Slashdot Mirror
VoIP Terms of Service May Surprise You
rabtech writes "If you are thinking of ditching a land-line for a VOIP provider such as Vonage or Net2Phone, you might want to think again. Software "End User license Agreements" have gotten a lot of attention in the past over their onerous and restrictive terms, but who would expect such things from your phone company? The prime example is Vonage, which states among other things that 'If Vonage, in its sole discretion believes that you have violated the above restrictions, Vonage may forward the objectionable material, as well as your communications with Vonage and your personally identifiable information to the appropriate authorities for investigation and prosecution and you hereby consent to such forwarding.'" (Read more below.)
"Don't forget the obligatory 'we can change these terms of service whenever we like and they become effective immediately when posted to our website.' Read for yourself here(1), here(2), and here(3). I won't put up with this kind of thing in my software and I certainly won't put up with it from my phone company!"
i'd hat to see what British Telecom comes out with when this (eventually) hit's the UK.
Really scary thing! It's sad tho that all kinds of companies does this all the time, trading your info, altho it's not quite as bad as your recorded calls...
This -- as well as the potential long-term storage of all content that passes through Vonage's network -- is why I think it's crazy people are so gung-ho about unregulated 'phone' service. Just one more sacrificial lamb to the information economy.
Sorry people, but no one is making you sign up for these services. Don't like that Gmail scans your inbox for advertising purposes? Don't bitch...just don't sign up. If it strikes a nerve with enough people that actually bother to read the ToS, then they will be forced to revise them. VoIP providers are no exception.
If you considered them, give them a call and tell them the reason why you eventually don't do business with them. Without customers they hsve nothing.
I looked around for quite some time on a VoIP provider and eventually settled on callVantage. There are some annoying things (cannot run behind router, wants to be first machine in line, so I had to get a 2nd IP addy from the cable company) with using this, however, their ToS isn't as bad as most other VoIP providers. Plus, though they are a rather large phone company, they have pressure on them to make this work because of their regualer landline & corporate services. I'm sure they take liberties with this being unregulated, however, they will be more noticed and have more pressure should they screw up. So far so good, quality has been wonderful, hardly any cutout or breaky voices due to downloading a lot (slackware off bt). The modem they provide isn't half-bad, and I got to talk my wife into letting me get a 2nd DHCP address, which provides a few other advantages for me. Plus, its a good $30.00 cheaper then the local lec.
So don't do anything illegal. Be serious, look at any of the forums on http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/voip regarding VOIP. Do you really think these companies have the time to keep up with monitoring your conversations and such when they barely stay afloat with user demand?
I'm glad that there are people out there willing to start a debate on what is acceptable or not in this regard.
What really bothers me is people who do not recognize that this is the cornerstone of democracy (a healthy debate).
WASHINGTON, Aug 4 (Reuters) - Internet phone systems, seen as the wave of the future in telecommunications, must be set up in such a way that conversations can be monitored by police and intelligence agencies, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission said in a tentative ruling on Wednesday.
By a vote of 5-0, the FCC said "Voice over Internet Protocol," or VoIP, providers should be subject to the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which ensures that law enforcers will be able to keep up with changing communications technologies.
The law does not apply to Internet-based communications but VoIP providers such as Vonage must comply because they are likely to replace much traditional phone service, the commission said.
The Justice Department, FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have argued that they must be able to monitor suspicious calls no matter how they are made and have pushed the FCC to adopt rules so they will always have access.
Technology advocates have worried that the fast-growing service, which promises to slash costs by routing phone calls over the Internet, could be harmed by excessive regulation.
The ruling does not affect other pending regulatory questions surrounding VoIP service, such as how it should be taxed, FCC Chairman Michael Powell said.
"Our tentative conclusion, while correct, is expressly limited to the requirements of the CALEA statute and does not indicate a willingness on my part to find that VoIP services are telecommunications services," Powell said at a commission meeting.
Several commissioners said this attempt to avoid larger regulatory questions weakened the legal argument underpinning the ruling, though they all voted to support it.
"There are less roundabout ways to achieve this result than the collection of tentative conclusions we offer here, and there are better ways to build a system that will guarantee judicial approval," said Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat.
The ruling does not apply to "non-managed" VoIP services like Skype, which have more in common with file-trading networks like Kazaa than traditional phone networks.
Skype offers "peer to peer" software that allows users to talk directly with each other rather than going through pathways set up by the carrier.
Separately, the FCC ruled that commercial "push to talk" services offered by wireless providers like Nextel Communications Inc. would be subject to CALEA.
The ruling on "push to talk" services is final, but the FCC will accept further public comments before making its ruling on VoIP final.
The FCC has yet to determine how long VoIP carriers need to comply with wiretap laws, and whether outside companies can manage compliance for these carriers.
VoIP carriers offer subscribers a low monthly fee for nationwide calls and discount rates for international connections.
Major traditional carriers like Verizon Communications and AT&T Corp. have launched VoIP offerings to match services offered by independent start-ups like Vonage.
Research firm Gartner Inc. estimates that 17 percent of North American phone lines will be replaced with VoIP lines by 2008.
-- Reuters
[ I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance ] -- Isaac Asimov
Corporations have been writing licenses of this sort for a long time - some of the worst are the ones that come packaged with software or that are hidden in 1 pt. font on websites.
/. article on the subject.
They're a little dated, but for more information, check out these links at the Consumer Project on Technology:
UCITA
Questionable Licenses
And here's a link to an old
Slashdot | Questionable EULA's
"'If Vonage, in its sole discretion believes that you have violated the above restrictions, Vonage may forward the objectionable material, as well as your communications with Vonage and your personally identifiable information to the appropriate authorities for investigation and prosecution and you hereby consent to such forwarding."
I see no problem with pursuing prosecution of a criminal act. Do you?
I currently use Vonage, and I can tell you this. At $15 per month, I'm willing to give up a little to save money. Before Vonage I was paying $50+ a month for my local/long distance carrier. And that $50 only gave me a few added services. Now with Vonage I have every option service under the sun (three way calling, voicemail, caller id, etc etc.) I don't plan to do anything illegal, so if they share some info about me I'm not that worried. Then again, I wasn't aware that they had complete free reign over my informtion, so I do plan to write some letters asking them to change their policies. I think overall though, just like anything else, you have to weigh your own concerns over privacy vs cost and make a decision that works for you.
Isn't this just a result of:
(a) Companies trying to cover their own back: Litigation is best avoided, so any responsibility will be pushed towards the customer - or at least away from the company.
(b) Profit: If they can "sneak in" terms that allow them to profit from *your* details, then they will try. Or at least, they don't want to be in a situation where they *cannot* do so, so they are better off asking for your concent first.
(c) Law Enforcement Agencies: Even if the agencies do not explicitly ask the providers for ease of tapping (perhaps they do? I dunno), they still think of voip as a telephone alternative, hence the same rules apply.
Really, this isn't so different from the EULAs from email providers, is it?
After all, if you want to keep things secret, ENCRYPT THEM : http://www.gnupg.org
Just my 2p...
I think end users should start scratching out and initialing undesireable portions of their TOS/Service Contract. Including the part where it can be changed without notice.
Divide by zero hurts my brain.
Because of this I can't really say that I blame companies like vonage for putting stuff like that in their end user. No one will read it, so the public won't care, and they'll look like good little boys to the government. Not half a bad idea if the time ever comes that we decide phase in a new phone architecture. All in all, I think this is a very good strategic move, but god what a bunch of assholes.
VOIP is becoming a big business. If you don't like one provider, try a different one. NuFone is a good one. It works extremely well with Asterisk too.
Does that mean I cannot make any more porno call?
Of course nowadays anything might be possible, but I'm pretty sure that type of clause is just posturing, they likely know they can never make it stick.
I agree these practices are not quite nice, but come on, look at the EULA you sign with just about any kind of service provider online. But did any of you ever stop to think about the difference between having and not having this kind of agreement?? Cause if you ask me, it doesn't make a difference. Have a look at the Patriot Act, that basically states that the US government doesn't care about your rights, they reserver the right to shove just about anyhing up your behind without giving you any notice at all!
We're all out there, somewhere, waiting to happen.
If everyone is doing it then you dont have a choice but to agree to most contracts/eulas therefore its a monopoly and should be investigated!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
do you really have a choice. And if the tradeoff to using the 1% that has a better TOS is major, are you better off. How many times do you choose a technically inferior product because the fine print offered slightly better terms.
These pioneers exist on the forefront of legal boundaries. A few years ago there was debate about whether foreign countries selling goods over the internet were bound by laws at the point of purchase or the location of the vendor.
VOIP have the same problem of uncertain legal comeback. What happens if you're making a call to/through China, and Beijing wants to have a listen? A major international dispute could erupt, and these companies don't want to be caught in the middle. These laws haven't even solidied in any one country, let alone across borders
It's not that they want to be Big Brother, it's just if Uncle Sam comes asking, they've let you know that they could hand over the information.
If a Vonage conversation trapped a paedophile who was grooming children, that's a pretty darn good argument for handing over the evidence. Maybe [the tapping] not legal in some countries, but what about others?
People who know how to construct tin foil hats should use encryption, plain and simple.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
1.3.1 Prohibited Uses You agree to use the Service and Device only for lawful purposes. This means that you agree not to use them for transmitting or receiving any communication or material of any kind when in Vonage's sole judgment the transmission, receipt or possession of such communication or material (i) would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to a civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law or (ii) encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to a civil liability, or otherwise violate any applicable local, state, national or international law....If Vonage, in its sole discretion believes that you have violated the above restrictions etc etc.
So not only do you have to avoid criminal actions, you also have to avoid civil liability. And Vonage can, of course, use their "sole discretion" to decide what is and is not illegal / slanderous / whatever.
People will call this a tinfoil hat case, because in practice, Vonage will not have the resources to spy on people and turn them in if they say something bad. But that sounds very much like security through obscurity. The government and corporations are building a society where privacy can be violated at will. Sure, 99% of people will be unaffected, but then most Soviets weren't picked up by the KGB, and most Iraqis weren't arrested by Saddam Hussein's mob. The "if you've nothing to hid, you've nothing to fear" argument carries much weight with the general public -- as if no innocent people have ever been harmed by their government!
I have been wanting VoIP becouse I thought it would be cheaper, but for now, prices seems to be the same as ordinary phonelines.. So now I REALLY dont see the point.
There is something that I don't understand about VoIP (and I am trying to be serious).
Suppose I am using a large portion of my allowed broadband downloading some stuff... would it affect my call?
No, it's a republic. Go look up the difference if you don't know it.
I believe that there are cases where the principal that governs a republic - that the welfare of the individual should be upheld by society despite the view of the masses - should basically hold sway over all public goods and services. Further, I would say that sticking that line in a EULA somewhere violates that protection.
You're basically saying, "sorry, it doesn't work that way, their conduct is dependant soley on our monetary votes." Why? I believe it is in the spirit of the law that this should be the case, even if not in the letter yet. This is exactly the kind of thing that should be protected by legislation in a republic.
I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a law within the next ten years to the effect of "a goods or services provider can't disclose personal information used to track the purchase or usage of their goods or services without a court order."
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I agree the terms sound annoying, but you can understand why they did it.
The Department of Justice would be all over Vonage if VoIP services were being used by criminals or even worse by 'terrorists.'
It wasn't until recently that the fcc ruled VoIP must be tappable. Give them some more time. They might change their TOS in light of this FCC ruling.
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
Can I use my dialup modem over Voip? ... wait a moment...
hmmm
Nothing to see here.. move on. Just another company exhibiting SYOAF (Save Your Own Arse First)..
In other news, for those of us using Mac OS X and Safari-- remember, whenever they give you obnoxiously long terms of service to read, use the "Summarize" service.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Once again a /. informant has become overzealous en route to forming a coalition of tinfoil-laden individuals.
Courts tend to take most EULAs with a grain of salt - they frown on "legally binding agreements" where one party can not alter the terms of the agreement. The main logic here is... let's say a corporation you're subscribed to offers a new service, and retroactively changes the TOS to abide by the rules applicable to that given service. Say that the added clause is, "our constituents, lessees of a service provided herein by Corporation X, are bound within contract to not breathe. Since you're subscribed to the service at the time of the change, it's implied that those who are in agreement with the terms thereto should stop breathing. But wait, did they have any say in the changes that were retroactively applied to a contract they signed years ago? Nope. It doesn't give people any choice, and, as a result, is not taken with much gravity.
Anyways... EULAs are crap. Even microsoft realizes that.
This is probably just a case of CYA so they don't have any problems with wiretaps.
http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/339067 1
0 0.asp
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117270,
They are just trying to look like the good guy to the FCC. Mabe in hopes the FCC backs them in beating State Taxes!
What difference does that make exactly? You agree with your current telco to whatever standards they enforce with regards to changes in their service agreement. Furthermore, any federal body who would have access to your phone records can get access to them now, today, as we speak, they are required to allow phone taps, etc. This is simply an incarnation of the same.
I have to admit haven't managed to find the section the author mentioned during my brief scans of the three links, but it's a bit early to be reading EULA's for crap I didn't even buy. :)
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere idiocy.
What about transparent end-point to end-point encryption over VoIP? Not part of the VoIP standard(s)? If not, why?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Perhaps slightly off-topic here, but are there any VOIP providers doing business in Canada currently? Of the companies I've seen mentioned here on /., only one offers Canadian phone numbers, but still requires a US mailing address.
Also, a company up here wouldn't have to deal with Patriot act laws. But that's a separate rant.
If the 'free'market saves a company money, it GOOD!
If the 'free'market saves a person some money, at the expensive of a company, that's BAD and means laws have to be passed to stop it.
..an ISP covering its own butt than a phone company.
I just canceled vonage after two years of service. Their quality of service has gone to shit. They charged a $30 sign up fee and they charge a $40 cancellation fee unless you can somehow provide the original manually and packaging with the unit. What a rip off.
but it's my understanding US contract law will not allow a clause such as "we can change this at anytime and you're bound by the new terms."
I think US contract law allows them to do anything they like as long as the majority of consumers are kept at a financial level that a challenge is simply impossible.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
What's so hard about...
/. about someone getting subpoenaed via the Patriot Act for using VoIP to make prank calls.
"Don't want to get caught doing stupid shit? Don't do stupid shit, then!" ?
I look forward to the first story I read on
*sigh*
[an error occured while processing this directive]
I just ordered Vonage, and I'm sorry to admit that I didn't give a real close look at the terms. But it seems that they are reserving the right to back up all of my calls and listen to them, at their discretion. I'm not comfortable with that. If they have a warrant, then it really doesn't matter. I don't do anything illegal anyway, so I'm not worried about that. But to be monitored by a company without any authority is too much. Certainly the transmission could be intercepted (it's over Cable, after all), but that's not a voluntary assignment.
So whose terms are more reasonable? I looked at VoicePulse, BroadVoice, Packet8 and a few others. I liked Vonage the most. Who makes it clear that they do not monitor or store phone calls without real cause?
They don't have to "monitor" your conversation right now, all they have to do is store it. Then in 5-10 years there will be CPU power and software to produce a searchable transcript of everything you ever said on the phone. Sliced and diced demographically, that data will be worth a fortune. If it can be done it will be done.
Trust me.....they won't be able to say they're not a telephone provider for much longer. The federal government will not let these VoIP providers be exempt from regulations (read: Universal Service Fund, CALEA). They can become a tremendous source of revenue for the government.
This is why VoIP is suggested to be before your router. If it's the first thing conected to your DSL/CABLE it can decide how much of the bandwidth it needs and then let the rest of it pass to the rest of your computers. If it is after your router then it has to fight with all the rest of the gear for it's bandwidth. So far though even though I make it fight for it's bandwidth, it's never lost. Vonage is an undefeated bandwidth prize fighter. Of course my D-Link router is an excellent referee.
The comment has already been made. Let's move it along people. Nothing to see here.
If you dont break the law, you have nothing to worry about.
I am sure that they do not sit and listen and record content of calls all day long. They do however drop in from time to time to examine quality and misuse (misuse being defined as anyone who knowing tries to circumvent restrictions or steals access). Phone companies already do the same thing and have done so for years. I know, I have worked for one.
This "news" is simply more propoganda created by the makers of tin foil. Damnit they must be rich.
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
Any time a contract is updated the party updating the contract (you or the company) is required to give 30 days written notice of the intended change. If the new terms are not agreeable then one of two things can happen, 1) the party who updated the contract can keep the original signed contract in force, 2) both parties can decide to terminate the original signed contract (THIS MUST BE MUTUAL).
I got out of my POS Cingular cell phone this way, they mailed me a revised contract and I called them on it. The decided they'd rather loose my business than keep our original contract in force, thanks and good ridance to the worst cell phone company I've ever used.
You said 2) that the termination must be mutual and then you said "They decided they would rather loose your business".
If as you claim, the termination must be mutual, than that means they do not have the right to loose your business, they must keep their original contract.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It is legal, but it's boilerplate that allows them to make minor adjustments to the contract. However, I believe they're obligated to inform you.
This sig no verb.
In the US, the Homeland Security Act gives the government the right to both tap your telephone and monitor email:
Under this Title, information on private citizens' credit card purchases, telephone calls, banking transactions, and travel patterns could be compiled and used to assemble a "profile" which might mark innocent people as terrorist suspects if their "profile" matches that of a known or suspected operative.
Privatizing this is the next obvious step. Big Brother is watching.
They didn't like their old contract (hence why they tried to push a modified one off on me), yes I could have told them too damn bad as they had another 15 months of obligation according to that contract, but I was tired of their shitty service anyway so why would I want to stay in that contract? They didn't like the contract and neither did I so it was decided that my contract could just become null and void.
Maybe I should have phrased it a bit differently... Both parties can at any time mutually decide to terminate any contract in the US... BOTH and MUTUAL...
In my example Cingular was no longer happy with the contract, it just so happened that I was also no longer happy with the contract. Up to this point Cingular had not done anything that would have allowed me to terminate my contract as they never promised (in my contract) that my cell phone would work. So ya I could have forced them to keep to the old contact, but that wouldn't have made much sense. I had already been looking for a way to get out of it without penalty.
I should probably also note that I had to go through 2 levels of customer service before I found someone who actually knew anything about contract law. The first couple of people told me that I didn't have a choice, this is BS and I treated it as such. The third person I talked to told me Cingular didn't want to keep anyone using the old contract so if the new one was unacceptable then they requested we terminate the contract without any penalties. She was intelligent enough not to tell me I had to terminate, just that Cingular would prefer that I did terminate.
As a side note, the only change they made to the contract was a clause that they could modify the contract at any time in the future without any notice to me and that I automatically accepted any such modifications. That clause wouldn't hold up in any court in the US, but you'll see it alot in contracts, just because it won't hold water doesn't mean they won't try. Alot of people will be shown that clause later and think that they have no recourse... In the US ignorance of the law is common and many companies use that to their advantage... Ever seen one of those signs at the car wash stating they're not responsible for damage to your car while they're washing it, guess what, they are responsible, always will be, but most of the people with claims will see that sign and drop their complaints.
We run into credit card fraud often enough and we're so sick of it that make every effort to report the fraud to the credit card company, and we'll be delighted to forward any info we've got (such IP addresses, the e-mail address used, etc).
I think Vonage is simply stating that if you do illegal stuff (read "credit card fraud" or illegal telemarketing or other fraud) they'll report you. I don't see anything wrong with that.
The other thing that I've found disturbing (about Vonage in this case) is that they can (and do!) change their prices without warning.
I just happened to notice that their international call rates from Canada to Asia and Europe went up the other day -- still only a few cents per minute, but 5c/min --> 8c/min is a 60% increase! -- and they didn't mention this to customers (not as a note at the bottom of the bill, not as a note on their website, no notification at all).
i just don't think that these services are ready for primetime yet.
there's still too many kinks to work out...i.e...your power goes out...so does your phone.
your net connection fails, so does your phone.
and there is the 9-1-1 situation that someone else pointed out.
give these services a couple of years to work out the kinks and come up with work-arounds and backup systems.
and fwiw...you may as well give up on the privacy concerns. a programmer friend of mine with citigroup says that there is so much info out there already on just about everyone in this country based on credit card purchases, online habits, and other situations to fill the library of congress several times over.
so these one or two line clauses in a TOS aren't really a hill of beans compared to what's already out there on each of you.
(tin foil hat and tinfoil hat linux [ http://tinfoilhat.shmoo.com/ ] can now be applied.
Is it 5:30 yet?
Another good reason to hail the softphone, autoencrypted by keys in its addressbook. Goodbye snoops, goodbye phone "numbers", hello privacy and ease. Vonage offers a 1st gen SIP softphone for Windows and PocketPC, with PalmOS planned for this year. Where's a standard PalmOS SIP softphone with addressbook-integrated encryption?
--
make install -not war
my mama always told me never say, or write anything that you don't want to see reported in the news paper. that being said, i throughly believe the following to be true...
:o)"
as long as the u.s. bill of rights says i have freedom of speech, i can say the following:
1. "bush for 'ex-president' in 2004".
2. "microsoft is choaking over linux. why?
3. "software patents should be software copyrights."
4. "free mickey mouse(c)(r)(p)!"
One thing that bothers me in their term of service is how a home account is strictly for home only. It even states in detail not to be used for telecommuting, which I would think would only be for those who work out of the home 90% of the time, but I could be wrong. I have no probs using my regular home phone to join a teleconference from home if the kids are sick. I really believe we need protection from terms of service that can change. When you get a credit card at a 10% fixed rate, that should mean they can't change it in 6 months, but they now can! Why even have terms of service just one phrase "we'll do what we want and you can't touch us."
The reason why the U.S. Constitution once protected citizens from unlimited government power is that such power can and will be abused. When unlimited power can be abused, you are no longer secure in your liberty regardless of whether you diligently abide by the law or not. Legal innocence does not protect you, because all it takes for you to get into trouble is to be in the wrong person's way. Hey, maybe a friend of the local police chief wants to buy your house, or maybe your company is bidding against one in which a powerful official has a financial interest. That's the way corruption works.
The Bush administration claims the right to hold anyone they want indefinitely and incommunicado without charge or recourse, arguing that this way they'll be better able to protect us against "terrorists". Most Americans seem willing to grant them these powers. The truth, however, is that they need them in order to avoid accountability, conceal their own failures, and, inevitably, to achieve ulterior goals that have nothing to do with terrorism. Otherwise, wouldn't they just relish the opportunity to bring the "evil-doers" to justice in as public a forum as possible?
Back in the old days when Ma Bell was The Phone Company and dinosaurs walked the earth, AT&T and the various smaller local phone companies held on to their common carrier status. The fact that they were not allowed to listen in on your calls ment that they were not responible for not doing so.
So now what keeps some injured third party from suing Vonage over the actions of their customers?
The plain ol' telephone service (POTS) companies were granted the status of "common carriers" by the various laws establishing their regulated monopoly status. In my (non-lawyer) understanding, this both required them to carry all traffic and exempted them from liability for the content of such traffic. Thus, while it was illegal for people to conduct illegal business over the telephone, the telephone company could not be charged with a crime for allowing it. They could, however, be required to allow the cops to tap the line (with a warrant, I think). It sounds like this EULA was written because these folks are not common carriers and are thus worried about potential liability.
I thought one of the major points of VoIP was to bypass telco companies altogether.
I was under the impression that once the technology advance beyond the party-trick stage, that it would essentially be an underground method of voice communication which all the Open Sorcerer types would get into specifically because it would do away with exactly the kind of bullshit clauses and user agreements and legal garbage which are in evidence in the posted article. --That and be a heckuvalot less expensive than paying some telco massive long distance charges.
Seemed to me that this would make the telcos very worried and that they would try to deter the use of VoIP any way possible, or at the very least attempt to trick everybody into thinking VoIP was a service which people can only properly buy under their corporate umbrella.
In other words, why would anybody sign up for this kind of 'service' at all? Isn't it just a matter of running some OS program on either end of a net connection?
But like I said. . , I could be missing something here.
-FL
I've been using Packet8 (www.packet8.net) for the past 6 months and even gave up my land line soon after signing up for their VOIP service. I did a lot of research and even tried Vonage, SIPPhone and Packet8 before settling on Packet8. The main reason for going with Packet8 was that it was that it had the best price... and after trying out Vonage and SIPPhone, I also liked Packet8 much better. The real cool thing is that I moved to Asia about a month ago, and I brought my Packet8 phone and plugged it in, and now I can call the USA for free! I can keep in touch with my friends and family, just for the price of of my internet connection, which I need anyway. Couldnt care less about contract issues as it gives me more than my moneys worth!
There will always be Terms of Service that have the appearance, or even in some cases the effect, of an overbearing, overly invasive limiting intrusion on things the general public consider to be inalienable freedoms...
Some of these scary statements contained within TOS' are generally unenforcable or practically unmanageable. Others may very well be invasive and violating (if they are ever applied).
Companies will ALWAYS stretch the boundaries of the law and general acceptability with their terms, as it is their frontline of defense in the CYA (Cover your arse) battle with lawyers and regulators.
VOIP COs like Vonage have already been forced into capitulating tax monies and other regulations normally only intended for POTS services and Telcos - because the lobbying groups and political machines are hard at work trying to protect the status quo: phone taxes and regulations to generate such taxes are REVENUE. When states, localities, businesses and governments at large stand to lose revenue, they fight tooth and nail.
Back to the TOS issue: It is far easier to accept an agreement, even an unfavorable one, to use services such as VOIP. The same can be said for a lot of different things: credit cards, insurance policies, parking garages (who say they are't responsible if your car gets trashed while you park with them), or those bast*rds at the mobile phone companies (2 years???).
Our main defense as consumers is to boycott products whose Terms we do not agree with -- however that approach is more theoretical than practicable. If that approach worked, who among us would agree in every EULA that the software company wasn't responsible for anything its software did -- And further that their software wasn't guaranteed to do ANYTHING or be fit for any purpose?
I would look to organizations similar in nature to the ACLU and others to eventually have to sue entities or engage in other legal remedies to force a change in the way these agreements are handled.
I have Vonage, and I read the agreement... I doubt I will ever get 'violated', but it sure isnt a great feeling to know I am not by default 'protected'.
~fight the power >>-->kill your computer
Short, over-simplified answer:
Someone thought about this a while back, and came up with something called Quality of Service (QoS). This has little or nothing to do with service quality, as the name suggests, but is rather a way to prioritize packets. VoIP packets generally get priority over other packets because voice is more sensitive to delay and packet loss.
When your connection approaches your maximum bandwidth, packets are dropped. Ideally, your call would not be affected, as the packets being dropped would be the 'other' packets -- file transfers, web pages, etc, etc.
"Storage is somewhere around a buck a gig, so that means I could store a thousand average calls for about a buck."
That would be about a dollar a GIG retail cost.
"Mandatory Arbitration. Any dispute or claim between End User and 8x8 arising out of or relating to the Service or Equipment provided in connection with this Agreement shall be resolved by arbitration before a single arbitrator administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Commercial Arbitration Rules . The arbitration shall take place in San Jose, California and shall be conducted in English. The arbitrator's decision shall follow the plain meaning of the relevant documents, and shall be final and binding. Without limiting the foregoing, the parties agree that no arbitrator has the authority to: (i) award relief in excess of what this Agreement provides; or (ii) award punitive or exemplary damages. Judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. All claims shall be arbitrated individually and Customer will not bring, or join any class action of any kind in court or in arbitration or seek to consolidate or bring previously consolidated claims in arbitration. CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF ANY RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL."
I find it interesting the common tone on slashdot that corporations are inherently evil and the government is inherently our friend. People posting such should ask what organizations have mass murdered, again and again, 10s of millions of people? Was it corporations? Or was it governments? Which organization stripped 110,000 citizens of their property and put them in concentration camps without trial or recourse? It was the US government in WW2.
I have been working in telecom for about 10 years, but this is still no indication of knowledge. Here goes:
Normal voice phones in just about every country in the world use 8-bit encoding at 8,000 times per second. So a normal voice conversation is 64kb/s. This can be compressed down to 32kb/s with no loss of quality by removing the samples unless you are actually talking. When we first started doing that, people got creeped out. They were used to hearing noise from the other room. We got around it by inserting noise back in the conversation at the other end.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
I have to admit, I DID read the terms of service, but somehow didn't read that part for some reason. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I'm a privacy advocate also, and I will NEVER volunteer any information unless required by law or court order.
However, how is this worse than the land-line companies? The Ma and Baby Bells require a Social Security Number to sign up for service. Vonage does not, although they require a credit card, which I suppose someone could find my SSN from that, but at least they don't have it outright.
And don't ISPs' TOS have similar clauses?
Even worse, what about all those fancy cell phones you people have with GPS on them? Not only do cell companies require an SSN, driver's license, and other sensitive information, but NOW they can pinpoint your exact location and offer it up to the cops! Hey, to prevent terrorism and drugs, right?
Unfortunately, a private phone line is truly an oxymoron. I wish it weren't the case, but VERY few people care or even believe the collectivist and socialist ideologies that we ALL must lose our rights and privacy in order for us to be safe.
I'm just seeing it like it is, and it ain't pretty.
I have a lot more power against a big corporation than I do against the government.
You can't vote Wal-Mart out of your town, but grown-ups can vote the government out of office. Start by putting Libertarians in local government.
At least, until they change the law...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
We're starting to see product and service liability reform not through legislation but through TOS agreements. I suppose as long as we still have choices we're okay though. When I shopped for a land line service I saw quite a range of terms. The cheapest provider wanted me to agree have them turn over my account to a collection agency whenever payment was overdue three days and to pay all their legal costs, including attorney's fees, associated with them trying to collect the money. I settled for a provider charging a little more that wouldn't try and hold me liable for their screwups.
Without question, everybody wants to get the cheapest service. It's like water seeking the path of least resistance on a slope. The only reason companys making unreasonable contractual demands can survive, and thrive, under our system of choice is because there are so many illiterate, ignorant, and/or uncaring people out there anxious to save a virtual dollar who don't read the fine print, don't care about the implications, or don't worry it will ever apply to them. You should encrypt, but it's still good to go with a service provider that will fight to protect your information against casual or unreasonable inquiry all the way to the Supreme Court.
It just says if you are breaking the law and they get a subpeona they will serve the information requested.
Don't break the fucking law!
When I talk on my Vonage phone, I use as many technical terms and acronyms as possible. The US Patent and Trademark Office is proof that even if the government listens to my conversation, they won't be able to find anyone that can understand it.
You want to buy some oceanfront property in Montana? It's real cheap and stuff... yeah...
So quickly we forget Lili Tomlin in the SNL ad:
"Here at the Phone Company we handle eighty-four billion calls a year, serving everyone from presidents and kings to scum of the earth. We realize that every so often you can't get an operator, for no apparent reason your phone goes out of order [plucks plug out of switchboard] or perhaps you get charged for a call you didn't make.
We don't care.
Watch this:
[bangs on a switch panel]
Just lost Peoria!
[laughs]
You see, this phone system consists of a multibillion-dollar matrix of space-age technology that is so sophisticated, even we can't handle it. But that's your problem, isn't it? Next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string.
[laughs]
We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company.
If you do not wish a thing heard, do not say it.
I wonder if there is *any* privacy these days.
You make a good point there. Tape storage is far from cheap and still needs many of the same things worried about, but compared to on-line storage of large volumes of data it's a lot more affordable.
Of course, that assumes you're not accessing it particuarly often. With PATRIOT etc that may not be a safe assumption, and it may even turn out cheaper to maintain live data instead. I doubt it though - a good robotic tape storage room, indexed tapes and a well indexed library should do the job well enough.
Alas, my company is too small for that sort of thing - we need better automation and responsiveness than manual tape access, but don't really need fully online access times. Nonetheless we've gone for on-line storage as robo-tape systems etc are well out of our league. *sigh*.
OK, I think I already got it. It would be impossible to store that many floppy disks even in the Library of Congress, so we have nothing to worry about.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Verizon's VoIP offering is called VoiceWing ( http://www.verizon.com/voicewing ) and it is better than the Verizon Metro Unlimited plan you mentioned.
The service you (parent author) use has some special features not supported by Voicewing, but Voicewing offers a LOT more time.
Voicewing offers unlimited* calls TO numbers in the US and all US territories (including Guam). This works from just about any broadband connection, even from outside the US! [*-Normal usage is less than 5000 minutes, but there's no cap.] They also have decent international rates.
They offer conditional call forwarding for when your device doesn't have connectivity, when the line is busy, and when you don't answer. You get 3-way calling, caller ID, call waiting, and more.
And you can get phone numbers that are local to many cities in the US. You pick your city/area-code and all calls to that number are sent to your device. You can get multiple numbers to your device, too. (Also they support keeping old numbers from previous services if you want to kee a current phone number.)
You plug your regular phone into the VoIP device and dial just like before (except you dial all numbers as long distance).
Also, more and newer features are planned and on the way (or so I'm told).
It runs about $40/month and the device is provided free. There's a $40 setup charge.
(I'm not advertising; I'm educating and sharing my experience.)
As far as 911 calls are concerned - you tell them your service address, and all calls to 911 will report your listed service address as the originating location. (This is VERY IMPORTANT!) When you move, or take your equipment to a new location for an extended period, UPDATE THAT INFO!
I'm sure you don't want calls to 911 being sent to your 'old address', especially when you've moved out of state.
So far, I really like the service. Good call quality over DSL - the people I have talked with don't even know it's VoIP.
To summarize... VoIP won't replace regular lines for a few years. Prices and features will vary widely. But the VoIP industry wants to get people away from their POTS (Plain Old Telephone System) by providing services and features that are competitive. And a LOT of people are getting rid of their land-lines completely -- opting for cell phones and cable modems.
As the VoIP services continue to become more like POTS (like offering 911 support, etc.), they will become more appealing to the general public.