[asterisk-biz] VoIPJet

[Nasir Iqbal]

Hi

I have too very bad experience with voipjet ,  very bad support service ,
never reply emails
and block route to any country without giving any reason and notice


Nasir IQbal
http://www.ictinnovations.com


On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Trixter aka Bret McDanel <
trixter at 0xdecafbad.com> wrote:

>
> On May 5, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Dan Journo wrote:
>
> >> It would be far too easy to just nominate all competitors as "scammers"
> just to cause less business to be given to them.
> >
> > I agree that it is very open to scammers, however if there are 30
> different people making similar comments about the lack of service etc, then
> its pretty much believable.
> >
>
> So me and 29 sock puppets make a complaint.
>
>
> > After all, what's stopping someone emailing this list and saying "don't
> do business with XYZ Ltd"?
> >
>
> nothing, but just because its here does not make it trustworthy, which was
> my point.
>
>
>
> > Unless the review board just offers a way to report issues, and then a
> group of people from this mailing list decide whether the issue requires
> posting on the website, using a kind of voting system. In this way, we
> should be able to prevent abuse. We would have to have a rule to ensure
> random one-time offenders don't get posted. Only companies that are
> constantly running off with money. And an expiry period on red marks to
> ensure companies that clean up their act get a second chance.
> >
>
> Well most of my post was about why a ratings system is not going to be
> viable & reliable.  If you require people to take some action to rate
> someone that causes problems.  First there is the whole issue of poll
> rigging, next there is the issue of people are far more likely to complain
> than they are to praise.  This means that it ends up with a disproportionate
> amount of complaints.
>
> While a complaint seems like it is a bad thing a company that has 50% of
> its user base complaining is far worse than one that has 3%.  A larger
> company with 3% complaints may equal the number of complaints of a smaller
> company with 50%.
>
> The reality is that all of this rating stuff  costs money, and unless
> "policed" it will be subject to gaming.  Policing costs more money (or at
> least time).  It is prone to error, and if you wrongfully list someone as
> untrustworthy it opens up a potential for a lawsuit.  If this ends up having
> to be hidden to prevent a lawsuit (like some of the DNS RBLs) that further
> complicates things.
>
> Remember in the US if you win a lawsuit you do not get legal costs, this is
> how the Church of Scientology bankrupted the Cult Awareness Network.  20
> frivolous lawsuits that CAN won all of but in doing so they spent $1,000,000
> in legal fees.  CoS spent about $4,000.  At the end of the day CoS bought
> CAN out of bankruptcy and delisted themselves as a cult.  Anyone who decides
> they do not like the rating system can try a similar tactic, or it can
> happen naturally because there are a few people who do not like it and all
> unrelated to each other decide to file a suit.  Other countries may vary
> (the UK it does not work  this way, probably why they have far fewer
> frivolous lawsuits).
>
> To sum up, I do not think a ratings system is a good idea under what has
> been proposed so far.
> --
> Trixter aka Bret McDanel
> http://www.0xdecafbad.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-biz mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
>



-- 
Nasir Iqbal

ICT Innovations
http://www.ictinnovations.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-biz/attachments/20100804/c12b35b7/attachment.htm