how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Comcast
| reply to amigo_boy
Okay, so file a class action lawsu...oh wait, nobody except the lawyers win on that one.
I have nothing worthwhile to contribute further to this discussion...and, news flash, neither do you. By all means, file your complaint with the FCC and encourage all your friends to do the same. Please find ALL of the numbers that MJ is blocking while you're at it.
I, meanwhile, will use that list of numbers to create an informational page that says, "If you call to any of these numbers at any time, MAGICJACK IS NOT FOR YOU. Otherwise, it's a great, albeit quirky, service and you should try it and see if you like it."
Also, you know who else blocks BUNCHES of phone numbers? Landline providers...if you don't have a long distance plan enabled on your account (rare but possible these days) you WILL NOT be able to call a whole lot of numbers.
But hey, that's another worthless piece of information, right? | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by iansltx:I, meanwhile, will use that list of numbers to create an informational page that says, "If you call to any of these numbers at any time, MAGICJACK IS NOT FOR YOU. Otherwise, it's a great, albeit quirky, service and you should try it and see if you like it." All roads lead to Rome.
said by iansltx:Also, you know who else blocks BUNCHES of phone numbers? Landline providers...if you don't have a long distance plan enabled on your account (rare but possible these days) you WILL NOT be able to call a whole lot of numbers. But hey, that's another worthless piece of information, right? Actually, it sounds like another non sequitur.
Long distance costs more than the basic landline service, and is often provided by a company other than the local landline carrier. Having long distance disabled may be a result of the customer not wanting it (and the billing liability that arises). Or, the customer may have had trouble paying a bill, and had their long distance disabled. (I know an alcoholic chick who's living with that right now.).
Similarly, magicJack requires customers to pre-fund international calls. If they choose not to fund it, that's like international calling being "blocked."
The real difference is that the local landline carrier is not required by law to give you long distance if you choose not to have a plan (or, the plan provider cancels you for non-payment).
Likewise, magicJack is not required by law to give you international calling.
It's the "legal" thing. | |
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | So...wait...a CLEC is required by law to give you long distance?
News to me, and to the telephone cooperative turned CLEC nearby. You either pay for long distance and get it or...well...you don't pay for it and you don't get it. | | |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by iansltx:So...wait...a CLEC is required by law to give you long distance? News to me, and to the telephone cooperative turned CLEC nearby. You either pay for long distance and get it or...well...you don't pay for it and you don't get it. You're going to have to start quoting what you're replying to.
Where did I say anyone is required by law to give anyone long distance? | |
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast
| LECs aren't required to complete calls that are long distance because they cost more than local calls.
MagicJack shouldn't be required to complete all calls for a similar reason. Sure, the Internet has made local calling areas a bit of a moot point, but high-cost areas on the other hand still exist.
Flat-rate and unlimited long distance plans from landline and cell carriers tend to hide this issue because they've run the numbers and decided that the percentage of their subscriber base that calls high cost areas is minimal. Those call carriers and landline companies also charge more for service than MagicJack...way more.
MagicJack on the other hand has realized that some of their users will tend to exclusively call high cost areas (rural, conference calling) and as a result has made the business decision to disallow service to those regions. They don't offer recourse for this...maybe they should for a price per minute...but it isn't something that hasn't been done before. It just so happens that MJ's "local" area covers a lot more ground than any landline company's.
How much more, do you ask? Well, Verizon in my area covers Fredericksburg, TX, Willow City, TX, Doss, TX and Stonewall, TX. The combined populations of everything outside Fredericksburg is a couple thousand at most. Fredericksburg itself is on the order of 12,000 subscribers. I can call every single one of those subscribers with MagicJack, plus millions more. For a lower price than Verizon is charging for their landline service...even the basic unlimited-local landline service. I think that's a good thing. | |
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by iansltx:LECs aren't required to complete calls that are long distance because they cost more than local calls. I never said LECs are required to complete long distance calls. Which is apparently why you don't want to quote what you're replying to. It makes it easier to create strawman arguments?
said by iansltx:MagicJack shouldn't be required to complete all calls for a similar reason. The problem is, MagicJack is serving the role of both a LEC and long-distance carrier, which is required by law to complete calls to rural LECs.
said by iansltx:Flat-rate and unlimited long distance plans from landline and cell carriers tend to hide this issue because they've run the numbers and decided that the percentage of their subscriber base that calls high cost areas is minimal. MagicJack "ran the numbers" too. They were making a terrific profit until blocking rural numbers 2-3 weeks ago.
They let higher-population areas subsidize the lower. In the same way lighter (1 call per 48 hours) users subsidize the heavier users (10 calls per 12 hours).
said by iansltx:Those call carriers and landline companies also charge more for service than MagicJack...way more. Reducing costs isn't an excuse to evade the law.
That's like saying "I don't pay income tax because I want to be 'competitive.' If you made me pay income tax, I'd have to charge as much as the people who do pay income tax. That would make me 'uncompetitive.'"
That's sophomoric.
said by iansltx: I think that's a good thing. See my immediately previous post about the selective nature of enjoying government subsidy. | |
|
