Noga
join:2004-06-30
Hollywood, FL
| Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure So, I just want to summarize today's events.
Magicjack released an update yesterday that apparently did nothing but remove "Do not disturb." The next day, all ATA devices (even ones with the magicjack user agents) went dead. This was because magicjack changed the SIP credentials on all magicJacks. Pretty much everyone is using stroths utility to get their new SIP info, but the new SIP info fails to register on the ATA even though their magicJack dongle works fine.
The reports are mixed, but it seems that generally almost no one can use their ATAs. Many have noticed a proxy change from 1 to 01, but changing this doesn't even work.
Thus, either
1) magicJack has somehow hidden the actual proxy
or
2)the update yesterday somehow re-encrypted the SIP credentials which they decided to change this morning. Although stroths pulls up the SIP info, maybe it is completely inaccurate. | |
|
 pagemen
join:2008-12-28
planet earth | Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure Looks like MJ find someway to block ATA because
1) Wireshark shows that proxies are unchanged
2) Some people are able to register but can't make outgoing calls(incoming works), so the credentials are correct, at least for some. | |
|
 | 
thedaddy
@charter.com
| Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure I was able to register and my ATA says online but I can't make or receive calls.
If I can't get it back to work using ATA, I will stop recommending magic jack. I'm the only one that I know that uses an ATA for it but I have convinced many people to buy one magicjack. I have two. One I carry with me, the other one I was just using its credential with an ATA.
This is that kind of thing that many software company do and ends up hurting them. They protect their software so much that nobody will experiment with it and nobody will ever hear about it. I understand that Magicjack is so cheap because it's sponsored by ads. However, if you turn the geeks off, they will stop recommending or helping other people with their magicjack. The consequence is that their business will eventually die or be replaced by a smarter competitor. | |
|
| | |
| |
| | pagemen
join:2008-12-28
planet earth
| Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure Thanks for the info. I tried 600 but no luck(seems the new value is 1800 here vs. old 900). 0 does get the ATA registered but no incoming or outgoing calls. Incoming did work yesterday after I put the new password in PAP2, but I messed it up later by switching proxies around and now everything stops working. Waiting for some genius to figure it out and save us... | |
|
| | | 
swanboy
join:2001-01-22
Hollywood, FL | Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure If you have the PMDump utility, it would be helpful to see what your session expire value is for yours specifically | |
|
Noga
join:2004-06-30
Hollywood, FL
1 edit | Well, they do use asterisk...so...I guess we are going to have to buy magicJack's ATA when it comes out. They now have complete control of blocking non-mJ ATAs. My mJ expires at the end of this month so I won't mind to much if the mJ ata unit is at a reasonable price (which is expected.) | |
|
JPMorgan
@optonline.net
| Pandora,
What does the TOS have to do with using there service? Using a personal device to use a service you paid for does not violate the TOS. They can state what ever they want in their TOS but that does not mean it can stand up in a court of law. What if the TOS dictated you could only use their service while sitting at the toilet? Would this mean sitting on your own toilet, a toilet at a friends house or just public toilets? A TOS is a wish list, subject to interpretation. So lets drop the TOS references because until it is supported in a court of law it means squat. The use of a ATA device to use their service that you paid for is a gift to them. Lets face it their little mj device is bordering on garbage. But when the service is used via a ATA device it is as good as any voip out there. MJ is threading on thin ice targeting the small percentage of people who actually use the service that way it supposed to be. People using the service via ATA are not using any more minutes or bandwidth.. This only opens up the way for another provider to swoop in again. MJ should of had an ATA device from the get go as a option. If they did, they would have dominated the voip market. | |
|
| 
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure said by JPMorgan :
What does the TOS have to do with using there service? Using a personal device to use a service you paid for does not violate the TOS.
That's not true. See:
said by MagicJack ToS : 8. License magicJack grants you a personal, non-transferable and non-exclusive right and license to use the magicJack device and Software on your computer; provided that you do not (and do not allow anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, reverse assemble or otherwise attempt to discover any source code, sell, assign, sublicense, grant a security interest in, or otherwise transfer any right of the magicJack device. The initial term of this license is for one year and may be renewed (for an additional fee) for additional terms of one year each. You agree not to modify the Software in any manner or form, or to use modified versions of the Software, including for the purpose of obtaining unauthorized access to the magicJack device. You agree not to access the magicJack services by any means other than through the Software and the magicJack device -- » www.magicjack.com/tos/ said by JPMorgan :
They can state what ever they want in their TOS but that does not mean it can stand up in a court of law. That's true, but irrelevant. I'm sure any court would uphold that MJ has the right to secure it's network and require only its devices use it.
We're not talking about MJ suing customers for violating the ToS, and therefore being in a legal position of "proving" their ToS is reasonable.
We're talking about MJ denying access to users in accordance with the ToS. That puts the users in the position of going to court and arguing that the specific term enforced against them is unreasonable.
Never going to happen.
Mark | |
|
| |
MJ BYOD
@comcast.net
| Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure said by JPMorgan :What does the TOS have to do with using there service? Using a personal device to use a service you paid for does not violate the TOS. That's not true. See: said by MagicJack ToS :
I'm sure any court would uphold that MJ has the right to secure it's network and require only its devices use it.
Mark
I disagree. Look at what the Department of Justice did to the Bell System back in 1984. They broke it up to allow anyone to attach any device to the network, in addition to spurring innovation and killing the monopoly. The Bell System argued that they were protecting their network by ensuring that their "quality" products could be attached and thereby avoiding outages.
I'm sure at some point someone will challenge the MJ ToS. Until then, they get to call the shots. | |
|
| pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
·ooma
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Comcast
| said by JPMorgan :
Pandora,
What does the TOS have to do with using there service? Using a personal device to use a service you paid for does not violate the TOS. They can state what ever they want in their TOS but that does not mean it can stand up in a court of law. What if the TOS dictated you could only use their service while sitting at the toilet? Would this mean sitting on your own toilet, a toilet at a friends house or just public toilets? A TOS is a wish list, subject to interpretation. So lets drop the TOS references because until it is supported in a court of law it means squat. The use of a ATA device to use their service that you paid for is a gift to them. Lets face it their little mj device is bordering on garbage. But when the service is used via a ATA device it is as good as any voip out there. MJ is threading on thin ice targeting the small percentage of people who actually use the service that way it supposed to be. People using the service via ATA are not using any more minutes or bandwidth.. This only opens up the way for another provider to swoop in again. MJ should of had an ATA device from the get go as a option. If they did, they would have dominated the voip market.
I couldn't disagree with your post more. You accept an agreement than proceed to justify violation of it. Sorry, that is a no sale.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." | |
|
| |
swanboy
join:2001-01-22
Hollywood, FL | Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure I'm with Pandora on this. | |
|
| |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by pandora  :I couldn't disagree with your post more. You accept an agreement than proceed to justify violation of it. Sorry, that is a no sale. I thought Morgan had a good point that you can't agree to *anything*.
It's like those disclaimers at parking garages or county fairs ("By accepting this ticket, you agree we are not responsible for any injury or damage..."). Those aren't binding. The operator is still bound to take "reasonable" steps to ensure safety and security.
IMO, a ToS is similar. Extreme requirements (or disclaimers) may not be enforceable. But, that doesn't mean everything is.
Unless a person believes EULAs (entirely) are not a valid contract. Like someone writing on the back of their car payment, "cashing this check is acceptance of payment in full." That's not a valid contract (or modification of contract) either.
That's what makes discussions about EULAs difficult:
1. People who argue against a particular element of a EULA actually oppose all EULAs as an unconstitutional usurpation of copyright (which has its origins in the constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.).
2. For those who accept EULAs, there's no clear guidelines about what is enforceable. If I agree to not reverse engineer, does that extend to me using pmdump and Wireshark to examine MJ's use of my memory and network? Or, only cracking their encryption?
Both of those positions are legitimate. But, they tend to talk past each other.
Mark | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure said by pandora :I think if you don't like TOS, you don't accept it. Then return the device to get a refund. The problem is, if a ToS said "By using this product you agree to give us your firstborn son" it wouldn't be enforceable. Or, if it said "you agree to be infected by malware."
You're right that a reasonable person would simply refuse to do business with such a company. But, those things still aren't valid contractual obligations.
Where it gets worse are the gray areas. Like my earlier example concerning reverse engineering. That's like obscenity. We all know it when we see it, but nobody can define exactly what is obscene.
I might agree to a EULA thinking it means I won't do anything to harm MJ's interest in their service. But, now the definition of "harm" is nebulous. If I view MJ in memory (pmdump) and over the wire (Wireshark), am I reverse engineering? Can MJ contractually require me not to examine its use of my computer?
What if my purpose is to discover how MJ fails over to other regional proxies so I can force that process to occur? Did I reverse engineer?
Dan might say I did because, to some degree I've harmed MJ by using the system in a way that wasn't intended (or configured my machine in a way to cause the system to behave unnaturally). This could lead to greater support costs when I invoke chat support, and forget that I blocked proxies and the failover isn't working as intended.
I don't think it's crystal clear.
1. Someone can agree to ToS that contain terms which are clearly unenforceable by simply recognizing they're unenforceable, and rejecting them as such (since that's what would happen in a court of law).
2. Someone can agree to ToS and believe they're abiding by the terms (such as my example of reverse engineering).
3. Someone can simply reject the ToS as an illegitimate contract. As illegitimate as someone entering into a "contract" with you by writing something on the back of a check. (That's not the current position of the legal system. But, it could be a valid act of civil disobedience in the interest of consumer activisim.).
said by pandora :Many here seem to believe it is OK to hack, steal credentials and use them elsewhere. Then complain when their accounts are canceled or they can no longer use a third party ATA. I agree. The term of service against using other devices is clearly reasonable (unlike giving up your firstborn child).
I'm just saying that Morgan's argument about the extremes (obviously unreasonable terms, or ambiguous terms that may be agreed to in good faith but understood in varied ways) is valid. Just not applicable in this case -- unless his real position is that EULAs shouldn't be enforceable, and should be opposed as a matter of civil disobedience.
In the latter case, it's just a cat and mouse game. Users will get away with what they can. And, it's MJ's responsibility to configure its system to enforce the terms of use. Regardless of whether we believe every element of EULAs are valid (or every EULA shouldn't be), it's obvious that the only way the term of service prohibiting non-MJ devices can be enforced is if MJ identifies and blocks such usage. Anything else is just an "honor" system.
In that sense MJ brought this problem on itself. The more people who used ATA devices with impunity (for a *year*), the more it appeared that MJ didn't care about that particular term of service.
This might be why MJ has been closing the loophole without terminating service. They recognize their own fault in allowing this to spin out of control. A EULA doesn't mean anything if your own actions indicate you don't care about it's terms.
In that sense, I don't really see this as a matter of the ToS. Using a non-MJ device (or softphone) is contrary to the clear words of the ToS. Maybe ToSs generally should be invalid contracts (contrary to current law). But, if MJ didn't want non-MJ devices using its service, it should have been more aggressive closing this loophole, or terminating service.
After letting it spin out of control as long as they did, I wish MJ would have waited until an ATA/BYOD product is available before closing rogue usage. I think that would have been a better gesture.
My guess is, the retards at SJLabs don't know how to close this usage. They're just trying different things with each release, then waiting to see if users find a way around it. They tried to close it with the Dec. 17 upgrade too.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure said by pandora :said by amigo_boy :The problem is, if a ToS said "By using this product you agree to give us your firstborn son" it wouldn't be enforceable. The MagicJack TOS refer to use of the MagicJack device and reserve to MagicJack rights it has under the DMCA. Can we talk about that? Ok. But, wouldn't any DCMA claim be predicated on the intellectual property owner taking steps to enforce that?
I agree MJ is taking steps. At some point, ATA hackers won't be able to say they thought it was ok because MJ allowed it. And, they could be subject to a DCMA claim.
But, right now, MJ allowed a huge amount of ATA usage simply by not 1) disallowing such connections, or 2) terminating service of those attempting it.
At the moment (or, the past year), I don't see how DCMA would apply.
And, EULAs can contain more than DCMA-related items and still be valid. Likewise, they can contain items unrelated to DCMA and be invalid.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure said by pandora :My guess is if some people do get notices or threats about litigation, we will see a cry fest on this board. Suddenly everyone who boasted about cracking or hacking MagicJack will become pure as new snow. I doubt that will happen. Not until Dan has really closed unauthorized access, and then goes after people clearly hacking into his system.
I agree with you that I don't need the drama of illegitimate ATA use. I also respect Dan's business interests (the requirement to receive ads, even if they only advertise Dan's products and aren't generating revenue as his business model anticipated).
I'm kind of in the middle on this. I think people who used ATAs knew they were violating the ToS. Some didn't care because Dan didn't take steps to enforce the ToS (either stopping ATA use, or terminating abusers). Others didn't care because they simply don't respect EULAs (which I can understand, and sympathize to some degree).
But, talk of lawsuits (either people suing Dan over his ToS prohibition against ATAs, or Dan suing users for using them all this time) is absurd. IMO.
But, if I were an ATA user, I'd be more concerned today about trying different things to make it work. Dan tried to stop it in December. He's been more effective this week. It's a matter of time until he's going to stop kidding around. That could be service termination. Or, if he really gets tired of playing games, a DCMA lawsuit.
Anyone who continues trying to figure out how to make it work is playing an increasingly dangerous game.
I wish Dan would have waited to do this until he had a real ATA solution to sell.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | | pagemen
join:2008-12-28
planet earth | why are you so excited? Feel like a winner of the OOMA vs. MJ debate? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure said by pandora :Just an articulation that TOS, contracts and law should be respected. For those who happily use MagicJack via its dongle per TOS per DMCA, I have great respect. They are getting a wonderful deal. For the sake of others, ToS and DMCA are two different things. Terms within a ToS may cover things that are covered by DMCA. But, that doesn't give them the weight of DMCA. Just because a ToS doesn't include terms related to DMCA doesn't mean a company has waived their protections under DMCA.
DMCA doesn't give ToS additional (or any) enforceability. The licensor wouldn't use ToS to enforce DMCA claims. He would just terminate service.
To me, DMCA doesn't have much to do with a discussion of ToS. It's just a way to make EULAs sound like they're in the same legal category of DMCA. They're not.
EULAs are contracts giving the licensor greater power than they would have under copyright. And, because they are self-written and not consummated like a real contract, they may not carry the weight (if any) of a real contract.
DMCA is statutory law enhancing copyright for owners of digital intellectual property. It doesn't make all EULA's valid (in every respect). Therefore, it's incorrect to say "use magicJack ... per ToS per DMCA" as if ToS gains credibility or power from DMCA.
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | | | | pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland |  Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure
| |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure said by r81984 :So do I violate the TOS when I have ads blocked from my host file? I think you do. The ToS says you agree to receive ads.
said by MagicJack ToS :
11. You also understand and agree that use of the magicJack device and Software will include advertisements. ... You also understand and agree that use of the magicJack device and Software may include certain communications, such as service announcements, administrative messages and newsletters, and you will not be able to opt out of receiving them. Right now the advertisements are simply announcements and administrative messages. By blocking them you are opting out of them. If these are required, how much more so would be revenue-generating advertisements?
But, I agree that this is a sticky issue. Does this mean you're required to look at them? Is an always-on thin client or laptop a violation? What is the definition of "receive?" Physically receive them on the computer? Or, personally?
I tend to think it means you will receive them at the computer as they are intended to be received. But, it's not reasonable to require you to actually look at them. That would involve questions of how long you should look at them? How carefully? But, physically receiving them at the computer is pretty clear. It's sufficient to give you a reasonable chance of looking at them. That's all MJ can hope for.
But, this gets back to MJ's responsibility to enforce it. Does MJ have a responsibility to detect that the ad server is unreachable? Stop service if the condition persists? If MJ doesn't take steps to enforce this term of service *where it reasonably has the ability to do so*, does that mean you shouldn't care about that term of service any more than MJ does?
I don't know. I can see both sides.
said by r81984 :Why do you applaud this? MagicJack made money of people who bought it just to use it with an ATA. MJ's interest is broader than the money transferred at the time of sale. MJ has an interest in the advertisements (even just it advertises its own ads, or service announcements such as notices of service suspension). It also has an interest in everyone using the service as expected to keep support costs lower. If someone with an ATA contacts chat support, this can increase the cost of support.
MJ has an interest in its public image (yes, I vomited a little in my mouth as I wrote that). If MJ doesn't provide ATA service, then it doesn't need the negative publicity of everyone complaining when their illicit ATA service is disrupted.
But, as I said earlier, I agree that MJ's interest in this is commensurate with the steps it takes to enforce the no-ATA policy.
said by r81984 :If there is no way to hack it to use an ATA then MagicJack should refund them for the USB device and prorate their yearly fee. Wow. That's the ultimate victim mentality. You guys knew it was contrary to the ToS. I can understand taking a gamble that Dan would allow it until he offered a real ATA service. (I wish he'd handled it that way.).
But, saying it's Dan's fault and he owes all the violators something is surreal.
said by r81984 :Agreements??? I use magic jack and I can tell you I read no agreements or agreed to anything. ... TOS's are not always legal and have no power. ... The ToS doesn't give you the luxury of neither agreeing or not agreeing. When you purchase you agree to the ToS. When you register you indicate you agree to the ToS. The ToS says if you don't agree, you cannot use the service.
There's nothing that says you can simply not be bothered by the ToS, defining your own.
If you don't respect ToSs, that's fine. But, picking and choosing ("they're not always legal") is unattractive. Because they aren't always legal mean often they are. The fact that they often are legal is a reason to be concerned with what the ToS says, and adhere to the choice to agree or disagree. (Or, at least know the parts you disagree with, and consider unenforceable.).
As far as it being a court's responsibility to decide. I agree. But, it's going to end up being your responsibility to go to court to get that decision. Not Dan's. He'll just block your unauthorized use, and cancel your service -- per the ToS. It will be very funny to listen to you in arguing to a court how the ToS that you neither agreed to, nor disagreed to, is now binding on MJ. 
Mark | |
|
| | luigi2008
join:2008-12-10 | Ｉ ａｍ ｔｏｔａｌｌｙ ｗｉｔｈ ｙｏｕ． | |
|
macman4hire
join:2009-03-30
| A $60.00-100 dollar a year premium plan that would allow BYOD users to use MagicJack might be very successful addition to MagicJack's service offerings. I don't think MagicJack can sustain itself on just the hardware margins. It is a novelty item that some people will use and others will dispose of because of the bothersome usage limitations that USB dongle poses. Once the potential pool of buyers dries up and has been exploited where will the revenue come from? Will the revenue possibly come from advertisements that will be displayed on the softphone. I seriously doubt it! The problem with this type of advertising model is that it can be misleading if a company like MagicJack states for example that 1 million ads are served a day by users of their softphone. This may in fact be true but what about the percentage people who legitimately use MagicJack on a dedicated thin client or computer that does not even have a display hooked up to. I personally would not spend my companies advertisement budget on such inaccurate claims. If the market for such advertisement truly exists why have I only seen ads pertaining to MagicJack on the softphone. Where are the advertisements? One may reasonable assume that MagicJack is waiting until all the techical difficulties have been worked and they can respresent the highest user figures inflating ads served on the softphone to potential advertisers. I don't believe this to be the case. Also one must factor the overall health of our economy into the advertising revenue outlook as companies are not foolishly tossing large sums of money into untested advertising vehicles at this time.
The second factor is overall VoIP market is becoming more competitive with every tick of the clock. Sipgate has just announce a service called Sipgate One which offers free USA phone numbers with many free forwarding options. Google Voice when publicly launched will crush the majority of the VoIP service providers for two simple reasons they give you a free USA phone number with several free forwarding options and several ways to place free local and long distance calls. Who will need to pay if Google rolls out it's Google Voice service in the seem accessible way they have offered their free G-Mail service to the masses. If Google Voice is not limited and truly accessible to everyone this changes everything the voice communications market period. I hope big Dan the man understands this and is not taking on the persona of carnival side show salesman selling a bottle of magical elixir for the easy buck! | |
|
swanboy
join:2001-01-22
Hollywood, FL | Theres always been so many paranoid mJ users... | |
|
Noga
join:2004-06-30
Hollywood, FL
| This reminds me of an earlier post I read on the magicjacksupport forum. It went along something along the lines of "MagicJack is evil...any company that would not let you port out your number is evil." Then there was an actual argument for a few pages...ugh. | |
|
| 
avd706
insert annoying animated gif here
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Union, NJ
| Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure said by Noga :This reminds me of an earlier post I read on the magicjacksupport forum. It went along something along the lines of "MagicJack is evil...any company that would not let you port out your number is evil." Then there was an actual argument for a few pages...ugh. That's a different argument.
--
Team JON. | |
|
| |
Noga
join:2004-06-30
Hollywood, FL | Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure *sigh* | |
|
| | |
avd706
insert annoying animated gif here
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Union, NJ
| Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure wudda you mean "*sigh*"?
MJ should port out numbers per FCC regulations.
users using MJ on their ATA have no basis to complain if thatfunctionality is disabled.
In one case the TOS/AUP protects the company, in another case it has no legal basis.
Go figure.
--
Team JON. | |
|
| | | |
swanboy
join:2001-01-22
Hollywood, FL | Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure This site has gone insane apparently. Instead of actually trying to solve some technical issues such as on the mJsupport forums... you guys are having nonsensical debates about the ToS.
Ridiculous. | |
|
| | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure said by swanboy :This site has gone insane apparently. Instead of actually trying to solve some technical issues such as on the mJsupport forums... you guys are having nonsensical debates about the ToS. Maybe. But, this is the second time Dan has tried to stop ATA use in six months. At what point does this change from innocently taking advantage of a "feature," to maliciously undermining a company's service?
If I were the guy running the MJ Support forum, I'd start to worry about that. He could easily become a target of a DMCA claim.
But, for all I know, he might like havnig people uncover holes for him.
However, there's nothing nonsensical about how Dan's tried to stop the ATA activity twice now, and the nature of trying to hack his system is increasingly more risky.
And, personally, as a non-ATA user, I have to wonder how much this game has taken away from providing other services. Would I have a Linux softphone now if Dan didn't have to spend so much time trying to enforce the Terms of Service people said they agreed to?
Mark | |
|
| | | | | | andre2
join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA
| Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure said by amigo_boy :And, personally, as a non-ATA user, I have to wonder how much this game has taken away from providing other services. Would I have a Linux softphone now if Dan didn't have to spend so much time trying to enforce the Terms of Service people said they agreed to? I suspect that Dan made a calculated decision to let the ATA use go on as long as it did in order to get more people to sign up, preferably for 5-year plans. The upgrade is dated April, 2 months before it was released. | |
|
just my 02
@comcast.net
| Consider this...
The business model is doomed to fail - selling a product/service that the incoming revenue stream less overhead expenses (including pending lawsuits) will never be profitable.
What better way to "fix" the situation than to allow peeps to up-buy the service (5 years) with a TOS agreement that states that service is subject to termination (without refund) if TOS are violated (by not using the advertising-based-soft-client).
Dan scores a big "win" by legally terminating 20% of the "prepaid" client base without providing a refund. | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
Selvaed
@com.mx
| MJ should immediately make an Iphone APp. It would be worth to me and I am sure to alot of people. MJ people!!!!! This is FEEdBaCK!!! No rocket science.
You could charge for it. I would pay 3-5 bucks.
Otherwise. Another carrier will and lots of people will switch. | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
bubamarkus
join:2006-08-29
Tampa, FL | Can somebody figure out how to get MJ to work on ATAs again instead of debating the legal issues? | |
|
|
louienow
| Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure I second. | |
|
bubamarkus
join:2006-08-29
Tampa, FL
| An easy way to block ATAs use for MagicJack software would be to sync SIP calls with web access (ex. talk4free.com+your account info). They have been doing this already. That is how ads are played. Now they probably use it to block ATAs. If there is no inquiry to ther http server, they simply do not connect the call. | |
|
dbmaven
There's no shortage
Premium,Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky
clubs: | Moderator Action
The post that was here, has been moved to a new topic .. »Why MJ sucks | |
|
linusarran
join:2009-02-17
Inkster, MI | Did any one find a way to make MJ work again using ATA? | |
|
DamnYouDAN
@mindspring.com | As of now ATA are dead on magicjack. DAN is too good to be hack  | |
|
|
CakeOrDeath
@rr.com | Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure I guess it time to check out OOMA. I've heard good things about it. One good thing is the don't use the G.711 codec like MJ | |
|
| |
NotTellin
@sbcglobal.net | Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure Those who know do not say... we are grey... we route between the ata and the star. | |
|
| | | RT31P2VDgui
join:2008-09-09
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
1 edit | Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure "Those who know do not say... we are grey... we route between the ata and the star."
Whatever dude. MagicJack on ATA sucked anyway & so did it's webUI(Settings? What Settings!). I missed so many calls on it that its not even worth my time. I'm very glad I found a no hassle company like sipgate. I'm not a phone hog so all I pay now is 2¢ a minute plus the manditory E911 service(Less than $2); For me thats not more than $3 a month for rock solid phone service to your horridly unreliable $1.67 a month(Not including the price for the adapter). Best of all no more hacking needed(Yes! They hand you your SIP credentials!) No password resets like MagicCrap & It's NEVER down! Unless of course your internet provider goes down.
You're not special because you lie & pretend to know what we do not. All you want is attention & to start a potential flame war. You want it so bad that you even created an account for people to bug you for just that purpose!; "Oh please NotTellin! Tell me how to make it work!"
Give us all & yourself a break & give sipgate a try already. It's free for the first month even without a credit card. MagicJack & Danny Boy could never say that(Not after the MJ activation but bills you on the 31st day of the order). What a crock!
We're trying to help people here not piss them off buddy. | |
|
synchron
join:2002-12-31
Simi Valley, CA
| Good ATA Voip alternative:Sipgate for free incoming, toll-free outgoing/Localphone for outgoing using mysipswitch/sipsorcery account. Localphone "was" 7/10ths of a cent/min but it's going up tomorrow to 9/10ths of a cent per minute (still pretty cheap - 54 cents/hour for U.S calls Sip to landline/mobile phone).
Now as far as mj/ATA............read the Wiki.
Synchron | |
|
|
|
NotTellin
@pacbell.net | Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure Great.... somebody figured it out... I guess the "we route between the ata and the star (asterisk)" was too much of a giveaway. | |
|
|
|
|
Re: Defcon 1?: Massive ATA failure
·