There's been a very interesting thread developing this week in our VoIP forums concerning a VoIP company by the name of Future Nine. Future Nine offers users discounted VoIP service over grey, white or premium VoIP routes depending on the level of current traffic. Depending on what routes are available, Future Nine tries to find the user the less expensive option -- something that obviously can result in more or less expensive calls.

Customers however appear to be annoyed by the fact the company's advertised per minute voice prices aren't matching their actual prices in real time, and that they're seeing one route price quoted -- only to wind up being billed at a more expensive rate. "I call Brazil cell phones, and the grey and white rates to the numbers I call are both quoted as $0.039," begins forum user toolio in the thread. "Yet the calls are billed at 0.099 USD and listed as "standard."

"Toolio" complained to Future Nine and was told that the $0.039 route was "down for a few days" and says the company advised him "not to use it if that's a problem." Future Nine's CEO, Nitzan Kon, is a regular in our forums and explained the discrepancy in the listed price this way:Of course the company would "rather not" have to advertise a higher price, though this response apparently didn't quell user complaints in the form. After a few more complaints, Kon had this to say:Customers meanwhile argue that charging them three times the advertised rates without telling them seems like a problem a company might want to bump up the action item list. According to Kon, the company is working on a system that shows more accurate rates in real time -- though clearly there's other priorities. Future Nine's terms of service insists that the service is in beta, and that users should lower their expectations accordingly:The TOS also tries to give Future Nine the right to lower and change rates, while claiming customer awareness of the changes are "irrelevant":Some users in the thread are arguing that TOS conditions don't apply if the company isn't presenting accurate rate information to the customer at the bill of sale. Others insist that the terms of service frees Future Nine of responsibility. "All I know is it advertised one rate and charged another, much higher rate," complains Toolio. Kon did ultimately remove the cheaper Brazil route completely, though he also banned the complaining user from the service before refunding his remaining balance. Things proceeded to head downhill from there, Kon getting into a personal scrap with the user over a poor review:"As far as I am concerned F9 or any provider can charge whatever rates it desires, as long as it make customers and potential customers aware of what those rates are," argues the now ex-customer and thread starter. "Regardless of why or how, I believe not informing customers of the correct rates so they can make a cost decision before making a call is wrong -- and when a company is notified of that practice and refuses to do something about it in a reasonable time, it compounds the problem."