| reply to morbo
Re: [Future9] Rate surprises (and not good ones) said by morbo:Then find another provider and stop complaining about it. You've made your point, now either take your business elsewhere or stay put and understand the limitations. You want 99.9% perfection then you will have to find a provider that is more expensive. Get a landline and call up AT&T. I'm sure they will let you pay 0.30 a minute to Brazil. If you're willing to deal with hiccups then smaller and less expensive providers like F9 are your answer. This may be the most absurd reply in this entire thread. These are not "limitations." These are unethical business practices.
You seem to be inferring that I am complaining about F9 pricing, which I am not. I made it perfectly clear that I am complaining about the fact that they advertise one price, then charge another, much higher price. I will, and often do, take my business where I can get the best price. But I expect to get that price when providers' pages advertise a price.
If there is anyone in this thread who does not think advertising one price, then charging a much higher price, is not unethical or illegal, please inform me why.
What do you do when you go to your local department store and pick out an item priced at $3.90, then when you get to the checkout they charge you $9.99? You point out that the pricing on the product says $3.90. Then you point out it is illegal to charge more than the stated price. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
 ·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| said by Toollio:You seem to be inferring that I am complaining about F9 pricing, which I am not. I made it perfectly clear that I am complaining about the fact that they advertise one price, then charge another, much higher price. I will, and often do, take my business where I can get the best price. But I expect to get that price when providers' pages advertise a price. 1+
Especially when those advertised rates are used in competition with other providers, to attract customers.
A separate website was set up to "compare VoIP provider rates". Well, that being so, it is important that the rates be scrupulously accurate. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to Toollio
It's clear from this thread that there are practical limitations to implementing a rate advertisement page that incorporates the daily/weekly changes to hundreds or thousands of routes. The problem is known and clearly being worked on. If you believe this is malicious then by all means, file a lawsuit for the extra pennies a minute or just take your business elsewhere.
I don't use F9 and I have no connection to them at all. From an outsider's perspective, it seems like a small business trying to make it work. You found a problem and are upset about it. You feel wronged. Ok. I can understand that. So if you aren't satisfied with the current situation, my suggestion is to go elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
3 edits | said by morbo:So if you aren't satisfied with the current situation, my suggestion is to go elsewhere. You are repeating yourself. You said this a few days ago. Only the last time it seemed a little ruder (and I quote):
"Then find another provider and stop complaining about it. You've made your point, now either take your business elsewhere or stay put and understand the limitations."
This is a discussion thread. Discussion and opinions are allowed. I am in the minority of posters here, even though I started the thread. Obviously other people have experienced the same issues and have opinions about them.
I did not say anywhere that I believe this is malicious--but I did say it is wrong, unethical and likely illegal.
And I see no evidence that the problem "is clearly being worked on." In fact, the owner of F9 has more or less said in earlier posts that they are not working on this at the moment because in his opinion they have better things to do. Here is exactly what he said:
"No offense, and I'm sorry about this - but we are too busy right now with other issues which are higher priority."
As for "practical limitations," I don't know. Callwithus seems to handle the problem well. And it remains my opinion that no business should advertise one price and charge another.
If you do not use F9 what gives you the right to tell F9 customers what they should be doing? With respect, you are entitled to your opinion. But you have no right to to tell others what to do with their money, their business or their time.
I am not trying to prolong this thread, but absurd statements like yours deserve a response. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
1 edit | That great line from the movie Young Frankenstein as a grave is being dug up in the middle of the night...
"Could be worse. Could be raining."
----------------------------
So here is a family that owes $ 18,000 to Verizon Wireless for downloading over a cellphone connection:
»news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20003930-71.html
I'm honestly not sure which side is to blame in this case---or perhaps both! |
|
 Arne BolenHappy Anveo customerPremium
join:2009-06-21
Planet Earth
kudos:4
·Anveo
·callwithus
·Callcentric
·voip.ms
| Howard Waterman, executive director of public relations for Verizon Wireless Northeast Area wrote:
"At Verizon, we believe in upholding the highest ethical standards. Anything less would be unacceptable."
Is charging 15+ dollars per megabyte really "upholding the highest ethical standards"??? 
IMHO charging 15+ dollars per megabyte should be a case for the DA's office.
--
Linksys IP Phone SPA962 - Gigaset S685IP
VoIP.ms - Voxalot - Callcentric - Localphone - Rebtel - Gigaset.net - Google Voice |
|
nonymousPremium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ Reviews:
·Callcentric
1 edit | reply to PX Eliezer
said by PX Eliezer:That great line from the movie Young Frankenstein as a grave is being dug up in the middle of the night... "Could be worse. Could be raining." ---------------------------- So here is a family that owes $ 18,000 to Verizon Wireless for downloading over a cellphone connection: » news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20003930-71.htmlI'm honestly not sure which side is to blame in this case---or perhaps both! Well Nitzan would fit right in as CEO of Verizon and would be making much more.
I do have empathy for Nitzan as I do believe it is not malicious and he just does not have the resources. Now if he put in the Callwithus solution of warnings and blocking of higher cost routes without the customer overriding then that may be a decent solution to grey routes going out.
Verizon I do believe it is malicious and intentional. There are certain blocks and things you can not do. if pressed Verizon say use the pay as you go. Their normal plans are designed to gouge unsuspecting users, no ifs ands or buts. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| Oh, I was NOT intending to suggest any proportional linkage between the F9 question and the Verizon Wireless story.
I should have started a separate thread, my fault.
I was just pointing out that some things come along that overarch a prior issue.
---------------------------
Several days ago in Florida the big news was their Governor running for US Senate as an independent, not a Republican.
In one day, the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico tripled in size!
So NOW, Florida has bigger concerns, as do its neighbors. |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to Toollio
You are correct. This is a discussion thread and I'm contributing my point of view to the discussion.
If I was a small voip provider, I know I could do without the headaches from high maintenance customers that don't understand or don't care to understand. There's a reason why sometimes companies "fire" high maintenance customers. It's not because companies don't want their businesses. It's because it costs them more money (dollars/time) to keep them as customers than they make from them.
You pointed out the legitimate problem, complained about it, and now are complaining about the not incredibly tactful response by the business owner. The response was an honest one indicating that the problem is on his to-do list but he has other higher priority problems to deal with first. He also provided the explanation of why the default is to use a higher rate plan than to just fail. Failing would result in higher support costs. I think that is a fair and logical response especially considering that it is a small business. Small businesses usually rely on a handful of people to accomplish everything. From my point of view, you seem to be expecting the service level of a corporation and not a small business. Larger companies have to charge more to make the money required to pay for those additional people. So you'll pay more per minute.
All of this together, I believe your expectations are too high. You may be better off finding another provider that better fits your needs. |
|
1 edit | To Morbo:
You just don't get it, do you?
You cannot quote a customer a price, then charge triple that price.
It doesn't matter whether it is a small business or a large corporation. And it doesn't matter whether fixing it is on a "to do" list. It is just plain wrong for as long as it lasts.
If customers who expect the truth are "high maintenance," then I suggest there's something wrong with your perception.
My expectations are whatever I want them to be, thank you. I use many VOIP providers, and have for the last 10 years. So far F9 is the only one that has consistently quoted a low rate and charged a far higher one.
Interestingly, this is still going on. That makes it at least a week (and perhaps more). This thread has had no influence whatsoever on F9's point of view. The two lowest tier routes to Brazil cell phones are still quoted at 3.9 cents and charged at a minimum of 9.9 cents. Do you really see nothing wrong with that?
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about the size of the business I am dealing with. I simply expect honest and forthright dealings with me, and everybody else, as a customer |
|
1 edit | I just conducted a small survey, using the same Brazil cellular number in all cases.
I have queried the rates of a number of VOIP providers, then made a test call to the same number to see if the rate charged is identical to that quoted. (Let me point out that never once in this thread have I complained about anyone's rates, just the fact that F9 is quoting one rate and charging another. So this is not a "rate competition.")
With providers that offer more than one tier of service I have called at least two of those tiers.
Results:
VioP.MS--rate quoted and rate charged identical
CallwithUS--rate quoted and rate charged identical
Callcentric--rate quoted and rate charged identical
Inphonex--rate quoted and rate charged identical
Vonage--rate quoted and rate charged identical
MyWebCalls--rate quoted and rate charged identical
Future Nine--rate charged on lowest two tiers was 2.53 times the quoted price. Rate on premium tier was identical.
Some of these are smaller providers, some of them large. But the only one misquoting rates is Future Nine. |
|
 wcweaverPremium
join:2002-02-22
Fort Myers, FL
 ·Comcast
·voip.ms
·callwithus
| said by Toollio:I just conducted a small survey, using the same Brazil cellular number in all cases. I have queried the rates of a number of VOIP providers, then made a test call to the same number to see if the rate charged is identical to that quoted. (Let me point out that never once in this thread have I complained about anyone's rates, just the fact that F9 is quoting one rate and charging another. So this is not a "rate competition.") With providers that offer more than one tier of service I have called at least two of those tiers. Results: VioP.MS--rate quoted and rate charged identical CallwithUS--rate quoted and rate charged identical Callcentric--rate quoted and rate charged identical Inphonex--rate quoted and rate charged identical Vonage--rate quoted and rate charged identical MyWebCalls--rate quoted and rate charged identical Future Nine--rate charged on lowest two tiers was 2.53 times the quoted price. Rate on premium tier was identical. Some of these are smaller providers, some of them large. But the only one misquoting rates is Future Nine. Just so I understand you on this comparison. Did you actually have service or access to all of these providers to make the test calls and see the rate that was actually charged? Or is it a paper comparison.
That is a lot of providers. |
|
2 edits | Yes, I have access to all these providers. I made all the calls. That is the only way I would know whether providers were charging their quoted rates.
I use VOIP extensively. (I also use Voxalot for easier handling of multiple providers--Vonage excluded, of course).
That does not mean I had to pay for all the calls. With some providers I can make a call, hang up before it is answered, then check the call records page for the rate on the unanswered call.
For the record, I am in Brazil at the moment and the phone I called for this test is my Brazilian cellular. So I am in control of both ends of the calls. |
|
