hazardous materials - you as a customer agree to it.
Both straw man arguments. I already said, "(All that being different than I setting aside your obligation to the government where the statute protects some public interest such as toxic waste)". Also RockyBB and deliberate have pointed out that this was never the issue we are discussing.
What we have been discussing is what can he do about it, and I still suggest he pick a government agency and correspond with a copy to the OneBox President. Now the only issue is 1) do you agree, 2) do you not agree and if so why? |
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | Of course- by all means - complain, and complain loudly. If enough users do so government entities might actually have to do something about it... |
|
RockyBBPremium
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO | reply to porter
Following up on my "google is not your friend" discussion above, I noticed in my Gmail account an advertisement for onebox itself. click enough links and one arrives at the poison clause, that numbers don't port out. perhaps one could make an argument that google -- as recipient of advertising dollars from onebox -- is complicit with the deceptive marketing practices of onebox. that argument could be made as a complaint to google (which ultimately is responsible for a great deal of onebox's future revenues), likely more persuasive than any single attorney or AG.... |
|
| reply to deskjockey
said by deskjockey:I still suggest he pick a government agency and correspond with a copy to the OneBox President. Now the only issue is 1) do you agree, 2) do you not agree and if so why? Still waiting on the first reponse to my resporg LOA request. Should it be denied, I will take your suggested steps.
Aren't you glad you aren't me on this one? |
|
