Judge Orders Injunction Against Vonage - Then puts order on hold for two weeks

said by dvd536

said by compugeek

:

I have had Vonage for 4 years. I don't know anything else anymore. I hope this gets tossed on appeal or I am screwed. I don't want to go back to a normal POTS line.

Oh don't worry, you'll keep your vonage, it'll be just about six or seven dollars more when vonage passes its additional costs all down to the subscriber.

My Vonage service is so good (3 lines here), that I'd still be a subscriber even if they increased the bill on each line by $7.
--
"When you get lost in your imaginatory vagueness, your foresight becomes a nimble vagrant."

[Ramblings] [RIP Millie 1993-2006]

permalink · 2007-03-23 19:01:18 · Print ·

supergirl

join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

·Skype

»electronics.howstuffworks.com/ip···ony2.htm

Bascially, when you call from Vonage it hits their softswitch to find the IP address of the number you are calling. A softswitch is basically a massive database of phone numbers and their IP addresses. It changes as IPs change. Once the softswitch figures out where to go, usually in milliseconds, rings the number. Faster path is to another VOIP number. The tricky part is the path to a PSTN (public switched telephone network). The QoS problem of VOIP is the multiple paths the packets take in reaching their destination. It does find the closest connection point and the terminates to that PTSN, which is then connected to that POTS number. The system has to convert the digital signal of VOIP to the analog signal of the POTS line. Net Congestion, or even many softswitches, can cause all kinds of problems unless the VOIP is on a dedicated network (like Cable VOIP). Once it hits the PTSN and connects, the call is at a termination point--call connected.

So, a VOIP call, if properly routed, can bypass a lot of the PTSN but not all of it. Hence, it does terminate at the closest access point, which is usually the phone company's network. Hence, the phone company is basically paying for the connection probably in their intralata system.

Now, FIOS uses softswitching but is dedicated and digital until it terminates at an analog switch. The more dedicated the network the higher the cost.

Now, if everything was fiber and digital, Vonage would not be but an irritant to the telcos since the cost of connection to a digital phone is a heck of a lot cheaper since it is just a better IP phone system. Copper POTS is costly to maintain so termination fees are higher.

So, that is basically how it all works.

permalink · 2007-03-24 07:37:24 · Print ·

paulhaskew Unoffical Dominos Spokesman join:2002-01-10 Vancouver, WA clubs:	hah! irrepairable??? If the friggin Bell's hadn't been so damn greedy in the first place and trying to force their stick up everyone's ass then we wouldn't need alternatives like this... -- Anything I say can and will be used against me in a court of law. Somewhere over the rainbow lies the valley with gigabit fiber. Dude, I got a Dell UltraSharp 2005FPW.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 13:43:21 ·

morbo Complete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 clubs:	Re: hah! bingo.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 13:59:28 ·

yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH

said by paulhaskew

:

irrepairable??? If the friggin Bell's hadn't been so damn greedy in the first place and trying to force their stick up everyone's ass then we wouldn't need alternatives like this...

How do you justify that statement? They defended a legitimately obtained patent. It seems as if you advocate that they abandon their legal patent protections in favor of helping a competitor break patent law.

This country certainly needs patent reform, but this is a good example of properly applied patent law.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge

permalink · 2007-03-23 14:15:40 · Print ·

cdru Go Colts Premium,MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN	Re: hah! I think his comment about being so greedy is from essentially identical services, but VoIP providers charging significantly less then what the traditional telcos do. I can get the standard POTS service with the usual bells and whistles for around $45/month after taxes + LD charges from Verizon. I can get the same features and then some for around $10 from ViaTalk. -- Go Colts
	permalink · 2007-03-23 15:45:16 ·

yock
TFTC
Premium
join:2000-11-21
Fairfield, OH

Re: hah!

That's great, but you don't know how much it cost the innovator to implement their patented technology. ViaTalk might only be able to provide those low rates because they're standing on the shoulders of geniuses. They didn't do any of the grunt work developing the technology, they're just implementing it and reaping the benefits.
--
Wiki Wiki
Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge

permalink · 2007-03-23 15:58:46 ·

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

Re: hah!

said by yock

:

That's great, but you don't know how much it cost the innovator to implement their patented technology. ViaTalk might only be able to provide those low rates because they're standing on the shoulders of geniuses. They didn't do any of the grunt work developing the technology, they're just implementing it and reaping the benefits.

I'm not arguing that Verizon doesn't deserve the royalties if the patent is upheld (although I don't believe it will nor should it).

I'm mearly commenting to the original post by paulhaskew

that said the original Bells were greedy and that in some ways brought in on themselves.

They accepted numerous government handouts, continually charge users "required" fees such as 911 and Universal Service Fees which are essentially fees they keep but are just part of doing business.

They long ago could have adapted and reduced their costs significantly. The new kid on the block comes in and can provide similar service but at a fraction of the price. Instead of adapting with the competition, they researched and patented other promising methods so that if the competition used it, they would get a cut of the royalties. If they were cheaper in the first place, significant competition likely would have come.
--
Go Colts

permalink · 2007-03-23 16:16:10 · Print ·

yock TFTC Premium join:2000-11-21 Fairfield, OH	Re: hah! You'll get no argument from me. I'm not defending their business practices, but to imply that Vonage should be allowed to exploit their innovation just because the Bells are poorly run companies is a fallacy. It only creates more problems. -- Wiki Wiki Laughter is the closest distance between two people. --Victor Borge
	permalink · 2007-03-23 16:19:00 ·

cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

Re: hah!

said by yock

:

You'll get no argument from me. I'm not defending their business practices, but to imply that Vonage should be allowed to exploit their innovation just because the Bells are poorly run companies is a fallacy. It only creates more problems.

Agreed. That being said, I don't think Verizon's patents will hold up as there were packet-switched to circuit-switched VoIP-like implementations long before Verizon filed for their patent. I think the patent will be overturned on review.
--
Go Colts

permalink · 2007-03-23 16:21:45 · Print ·

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20

Um.. Verizon invented nothing. They obtained the right to the patent in the purchase of MCI. I really don't think I have seen Verizon pushing their Voip service.

This is how I see it.. it's the gas companies buying a patented on how to run a car on water and then shelving it so they can continue to sell over priced, outdated expensive gasoline.

VZ may own/hold the patent to Voip, but they aren't implementing it, are they? If a patent holder wants to horde the patent and not use it, I think it should become public domain VERY quick so that the innovative process can progress.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown

permalink · 2007-03-24 00:38:32 · Print ·

rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO ·Charter Pipeline	I think he meant if the ILECs wouldn't have charged first-born-child rates for POTS and then $10 extra for every caller-id, call waiting, voice mail option thingie, Vonage would have never been. We'd all be happy with our $25/month unlimited LD POTS service. If that's what he meant, I couldn't agree more.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 15:52:14 ·

Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:

If you can't offer a better product...sue

So I guess Verizon is finally taking VoIP seriously. They refuse to offer the same pricing, even though they could. They refuse to offer the same features, though they could. So.....just sue the competition out of business.

What a great system we have.

Mind you I say this despite my hatred of Vonage.
--
AMD X2 4800+ @2700Mhz/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 4x 1024Mb Corsair XMS PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler

permalink · 2007-03-23 13:44:26 ·

supergirl

join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

·Skype

Re: If you can't offer a better product...sue

POTS lines can't compete with VOIP since VOIP uses the Bell network to finish a lot of calls. VOIP is not paying the true cost of phone calls. POTS is only a 10-12% biz, which is the corporate average.

The one with the infrastructure always wins. Good for VZ.

Judge really slammed Vonage said monetary damages "does not prevent continued erosion of the client base of the plaintiff."

permalink · 2007-03-23 15:40:16 ·

rradina join:2000-08-08 Chesterfield, MO ·Charter Pipeline	Re: If you can't offer a better product...sue said by supergirl : POTS lines can't compete with VOIP since VOIP uses the Bell network to finish a lot of calls. VOIP is not paying the true cost of phone calls. POTS is only a 10-12% biz, which is the corporate average. So does POTS not pay the true cost of a call when it's made to my Vonage number?
	permalink · 2007-03-23 15:55:50 ·

supergirl

join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

·Skype

Re: If you can't offer a better product...sue

said by rradina

said by supergirl

:

POTS lines can't compete with VOIP since VOIP uses the Bell network to finish a lot of calls. VOIP is not paying the true cost of phone calls. POTS is only a 10-12% biz, which is the corporate average.

So does POTS not pay the true cost of a call when it's made to my Vonage number?

There is no cost. That's why Vonage and VOIP is so cheap. No termination fees coming or going. If you can prove otherwise, let me know. But, that is the understanding of Net VOIP. POTS customers in FL pay a $6.50 FCC Access Charge (access to LD networks) and other hidden stuff in LD, which pays for the termination costs.

permalink · 2007-03-23 16:12:34 · Print ·

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

·Charter Pipeline

Re: If you can't offer a better product...sue

I thought the TA 1996 act required the calling party's carrier to pay termination fees to the destination party's carrier. Doesn't Vonage use CLECs to hold every Vonage number?

I don't think Vonage is as different from POTS as folks think it is. The two differences are Vonage uses the Internet for the last mile (from the CLEC CO to your house) and because they can keep your call on the Internet and terminate it as close as possible to the destination number, they don't incur as many or any LD interconnet fees.

I would guess a portion of the Vonage fee goes to the CLEC that owns the POTS number on behalf of Vonage. As a CLEC, they have infrastructure tied to the POTS system and pay interconnect fees just like an ILEC.

Regardless, if VOIP was in some way not paying its weight, one would think the ILECs would be losing money hand over fist. Large corporations also use VOIP over their private networks to likewise deny the telco of revenue streams. If all this VOIP were ruining the POTS infrastructure, I would think the ILECs would be posting huge losses instead of using their massive war chests to plan mega mergers.

I think VOIP destroyed the LD companies, not the POTS companies.

permalink · 2007-03-23 16:37:36 · Print ·

supergirl

join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

·Skype

Re: If you can't offer a better product...sue

said by rradina

:

I thought the TA 1996 act required the calling party's carrier to pay termination fees to the destination party's carrier. Doesn't Vonage use CLECs to hold every Vonage number?

Local Number Portability is what you are looking for. Termination fees aren't paid there. The customer owns the number until they quit paying pretty much. Who holds Vonage's numbers? It appears Vonage: »www.vonage-forum.com/ftopic5008.html.

Now a carrier can refuse to port if:

You haven't paid your bill on time

You disconnected service

The paperwork to port doesn't match the exact customer info with the carrier.

That's all FCC-approved.

permalink · 2007-03-23 16:49:43 · Print ·

battleop join:2005-09-28 00000	Re: If you can't offer a better product...sue "The paperwork to port doesn't match the exact customer info with the carrier." Carriers use this to drag out ports. They pass the paper work back and fourth as a stall tatic. During the paper work war the losing carrier sends in their customer retention drones to try and save the account. I see this happen first hand very often.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 19:15:01 ·

rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

·Charter Pipeline

I'm not talking about portability. I'm talking about inter-carrier termination fees. I don't think Vonage has any facilities to interconnect POTS with VOIP. I think they contract the interconnect to CLECs that have a telephone switch in major area codes. Using that network of CLEC contracts, the Internet and apparently techniques that infringe upon Verizon patents, they became a national telephone carrier.

permalink · 2007-03-23 19:28:50 ·

xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

said by rradina

:

I thought the TA 1996 act required the calling party's carrier to pay termination fees to the destination party's carrier. Doesn't Vonage use CLECs to hold every Vonage number?

Exactly. If we are talking "Local Exchange Carriers".

i.e.
The intent of local competition:
Bell 1 serves Customer A (you)
CLEC 1 serves Customer B (me)
You call me, Bell 1 pays CLEC for the termination.

In both cases, the TA96 was developed with the idea of
voice services in mind (IMO). Dial Up internet access
muddied the waters and the voip model is essentially
founded on the idea that a local call to an ISP or VOIP
provider is the same. Much more complicated, but hopefully
abbreviated enough to get the point across. The game would
certainly change if the local telephone company model
changed to mirror the cellular model (customer pays for
all outbound and inbound calls). We currently only pay for
outbound.

said by rradina

:

I don't think Vonage is as different from POTS as folks think it is. The two differences are Vonage uses the Internet for the last mile (from the CLEC CO to your house) and because they can keep your call on the Internet and terminate it as close as possible to the destination number, they don't incur as many or any LD interconnet fees.

They don't incur any LD fees. Vonage isn't considered a Telephone Company (local or long distance). Vonage, in legal parlance, is considered an "information service provider". Similar to itunes or broadbandreports. BBR might charge us for access to this board, but it doesn't make them a long distance company. Vonage defines itself as a company that connects customers using ip voice services to each other. The telephone companies in this equation are CLECs such as Level 3. Level 3 does indeed charge Vonage for each call terminating to the public network, they take a cut between access rates and local interconnection rates generally speaking, a business that purely exists due to FCC action/inaction. See Level 3 financials and/or investor calls for more clarification on the fragility of this line of their business.

said by rradina

:

I would guess a portion of the Vonage fee goes to the CLEC that owns the POTS number on behalf of Vonage. As a CLEC, they have infrastructure tied to the POTS system and pay interconnect fees just like an ILEC.

Exactly. Vonage is sort of the new LD company that pays someone to connect to a customer. The difference is that they pay someone (level 3) to pay someone (verizon) to connect to grandma, since she hasn't migrated to voip yet.

said by rradina

:

Regardless, if VOIP was in some way not paying its weight, one would think the ILECs would be losing money hand over fist. Large corporations also use VOIP over their private networks to likewise deny the telco of revenue streams. If all this VOIP were ruining the POTS infrastructure, I would think the ILECs would be posting huge losses instead of using their massive war chests to plan mega mergers.

Large corporations pay for other services from the ILECs - i.e. ATM, Ethernet, special access, MPLS etc..the VOIP issue isn't about breaking the ILECs, it was about breaking the LD companies.

said by rradina

:

I think VOIP destroyed the LD companies, not the POTS companies.

Now that the LD companies are going and all the POTS lines disconnect at what point do the ILECs start raising basic local connection costs higher? Same can be said for the Cable companies as more content becomes available over the internet. Or will both essentially collude to ensure any highly demanded service made available via the internet eventually become a part of their own offerings with subsequent blocking of degrading of competitors products?

Short - Long term, our voice will be voip provided by the same companies that we desire to leave. Abundant wireless spectrum will be the only effective competition but that may never happen for a number of reasons (money begets money principally).

permalink · 2007-03-23 17:49:53 · Print ·

xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

To be fair, there is a cost to call a Vonage number.

If the number is LD, a customer will pay LD charges.

If local, it is built into the local rate.

If it is made via a cell phone or another VOIP (internet based) provider, it generally won't matter.

The 6.50 charge doesn't cover termination or origination fees (there are both at the wholesale level for regulated telcos). The 6.50 charge is just an allocation from intercarrier rates (carrier to carrier compensation) to customers. It's complicated, but short order, the 6.50 is effectively a rate increase that the states can blame on the feds while keeping the local telephone rate as low as possible (my take on it at least).

But in the end, voip is cheap due to a multitude of FCC orders and lack of orders. It can all change on a dime. Vonage being subjected to USF fees for instance...go figure, they became subject to USF fees.

said by supergirl

said by rradina

said by supergirl

So does POTS not pay the true cost of a call when it's made to my Vonage number?

permalink · 2007-03-23 17:13:06 · Print ·

See 9 replies to this post

sporkme
drop the crantini and move it, sister
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-01
Morristown, NJ

·Optimum Online

said by supergirl

said by rradina

said by supergirl

So does POTS not pay the true cost of a call when it's made to my Vonage number?

There is no cost. That's why Vonage and VOIP is so cheap.

That is bullshit, plain and simple.

permalink · 2007-03-23 17:41:50 · Print ·

xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

Re: If you can't offer a better product...sue

said by sporkme

:

That is bullshit, plain and simple.

Not really.

Speculation on my part, but Vonage's business plan ain't long term. I guess I don't trust Citron after the same arbitrage play he profited from in Datek. Of course if it benefits us short time consumers but will become another one of those blighted "universal service fees" called corporate bankruptcy.

We all see those costs buried in our 1040s.

permalink · 2007-03-23 18:01:47 · Print ·

NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX

Bad for the customer.

Before I switched to Vonage I paid 60 dollars a month for a plain POTS line.

Did you know VZ charges 4.60 for DTMF or you're stuck using rotary codes? Plus all the taxes and fees and USF charges etc etc.

Vonage with the full feature set only sets me back 30 dollars a month.

Sure you may want to say "YOu have to pay for internet access" I use the internet every day just like a utility.

Even covad with their Line Powered Voice is more expensive than vonage.
--
Mac Chatter
»www.macchatter.net

permalink · 2007-03-23 15:57:45 · Print ·

NYC Girl Premium join:2007-02-04 Bronx, NY	I would have gladly switched to their voice wing service but they suck so badddddddd, horrible reviews everywhere and anywhere there was a blog. It is cheaper than Digital Phone.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 19:44:11 ·

cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27

·Verizon FIOS

suffering irreparable harm

Really?

I doubt it. Vonage has actually caused Verizon to benefit callers with its Freedom America plan (unlimited calling).
By making Verizon compete, the consumer again, has choice. Either VoIP or POTS.

Besides, what about all the DSL companies that dried up thanks to the "increased databasing" by Telcos and then taking their customers with their own DSL? Judge should see who is calling the kettle black...

BTW, I dropped Vonage after two years due to poor VQ (likely due to Comcast). But it caused more hassle then savings. I went back to Verizon for the bundle which cost $15 more yet know I pick up that phone, no static, choppiness or drops.

"If you don't own the lines you use, you are at the line owner's mercy"

permalink · 2007-03-23 13:45:02 · Print ·

Pz_

join:2001-03-31
Brownsburg, IN
clubs:

Re: suffering irreparable harm

I used to work for one of those DSL providers back in 2000. Every time we had to deal with the telco (Ameritech back then) they would drag their feet at every junction. Trying to delay or straight up sabotage the install. Then, afterwards would solicit the customer with their own (slower and more expensive) DSL offering. Of course all the "technical issues" that caused slow downs or prevented them from provisioning the circuit before were magically fixed, and fixed right away.

Sorry to see Vonage go, I don't use them but their existence is significant to the landscape.

permalink · 2007-03-23 15:14:47 · Print ·

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20

Re: suffering irreparable harm

.. you forgot to mention.. during that long and un-necessary and unfair delay in provisioning the circuit for you, they were also busy soliciting your customer with an "even better offer" resulting in your loosing a customer.

.. and people call cable evil. The phone company always has been, always will be, and just plain is the anti-Christ SCUM suckers of the earth! They will NEVER change.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown

permalink · 2007-03-24 00:45:42 · Print ·

charlie3 @comcast.net	I had voice quality problems with vonage. Turned out to be a faulty moden what was dropping uploaded packets. Replacing the moden solved the problem. A few months later a sister of mine reported the same problem with vonage and replacing the modem completely cleared up her problem as well.
	permalink · 2007-03-26 11:47:01 ·

nasadude join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD	wouldn't swith to verizon if vonage gets ordered to stop connecting to the PSTN, I sure as hell won't switch phone service to verizon. I will either get another VOIP provider or use my cell phone.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 13:47:09 ·

morbo Complete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 clubs: ·Charter Pipeline ·AT&T Southwest	Re: wouldn't swith to verizon said by nasadude : or use my cell phone. it's verizon, isn't it?
	permalink · 2007-03-23 14:00:42 ·

Nice Try5 join:2003-04-17 Silver Spring, MD	Re: wouldn't swith to verizon said by nasadude : it's verizon, isn't it? Too funny! But I must say, I agree. I'll get another voip or use my cell phone instead (Cingular, or is that AT&T ... whatever).
	permalink · 2007-03-23 14:23:41 ·

nasadude join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD ·Comcast	no, I have cingular. I hate verizon....but not enough that I will pass up on FIOS. When FIOS finally does roll around, I WILL NOT get their VOIP as long as Vonage still works. I WILL get their TV, so I can tell comcast to completely take a hike.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 15:46:50 ·

xsiddalx join:2005-03-11 Chicago, IL ·AT&T Yahoo	Re: wouldn't swith to verizon until either offers you that price that's too good to be true Sounds like my aunt who complains that our country wants to outsource everything but spends her money at WalMart because "they are cheaper". Can't seem to convince her that if she wants choice and to support american labor, she needs to pay for it :0
	permalink · 2007-03-23 18:07:28 ·

Thespis I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV. Premium join:2004-08-03 Keller, TX	quote: When FIOS finally does roll around, I WILL NOT get their VOIP as long as Vonage still works. FIOS is not VOIP. It's just POTS over fiber.
	permalink · 2007-03-24 09:29:16 ·

moonpuppy join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD	So who is next? Verizon is gong to take this victory and run with it.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 13:49:28 ·

cdru Go Colts Premium,MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN	Re: So who is next? said by moonpuppy : Verizon is gong to take this victory and run with it. The battle may have been a victory, but the war is far from over. Verizon would be very foolish from a legal cost standpoint to go after other VoIP providers until after the ink has been signed on the final order here. -- Go Colts
	permalink · 2007-03-23 15:48:22 ·

supergirl

join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

·Skype

Re: So who is next?

said by cdru

said by moonpuppy

:

Verizon is gong to take this victory and run with it.

The battle may have been a victory, but the war is far from over. Verizon would be very foolish from a legal cost standpoint to go after other VoIP providers until after the ink has been signed on the final order here.

VZ will wait awhile. Suing the big player might just scare the others to not violate patents if they are. Vonage said they can't patent all their service so Vonage is pretty much screwed.

I'm still waiting to see when the FCC decides VOIP providers have to pay that Termination charge like POTS customers do. That'll hurt.

One thing is for sure: Vonage better stop ads all over the place and save money for legal battles and fixing their patent-infringing service.

permalink · 2007-03-23 16:17:52 · Print ·

Bink63
Tweet THIS
Premium
join:2002-10-06
Everywhere

1 edit

said by cdru

said by moonpuppy

:

Verizon is gong to take this victory and run with it.

Hmmm,

Verizon vs. Comcast

Comcast still holds PSTN switching contracts back from when AT&T was in the cable business.

Not all of Comcast's voice customers are VoIP!

Fiberguy knows what I mean!!!

Note to Verizon: not all of your targets in this are regional, or smaller companies with less than 3 million subscribers.

I think I'll be filing an Amicus Curiae brief with the court on this one*.

*Disclaimer: I am NOT a Lawyer, I played one on TV but that crappy show was cancelled. I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express, but I was too drunk to remember her name the next day. Erections lasting longer than 4 hours are a good thing. But, if it causes you pain, then see your doctor. Reading this post may cause anal leakage. This offer is not available in places that frown on such activities. Your mileage may vary. Poster is not responsible for the misuse of this post. Poster is NOT permitted to practice law anywhere this post can be read. Product will be shipped 32 to 50 weeks after order. This post is for entertainment purposes only.

permalink · 2007-03-25 22:50:55 · Print ·

sporkme drop the crantini and move it, sister Premium,MVM join:2000-07-01 Morristown, NJ ·Optimum Online	said by moonpuppy : Verizon is gong to take this victory and run with it. And it's going to be a cable company with lawyers equal to or better than Verizon's and they will lose...
	permalink · 2007-03-23 17:45:25 ·

newview Ex .. Ex .. Exactly Premium join:2001-10-01 Parsonsburg, MD	If Verizon wants my business back . . . then they'll need to roll out FIOS in my area. (Fat Chance) I'll not go back to Verizon for phone service, I'll just find another VoIP provider.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 13:52:50 ·

Hobyboyz join:2005-02-18 Wauchula, FL	Re: If Verizon wants my business back . . . ViaTalk is another provider my coemployee uses for VOIP and he is in a Verizon area.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 13:58:11 ·

heathcpe

join:2002-03-19
Brandon, MS

Anti-competition

The Judge says that the monetary damages awarded Verizon, ... were not sufficient because they do "not prevent continued erosion of the client base of the plaintiff."

Wow, so if my competition is winning over my customers I can sue them and make them stop.

Verizon lawyers say the telco is "suffering irreparable harm" from Vonage's patent infringement, losing hundreds of thousands of customers to its competitor.

Then do something about like OFFER CHEAPER SERVICE THAN THE OVERPRICED PRODUCTS YOU HAVE!!!!! AND DROP THE DISGUISED FEES YOU STUFF INTO YOUR POCKETS!!!! I pay $228 a year for phone service, why the hell would I want to pay Verizon something like $740 (based on prices in my area) a year for the equivalent service?

Corporate goons!!!!

permalink · 2007-03-23 13:56:24 · Print ·

See 6 replies to this post

RideRed Vista needs a popup blocker for Vista Premium join:2005-06-18 USA	Next up Verizon sues Comcast For violating Verizon's patent on overpriced crappy service.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 13:56:55 ·

See 7 replies to this post

AnonymousCoward @kaballero.com	... meanwhile ... Verizon degrages their DSL offerings to ensure that VoIP fails to function thus ensuring that you have to take their voice solution even though the FCC says they have to sell naked DSL. What kind of idiot decided to violate a patent that belongs to his competition in the first place? That was a pretty stupid strategic move.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 14:02:32 ·

dogma
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV

Re: ... meanwhile ...

said by AnonymousCoward :

...What kind of idiot decided to violate a patent that belongs to his competition in the first place? That was a pretty stupid strategic move.

I think that guy came from Research in Motion (RIM Blackberry).

What's even dumber is no real plan if they lost. Most of us armchair CEO's would have had "plan B (the work-around)" ready to go when the final gavel struck...and not wait until our stock was suspended to begin the process.

I have been with Packet8 for about 4 years, overall pretty good. My set up uses 2-line phones, where line 1 is the base/zero frills $11/Mo. SBC/AT?T pots, line 2 is Packet8 $22/Mo - unlimited-. Almost all inbound calls come into the pots, and outbound via packet8. This way if P8 goes down, we still have service. Cell phones not counted.

permalink · 2007-03-23 14:43:45 · Print ·

bcunningh

join:2005-04-01
Seattle, WA

I probably shouldn't feed the troll, but here I go anyways.

said by AnonymousCoward :

Verizon degrages their DSL offerings to ensure that VoIP fails to function thus ensuring that you have to take their voice solution even though the FCC says they have to sell naked DSL.

Do you have any proof of this? Or is that just your opinion?

said by AnonymousCoward :

What kind of idiot decided to violate a patent that belongs to his competition in the first place? That was a pretty stupid strategic move.

I'll agree with you there.

permalink · 2007-03-23 14:53:00 · Print ·

Kiwi
Premium
join:2003-05-26
USA

·Comcast

·Aristotle Internet

Sigh

Can't stand the patent battles and some understand what I mean when it comes to technology. The legal system has been completely borked for so long, it's going to be hard to imagine a Democracy based on inovative concepts. The battle of patents have become the new rich corps playground.

As a long time user of Vonage, I was most annoyed by those chiming in on 911. The purpose had nothing to do with a POTS line, I guess that's what extravagant advertising does!

I would like to see any court leave customers stranded with the forced 911 enigma, having forced users to Annie up and pay for something that was generally not wanted; they will now have to protect the users who use it! A double edged sword may play a part in this.

Legal battles seem to be the norm anymore, once this Country was built on innovation, free thought and ingenuity...Now, it's a paper work shuffle and all the resources are shifting overseas; no surprise there!

permalink · 2007-03-23 14:05:03 · Print ·

Yippz Voip join:2005-05-04 Atlanta, GA	Re: Sigh Why can't Vonage, which is a registered company in Canada, just move their servers from NJ to say, Ontario Canada? Customer's wouldn't know or care where the servers were and they can connect to the PSTN from there? Am I wrong or this is possible??
	permalink · 2007-03-23 14:13:09 ·

RadioDoc 58ef2c0 Premium,ExMod 2000-03 join:2000-05-11	Re: Sigh They'd have to connect to the PSTN in Canada then too. Not much good for local calling. This is not the same as moving your webserver offshore... -- Toolmaster of La Grange.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 14:15:48 ·

Goober join:2000-12-17 Naperville, IL ·Comcast ·WOW Internet and C..	said by Kiwi : Legal battles seem to be the norm anymore, once this Country was built on innovation, free thought and ingenuity...Now, it's a paper work shuffle and all the resources are shifting overseas; no surprise there! The Constitution (Article 1, section 8) authorized creation of patents.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 16:48:19 ·

xsiddalx

join:2005-03-11
Chicago, IL

This might seem silly but vonage has been advertisting themselves as a telephone company. With that statement comes certain expectations (911).

Vonage could have marketed themselves as a voip provider (no broadband telephone company/not a telephone company)

None of us generally care about the 911 feature unless we need it (too late?). Then again, it was a mandate on the telephone companies in the first place. My hunch is that they don't want to be in that business in the first place, but we, as a society (USA) determined it was beneficial.

911 is essentially a mandate and requirement of a POTS line, with very few exceptions.

Although I can't verify, I'd be willing to bet the 911 issue has survived the courts. It's been around a long time and the telephone companies generally fight anything that doesn't profit themselves (reasonably so).

As an aside, we all pay for crap we don't want, be it packaging, processing, overhead, etc...

There is quite a bit of paper shuffling overseas too, but that's a whole nother discussion.

Back to point, Vonage needed to figure out a better way to declare themselves something other than a traditional ld or local telecom provider. Providing the same services as either or both of the both with nothing essentially different didn't help them.

Vonage sorta brought this on themselves. There may be a reason, Citron's income is one motivation. The investors have their own motivations..and I'm not convinced guranteed profits are always the motive of venture capitalists.

I agree with you overall. The innovative services, such as many of the web applications, have happened. We might finally start to see the apps that the Jetson's had...

said by Kiwi

:

Can't stand the patent battles and some understand what I mean when it comes to technology. The legal system has been completely borked for so long, it's going to be hard to imagine a Democracy based on inovative concepts. The battle of patents have become the new rich corps playground.

As a long time user of Vonage, I was most annoyed by those chiming in on 911. The purpose had nothing to do with a POTS line, I guess that's what extravagant advertising does!

I would like to see any court leave customers stranded with the forced 911 enigma, having forced users to Annie up and pay for something that was generally not wanted; they will now have to protect the users who use it! A double edged sword may play a part in this.

Legal battles seem to be the norm anymore, once this Country was built on innovation, free thought and ingenuity...Now, it's a paper work shuffle and all the resources are shifting overseas; no surprise there!

permalink · 2007-03-23 19:10:08 · Print ·

Kiwi
Premium
join:2003-05-26
USA

·Comcast

·Aristotle Internet

Re: Sigh

VoIP never tauted claim to fame to anything other than providing a service for those with broadband access; an existing ISP is required.

You should review what most users went through when the ads kicked in and the VoIP illiterate types signed up demanding a 911 service, nOObs! No, nobody who knew anything wanted a darn thing to do with 911 & VoIP. The customer remark for courts and 911 reflected that now it's in place the court will have to protect those using VoIP -Because of it.

The big picture has been largely glossed over, Vonage is not the only service utilizing claimed patents. As for ANY third party company [Non old world Bell] they use the copper too.

Most people and particularly non users of VoIP will not understand. Vonage would have been far wiser to have reduced advertising and realized a niche...Would have saved a few million to boot.

This reminds me of the witch hunt some others have endorsed, using the legal system; not surprising to see anything related to technology take a hit from a legal system who have proved incapable of understanding what they rule on.

Vonage does have a rather poor track record for financial stability, but that's aside the point.

A long time ago a similar technology was used with dialup, perhaps anybody using anything digital should sign over their check right now to the very few starters.....

I would presume that might annoy the likes of rootkited *IAA et al (I'm still amazed that the ever so diligent legal system has not challenged basic security breaches and strong arm tactics to garner money from small children and the elderly -Who don't even own a PC).

permalink · 2007-03-23 22:36:40 · Print ·

axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

·Verizon Online DSL

Does this affect other telephony companies?

I don't really understand the technical side of this case... don't cell phone companies hook up to the PSTN? Not to mention the other regular phone companies. Is it something specific that Vonage is doing, or is it VOIP specific? Does it affect Skype? I use Skype because I rarely get calls at home, and its much cheaper than VOIP or POTS. Why does it seem that everything new is ruined by patents held by people who aren't using them?

permalink · 2007-03-23 14:19:13 ·

See 8 replies to this post

sporkme drop the crantini and move it, sister Premium,MVM join:2000-07-01 Morristown, NJ ·Optimum Online	The patents? Does anyone have a good link to a more technical description of the patents involved? So far all I've seen is "interconnection to the PSTN" and "voicemail" which both sound kind of... vague? Lots of folks offer voicemail and products that bridge internet calls to the PSTN.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 15:01:31 ·

priller join:2000-10-20 Gainesville, VA	Re: The patents? »Vonage loses to Verizon
	permalink · 2007-03-23 15:22:20 ·

cdru Go Colts Premium,MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN	Here is some analysis as well as links to the actual patents. -- Go Colts
	permalink · 2007-03-23 15:58:07 ·

axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC ·Verizon Online DSL	Re: The patents? Great link and analysis. I'm surprised that Vonage didn't bring up prior art, Dialpad.com was made before Verizon was granted its patents: »web.archive.org/web/200003011000···dex.html
	permalink · 2007-03-23 16:25:15 ·

firephoto KDE Premium join:2003-03-18	Re: The patents? Yep, I used dialpad in 1999 to be exact, could call regular telephone numbers, no charges, and I was on dialup then too. It wasn't the best due to dialup but it worked. -- Location: +48° 5' 23.40", -119° 48' 30.00"
	permalink · 2007-03-23 17:40:39 ·

xsiddalx join:2005-03-11 Chicago, IL ·AT&T Yahoo	It's up to Yahoo to jump in the fray. Doubtful said by axus : Great link and analysis. I'm surprised that Vonage didn't bring up prior art, Dialpad.com was made before Verizon was granted its patents: »web.archive.org/web/200003011000···dex.html
	permalink · 2007-03-23 19:24:32 · Print ·

supergirl join:2007-03-20 Pensacola, FL	Good for Verizon About time patents were enforced! This a good day for POTS consumers that continue to subsidize these VOIPs. I guess the rest is next.
	permalink · 2007-03-23 15:34:10 ·

dodgetech2

join:2002-01-01
Gouldsboro, PA

·ProLog

·Vonage

Re: Good for Verizon

said by supergirl

:

About time patents were enforced!

This a good day for POTS consumers that continue to subsidize these VOIPs. I guess the rest is next.

I guess you missed this part...

Meanwhile, the company continued stating that it used open-standards technology when developing its VoIP service, and that Verizon’s claims are erroneous.

“In fact, evidence introduced in court failed to prove that Vonage relied on Verizon's VoIP technology, and instead showed that in 2003 Verizon began exploring ways to copy Vonage's technology," said Sharon O'Leary, Vonage's executive vice president, chief legal
officer and secretary.

Verizon did not immediately return requests for comment

No one will know the truth till this is over...and it could be YEARS......

permalink · 2007-03-23 18:31:45 · Print ·

supergirl

join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL

·Skype