[asterisk-biz] Vonage 877

[Paul]

Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:

> On 5/22/07, Paul <ast2005 at 9ux.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that is going way too far. People can spend a lot of time and
>> money advertising a tollfree number. The FCC should not allow renting or
>> leasing of tollfrees without some kind of "large print" disclosure. I
>> can fully understand temporary needs like a targeted TV ad campaign
>> where the call center provides the DID. Otherwise, tollfrees should not
>> be held captive.
>>
>
> the same argument can be said for a non-tollfree.  However vonage is
> not a phone company, and I do not encourage anyone to go forth and
> insist that ITSPs be treated as carriers since that will cause more
> legal headaches, and regulatory nightmares (do you really want to fall
> into the rules of 50 states, a few territories, federal rules, etc?).
>
> Vonage is the customer of the phone company, the number is theirs.
> The same argument could be made that if you use a payphone all the
> time that you should be able to own the number assigned to it simply
> because of 'squatters rights'.  I personally disagree.
>
> I use the woud 'you' in a generic sense, not implying anyone specific.
>
> If you enter into a contract, you agree to it, vonage doesnt hide the
> fact that porting out of their service is at their discretion and that
> you may not be able to do it.  If you ignored that contract and are
> stuck now, that is not vonages fault, nor is it the FCCs duty to
> relieve you from your contractual obligations.
>
> If you dont understand what you are doing when you enter into an
> agreement, especially in a business contract, your boss should rethink
> his decision to allow you to make decisions on the companies behalf.
> If you are the boss, you should rethink the policy of deciding for
> yourself without reading or undertanding what you read, and hire
> someone who is competent to assess the risks of the agreement.
>
> I dont really see anything shady here, I have brought this up with
> vonage specifically in the past on this list, and vonage doesnt hide
> their TOS.  The signup process makes you agree to the TOS, clicking
> 'next' without reading is not vonages fault.  Once you start blaming
> companies for having contracts you really errode the power of a
> contract to force things like payment for goods/services delivered,
> etc and ultimately it will cause far more problems than it will ever
> fix.
>
> I do have a problem with vonage advertising $25/mo service when its
> really much more after taxes and fees, but that is a different issue
> :)

Some time back I downloaded the CLEC list from the Maine PUC site. I
remember at that time there was a New Jersey company with the word
"Vonage" in it's name, but not exactly the same as the Vonage company
that bills me.

It seems to me that maybe some of the large voip providers use "sister
companies" for their CLEC status. I'm sure they want to get that status
in every state to cover current and future needs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the vonage company that is a CLEC in
Maine was billing me for the Vonage service I get here in Maine with
Maine DID's, wouldn't that change a lot of things? They would have to do
the LNP and they would have to list the numbers for subscribers who want
that.