Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vonage Signs Deal to Escape Patent Infringement

Posted by Zonk on from the dodge-this dept.

Tone Def writes "In the wake of a court injunction barring Vonage from infringing on three Verizon patents, the VoIP provider has signed an agreement with VoIP, Inc. to carry all Vonage calls over its network. Two of the Verizon patents Vonage was found to have infringed covered connecting VoIP calls to switched networks, so the agreement means Vonage is no longer infringing those patents. 'By signing the agreement with VoIP, Inc., Vonage has provided itself with a measure of protection against the injunction. VoIP, Inc. owns its own network, describing VOICEONE as the "first, seamless nationwide IP network." Perhaps most crucially from Vonage's standpoint, VoIP, Inc. claims to own the intellectual property around its network and services.'"

60 comments

  1. How about the third patent? by gravesb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I will assume that VIOP will indemnify Vonage when they lose a patent case in court, but what about the third patent Vonage "infringed" upon? What services will they have to restrict in order to avoid violating that patent?

    --
    http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
    1. Re:How about the third patent? by IDontAgreeWithYou · · Score: 2, Informative

      The third has to do with accessing VOIP over wifi, so it would only affect that specific technology, which they could no longer support without affecting most of their users.

      --
      Finding other idiots on /. that agree with your opinion doesn't make it any less stupid.
    2. Re:How about the third patent? by BlueTrin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      From the vague description of the patents, it seems that these so-called patents are alit bit abusive, I wonder if the patent system should not be changed so in the case of an invalid patent, you would have to pay a fee for trying to abuse the system.

      There is no barrier to make a patent, for a company it is ridiculously easy and cheap, an australian lawyer even patented the wheel to prove the flaws in the system.

      I work in trading and saw that Goldman patented an automatic trading system, but the description is so vague that anything that would be a database + a statistical engine + an order system could fall under this patent, it is quite ridiculous since there is no other way to make an automatic trading system, and since the patent is only from the late 90s I know that people wrote such systems before they patented it ...

      IMHO an invalid patent should be punishable by a fine.

      --
      Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
    3. Re:How about the third patent? by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      Holy crap. How can you get a patent on [using a network protocol] over [a network technology]. I'm going to go patent [HTTP] over [Ethernet]. Then I'm going to patent [DNS] over [A Packet Switched Network]. Then I'm going to patent [IP] over [Fiber Optic Cables].

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  2. yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess, I don't want to get a real phone. Plus I never sent the rebate in on that little box, so I'll feel even more ripped off if Vonage goes under.

  3. Meanwhile, at Verizon HQ... by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Funny

    Curses!!! Foiled Again!!!

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:Meanwhile, at Verizon HQ... by mccrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While switching to VoIP stops the infringement, hopefully, Vonage is still very much likely to be on the hook for past infringement. Standard disclaimers apply ("IANAL"), but this would seem to be the pattern based on other recent patent infringement disputes in this space.

      --
      Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
  4. Just curious how old are these patents by codepunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I handed a boss of mine a study paper about 12 years ago that covered probably 90% of the claims. I don't think it was ever released public which would kill any possible use as prior art.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:Just curious how old are these patents by Malc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your old boss has worked for Verizon for the last 11 years. :P

    2. Re:Just curious how old are these patents by Brento · · Score: 1

      I handed a boss of mine a study paper about 12 years ago that covered probably 90% of the claims.

      Don't go admitting that publicly. Verizon might sue you next.

      --
      What's your damage, Heather?
    3. Re:Just curious how old are these patents by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that it would kill use as prior art; you might wanna try contacting Vonage ;-)

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  5. VoIP calls from WiFi Phones? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How can you patent something like that? Could I patent "VoIP calls from Ethernet connected phones" or "VoIP calls from token-ring connected phones?" Something also tells me Verizon only patented this so that they could squash competition and keep their increasingly useless POTS system viable.

    This just shows how our patent system is completely incompatible with TCP/IP. If you can patent one layer of the stack, you can halt innovation on other systems.

    Also, aren't there Skype phones that do this? Why isn't Verizon suing them?

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    1. Re:VoIP calls from WiFi Phones? by Raistlin77 · · Score: 1

      There was also Net2Phone, which Vonage's lawyer brought up during the trial, but apparently nobody was paying attention...

    2. Re:VoIP calls from WiFi Phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already own those patents, along with several ways to dial, including "visualizing or otherwise imagining the person, voice, visage, odor or any other identifying feature prior to or during the act of initiating a call." I expect to reap millions whn I sue eveybidy in a couple of years.

    3. Re:VoIP calls from WiFi Phones? by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, aren't there Skype phones that do this? Why isn't Verizon suing them?

      don't worry, once a sufficiently large portion of the customer disconnections are attributed to skype, they too will be sued.

      it's importnat, however, to wait for the "infringer" in question to get close to profitability before slapping the infringment case on them.

      --
      sarcasm:
      -noun
      1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
    4. Re:VoIP calls from WiFi Phones? by mattatwork · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are a number of providers besides Vonage... * AT&T CallVantage, Broadvoice, Cable & Wireless (Global product), Clearwire (only for Clearwire Wireless customers), Comcast, Covad (ClearEdge Office, Pro and Integrated access), Cox Communications (Northern Virginia)(Parts of Rhode Island), Engin (Australia), FaktorTel (Australia), fonVantage, iTalkBB, Jajah (connects two regular telephones), Lingo, Mediacom, Net2Phone, Packet8 (8x8), Primus Canada, Qwest, Sipgate (Germany, Austria, UK), SIPphone, Skype, SunRocket, Telio (Norway), Tesco (UK), Time Warner, Verizon VoiceWing, VoicePulse, Voip.com, VoipBuster, Voipfone (mainly UK), Voxbone, Wengo and Yahoo! Voice.

      I think they should have only gotten a patent if they created each layer of VoIP. I don't think they're out to squash the competition (that would probably invite an antitrust lawsuit), they want to make as much of the money possible from VoIP as possible. They'll probably license "their technology" and make a killing from collecting licensing fees from their competitors....

      --
      I've refrained from profanity, racial/ethnic epitaphs and am 5'11" - how can I be ranked as troll?
    5. Re:VoIP calls from WiFi Phones? by cdrguru · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Fortunately, the "increasingly useless POTS" system is the one that has requirements for reliability and service. There are no such tariffs in place for VOIP - the level of service is up to the vendor and if they go down for 24 hours no regulator is going to be at their doorstep. It is the same as if your cable TV goes out for 24 hours. No big deal.

      Vonage would not be able to compete with Verizon or any other POTS provider if the same rules were in place on it. Neither would the other VOIP carriers. They are, for the most part, utilizing the in-place infrastructure of the POTS system and other broadband services to sell you something that costs them virtually nothing. None of the hardware is theirs, or such an incredibly small part of it is theirs that it doesn't matter.

      As a businss model this is wonderful - you get to have a business that collects money for something that they do not have to build or maintain. Essentially they are selling bits at a pretty high price.

      If you take this to the extreme point of Verizon shutting down their POTS system, where would that leave Vonage and others? Their business wouldn't exist either because the broadband DSL customers would be gone and the phones that people call would be gone. Yes, you could call your friends with cell phones but try ordering a pizza or calling the fire department. This is the absurd trap that we seem to be moving towards.

      If the POTS system becomes unviable to operate the US phone system will look an awful lot more like places like Italy. Phones work sometimes and not others and you can never be sure if someone you want to call can actually be reached.

    6. Re:VoIP calls from WiFi Phones? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      I can order a pizza online, and if there's a fire I have my cell phone.

      And there's absolutely no reason IP networks can't have the same service requirements that POTS systems have. In fact, Verizon's FiOS system installs a UPS backup to allow access during power outages. For a fifty bucks, I can get the same reliability from my cable broadband service.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    7. Re:VoIP calls from WiFi Phones? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      This just shows how our patent system is completely incompatible with TCP/IP. Patents are incompatible with the Internet.
      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    8. Re:VoIP calls from WiFi Phones? by nolife · · Score: 2, Informative

      No one is milking off of anyone. If you are making a call between two people using VoIP, there is no POTS involved at all. Therefore, no POTS fees and no additional costs to the POTS providers. The call is 100% void of any POTS lines. If you are making a VoIP --> POTS call, only half of the people involved are using POTS, and that person with the POTS line is paying the POTS provider for the POTS service. Where is the something for nothing coming from that you speak of? What if we were all using CB radios to communicate with each other, how about IM, email, webcams, online whitboards, live meetings. What if I have no "home" phone service at all, should I still pay the POTS providers to maintain it just in case I change my mind later?

      Your agruement is like saying we should all pay 42 cents to send an email because that is how much it cost the post office to send a mail and they have very strict requirements.

      I use VoIP at home, I know I have given up my 99.999% uptime and that is acceptable to me. Why is it acceptable? Because I have other means of communication as well and for about 1/4 of the cost of my POTS line, I have about 20 more features and more flexability that I could not get at any price with my POTS service. Sorry, it should not cost me $2/month to keep my phone number unlisted and unpublished from the Verizon phonebook, that is what Verizon was charging for years, what does it take for that to happen, a one time click in a data field and I pay $24 a year for that? Why were they charging people for that unservice? Because if a significant portion of their customers (which was everyone with a "phone" a few years ago) opted out, they would not be able to sell valuble yellow page space in those phone books. How about $5/month for *69 or $3/month for tone dialing? Are these the same fees and charges that you claim are justified and all providers should charge the same? You know, on even ground with each other.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    9. Re:VoIP calls from WiFi Phones? by Cramer · · Score: 1

      there's absolutely no reason IP networks can't have the same service requirements [as] POTS
      Except they aren't designed for or dedicated to voice traffic. It's an unreliable transport medium. Placing traffic that requires some measure of reliablity on such a system and then bitching about it being unreliable is laughable. Mandating reliablity standards suitable for voice is also laughablly misplaced. IP networks are reasonablly reliable for most purposes, but not critical, emergency communications.

      Verizon's FiOS system
      ... IS A PHONE SERVICE. Since it carries "lifeline service", it must meet the same reliablity standards as any other part of the PSTN... 99.999% uptime. And for the record, Bellsouth has been installing similar systems for at least a decade... they just don't tell you there's a tiny fibre node on the side of your house. (I don't know how (un)common they are, but I've seen more than one.)
    10. Re:VoIP calls from WiFi Phones? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Skype is based in Belgium, where Verizon's patents won't hold water. They could still get some sort of injunction to stop any US based activities that Skype engages in, but they are not as lucrative and straightforward a target as Vonage.

  6. The original article about the patents infrigement by BlueTrin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Vonage found guilty of infringing three Verizon patents

    --
    Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
  7. et another ridiculous summary headline... by Raistlin77 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    C'mon Zonk, seriously. "Vonage signs deal to excape patent infringement"?! They've already been ruled against, so no deal would allow them to "escape patent infringement", aside from a deal with Verizon. It merely allows them to continue operating whether the judge rules to enforce the injunction against them now or allow them to appeal first.

    Seriously, can we get some editors that are worth a damn!

    1. Re:et another ridiculous summary headline... by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      So? They really are escaping the patent infringement... in the future. One would assume any mention of escape to involve changing the status of the escapee in the future. You don't generally hear about people escaping something and changing the past, unless you're driving a fine DMC made machine.

      This deal means that the WORST that can happen is that Vonage pays some fixed-price settlement/damages/whatever and then the problem is done with. Vonage won't get stuck with an injunction or paying eternal license fees to Verizon.

      The issue of if Vonage can eat the settlement fee is another issue, but assuming that they can, (other than the third patent) this effectively solves their problems.

    2. Re:et another ridiculous summary headline... by Raistlin77 · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the article:

      Last month, a federal jury found that Vonage's VoIP services infringed on three patents owned by Verizon after deliberating for less than a day. Two of the patents cover connecting VoIP calls to public switched telephone networks (PSTN); the third covers VoIP calls made using WiFi phones. While the jury found that Vonage did not knowingly infringe on Verizon's patents, it did award the telecom $58 million in damages.

      Both the summary and the article CLEARLY state that the deal is to protect Vonage from the injuntion, NOT the infringement. By striking the deal, Vonage is stopping it's infringement, regardless of the injunction. It's not escaping it, as it has already been caught, found guilty, and fined $58 million. Escaping implies the act of removing one's self from his current situation. Avoiding would have been a better term for relating to a future action.

    3. Re:et another ridiculous summary headline... by Raistlin77 · · Score: 1

      To clarify, it would have made sense to use escape if this deal somehow got them out of being ruled against and fined. The way the title uses escape, it implies just that. When I first read the title, I immediately assumed that they struck a deal with Verizon, because that is the only way they could have "escaped" the lawsuit.

    4. Re:et another ridiculous summary headline... by Billosaur · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but it seems that by taking this step, they are making the appeal process more favorable, as they will be able to point to this and go, "See, we're not infringing on the patents anymore!" The main suit will still go forward, as Verizon can continue to claim damages for the period that Vonage was infringing, but no further. This might even lower the amount of damages awarded. That and Vonage gets to keep operating.

      I saw this lawsuit as a cheap and dirty way for Verizon to work its way into Vonage, and I think Vonage has foiled them for the moment. It still remains for the courts to decide, so anything is possible.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    5. Re:et another ridiculous summary headline... by norminator · · Score: 1

      Isn't Vonage required to pay fees to Verizon based on subcription revenue? How does this affect that? Do they still have to pay (other than the $58M, of course)?

    6. Re:et another ridiculous summary headline... by Raistlin77 · · Score: 1

      Only if they continue to use Verizon's IP.

    7. Re:et another ridiculous summary headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any tech industry article related to patents is ridiculous.

      These guys are too cheap or indifferent to the truth to obtain attorney advice or learn the law themselves so they get maybe 30% of what is going on and act authoritative about it.

      Specifically as related to this article:

      "Two of the patents cover connecting VoIP calls to public switched telephone networks (PSTN);"

      I assume that I can still make calls through PSTN networks (class 5 switches to end users, etc.) through Vonage via VOIP. If the patents cover PSTN (as broadly stated in the article) then how is Vonage along with VOIP able to escape contributory infringement of the patents?

      "Perhaps most crucially from Vonage's standpoint, VoIP, Inc. claims to own the intellectual property around its network and services."

      This is a ridiculous statement based upon a purported claim that cannot be substantiated. No high tech company is ever able to state that they are totally unencumbered by third part IP.

      -----

      Instead of addressing the real issues involved in the arrangement we get

      The patents cover (general concept A) and company B does (general concept B) and thus Vonage will escape infringment because company B says they have anti IP infringment super sauce.

  8. Reach out and touch someone... by willie_nelsons_pigta · · Score: 0

    I am ready to reach out and touch someone and giv'em 5 across the eyes! I have used Vonage for about 4 years now and have been quite please with their service. Let hope that this won't stifle the competition.

  9. I love the geek drama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like a soap drama! The SCO thing is still going on and won't just die. Patent issues over RIM's head have been concluded, built was fun to watch. Now Vonage is having its problems too. (Really, someone really needs to stand up against OldTech+overTheInternet=NewPatent craze.)

  10. WiFi patent by norminator · · Score: 2, Informative

    The only Wi-Fi device that I know of that Vonage supports is the WiFi UTStarcom F1000, of which Vonage sells a locked-down version, but the same phone is used as a general SIP client for other VoIP services... how is it that selling that device could possibly constitute a violation of a patent about VoIP over WiFi? Also, what's different about VoIP over WiFi than VoIP over Ethernet?

    Also, Vonage provides SoftPhone accounts, where you run SIP software on your PC using Vonage SIP credentials... If I use that software on my laptop while I'm plugged into a wired network, then I go wireless and use the same software over WiFi, did I just start violating their patent?

    1. Re:WiFi patent by sholden · · Score: 1

      VoIP over WiFi is very different than voIP over Ethernet. Sure you can pretend it isn't and in low interference situations all will be fine. But WiFi has some retransmission stuff built into the low levels of the protocol - at the frame level. If a WLAN frame is not acked it will be retransmitted often at a lower rate. So one 11Mbps frame gets dropped and the device ends tries again with a 5.5Mbps frame - since the data rate just halved this triples the transmission time for that frame. But it's just sending a UDP packet in an audio stream, it would be better to just drop it and not retransmit. But this is being done at the physical layer so the fact that it's UDP is irrelevant.

      So the naive approach of just using it as standard old TCP/IP doesn't work so well (in congested areas).

      However, the work arounds and fixes are not patent-worthy by any stretch...

    2. Re:WiFi patent by norminator · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that at least explains how they're different, which does clear up why Verizon would have patents involving WiFi in the first place.

      But even so, in the case of the one WiFi phone that Vonage sells, aren't they just using the manufacturer's stack, which would be handling all of that? It's a standard WiFi SIP phone, and as far as I know the firmware doesn't have any major Vonage modifications, other than being locked down to Vonage service. In the case of the softphone programs running on a PC, I know Vonage specifies one to use, but I think the softphone service will work for with SIP software client, and if those do anything special for WiFi connections, that's out of Vonage's hands, too.

      So what is it that Vonage is infringing on, that the hardware and software manufacturers aren't?

    3. Re:WiFi patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is nonsense. Local proxies to handle retransmission issues have been around for quite a while now.

  11. USPTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The USPTO should be the one standing up against stupid patents but they've been pretty damn incompetent for the past several decades. This drama will only continue until Congress steps in, and considering the history of Congress when it deals with IP issues I'm predicting that they will only make the situation worse than it already is.

  12. Rates to gp up? by Javi0084 · · Score: 0

    Does this mean I will have to pay more for service?

  13. I think I speak for everyone... by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

    I think I speak for everyone when I say there are far too many letter 'V's in the summary. Let's tone it down, eh, Zonk?

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  14. pwn3d! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    They should save time and rename themselves "pwnage" right away.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  15. Vonage says it is NOT patent-related. by Dekortage · · Score: 4, Informative

    Note the end on the Ars article:

    Update: After the story ran, Ars was contacted by a Vonage spokesperson that claimed that the agreement with VoIP, Inc. has "nothing to do with the patent situation." She described the deal as another termination deal similar to those Vonage has signed with other carriers, reiterating that the agreement was unrelated to the Verizon agreement. However, an unnamed source at VoIP, Inc. suggested to TelecomWeb that Vonage would indeed be using its network to carry its calls, while refusing to speculate about the patent dustup.

    So supposedly it's just biz as usual.

    I am a Vonage customer. I'm actually satisfied with it, despite all the negative reviews that other Slashdotters give it. It is still more reliable and higher-quality than my land line ever was. Verizon owns the physical lines in my part of New York. As Verizon's own linemen have told me, the switching equipment in my neighborhood is so old that it can't support caller ID, for example, and dial-up phone connections (in case of cable modem downtime) max out at 14.4k because of the fuzziness and static on the line. And Verizon has no plans to upgrade. Thanks. (Of course I can't use dial-up over Vonage, but I have an alternative backup -- wireless EVDO service, at near broadband speeds... sadly THAT is through Verizon because they have the best wireless service in my area.)

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    1. Re:Vonage says it is NOT patent-related. by Stormwave0 · · Score: 1

      I am a Vonage customer. I'm actually satisfied with it, despite all the negative reviews that other Slashdotters give it. It is still more reliable and higher-quality than my land line ever was. Verizon owns the physical lines in my part of New York. As Verizon's own linemen have told me, the switching equipment in my neighborhood is so old that it can't support caller ID, for example, and dial-up phone connections (in case of cable modem downtime) max out at 14.4k because of the fuzziness and static on the line. And Verizon has no plans to upgrade. Thanks. (Of course I can't use dial-up over Vonage, but I have an alternative backup -- wireless EVDO service, at near broadband speeds... sadly THAT is through Verizon because they have the best wireless service in my area.)
      I'm also a Vonage customer and I think it's pretty safe to say that they're a good service provider. I just don't understand why they get all this bad press. For example: "They don't have appropriate E911 systems!" Do you think Verizon, Comcast, and other VOIP companies do? Of course not, but no one ever mentions that.

      Yes the service has its flaws. The customer support takes forever (at least when I used it a year or two ago). My phone occasionally rings for a second after hanging up from a call. But other than that the service is great at the $25 + tax level. Certainly cheaper and with more services than what the baby telcos are offering me now.
    2. Re:Vonage says it is NOT patent-related. by Dekortage · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what you said.

      I think of it this way... when ranked against tech companies, Vonage really isn't so good. When ranked against phone companies, it's a bit above average. Your choice.

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    3. Re:Vonage says it is NOT patent-related. by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
      I can't use dial-up over Vonage

      Then don't tell my modem! It can connect at 50K pretty reliably when my cable company is not having a bad packet day. Of course, I do this to test modems, not because I need dial-up. I even have my Vonage box working with my DirecTivo for its once every few months call out. (After a while, I get tired of it whining at me...)

      What's been pissing me off lately is that some calls that are supposed to forward, don't. (I have calls forwarded to my cellphone, and because of the My Circle with Alltel, all calls to Vonage, even those not in my Ten Numbers, count as a free call.) My phone will ring, and I'll see the number on caller-id, but nothing forwards. And there will be no record of the incoming call on Vonage's records. Or some people will report getting "All circuits busy" or "This line is disconnected" messages when they call me.

      I've spoken to their tech support, but the problem has always already been fixed, and always will never happen again (it does). Of course, this is after wasting my time with the same diagnostic hokey-pokey as the last time.

      I realize not everything is their fault, but at least with a landline, if you have a problem, Bellsouth (or whoever) can't point fingers at somebody else. I had to prove to my cable company once that their routers were dropping packets and causing my Vonage service to drop every third word I spoke.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    4. Re:Vonage says it is NOT patent-related. by blibblub · · Score: 1

      Have you tried cancelling your vonage service?
      I had vonage for ~1.5 years. I was quite happy with their service. Other than the fact that my internet would die when my 900KHz cordless phone would go off, everything else worked fine.

      However...I had to move eventualy and so decided to cancel my vonage service.

      On 3-4 different phone call attempts to their customer service (which appeared to be in India), they would intentionally hangup the phone on me after I had been on hold for over 45mins each time. The line would be clear until I would say "I would like to cancel my service". Within a minute or two after that the line would mysteriously get disconnected.

      I ended up paying for 3-4 months after I moved because they simply wouldn't let me cancel my acct.
      I finally changed my credit card number to stop their automatic charges.
      About a year later I receive a call from a collection agency saying I had to pay another $60 in service fee's because according to their "Terms of Service" I had to send a certified letter to cancel.

      I had my friend read their TOS (he is a lawyer). No where in their TOS does it specify that you have to send a certified letter to cancel. According to my friend, if I had made a genuine attempt to cancel and they would not let me cancel, I wasn't liable for the charges.

      You can read their TOS yourself (http://vonage.com/features_terms_service.php?lid= footer_terms). There is no mention of a certified letter being required to cancel their service.

      I just paid the collection agency. I was glad to pay the extra $100 or so in service I never received just to get vonage out of my life. So enjoy their service, but good luck to you when it comes time to cancel.

    5. Re:Vonage says it is NOT patent-related. by Dekortage · · Score: 1

      Interesting point about the modem. Of course, I would use the modem in case my cable modem was down for some reason (== Vonage being down) so it's a moot point for me.

      You also said "but at least with a landline, if you have a problem, Bellsouth (or whoever) can't point fingers at somebody else." That's not true where I lived. Verizon may own the lines but they frequently pointed to everybody and their mothers for problems. For example, the Verizon customer support line would even tell me that the lack of caller ID support must be due to my in-house wiring, even though the linemen admitted it was the equipment on the street.

      --
      $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  16. The Truth about Analog vs. Digital phones by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Old: Can you hebzz*static*shhme now?
    New: Can you [silence]me nononononow?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  17. The whole case was BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    All the old telcos are circling the drain and this was an attempt by one of the most useless ones to stem the tide. I used to deal with them when they were still GTE and let me tell you, they made AT&T look like saints. I have some advice for Verizon and anyone else who wants to take this tack. You aren't saving yourselves. You aren't making companies like Vonage look bad and by association making yourself look better. You are hastening your own demise.

    Hop over your chinese firewall and talk to your wireless unit. The per minute model is dead. It's price and services/$ that drive consumers. Land lines aren't convenient, face it so that just leaves price and services. All the telcos still charge for "extras" like caller ID, voicemail and long distance plans. Theres also always the dreaded "big bill" in a month where there was a family emergency or reason to make a lot of long distance calls. Consumers know your game and that's why cellular and VoIP is becoming more popular. Wanna win in the long run? Offer a service similar to Vonage for less money, or for the same or a little more with more services. Anything else is just shooting yourself in the foot in the long run.

  18. Pure FUD. by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pure FUD. POTS is referring to the analog service that is provided by the incumbent phone companies. If the existing analog service disappeared tomorrow, you would just see a rise in competition from digital services. You would also see better SLAs from digital providers. The biggest problems with things like 911 on Vonage are not caused because Vonage cannot or will not provide the service. It is caused because the current POTS providers put up actual road blocks to prevent interoperability. Once set up, my ISP has had 99.9% up-time. I have lived in places in the US that had worse up-time. My cell phone has never been down when I tried to use it inside my home. The whole, "Your going to die if you don't pay the incumbent phone company." line is FUD. Pure FUD. When you stop leaving the safety of your POTS, then you can talk. I personally leave my home on occasion, and thus have no access to 911 via my POTS line.

    1. Re:Pure FUD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 nines uptime does not cut it in the telecom world and is not a match for what you can currently get. Internet service (both VoIP and the actual connection from your broadband provider) is not subject to the same FCC regulations that landline phones are subject to.

      It will be very far and long away before discount residential broadband providers can claim and meet a minimum of five nines uptime (standard uptime in the telcom world).

      I know that cell phones are pretty reliable these days, and I would rate them as almost nearly as reliable as POTS, if you within the reach of good signal.

      I would never depend on a non-regulated VoIP service to provide 911. Its foolish and people can die.

    2. Re:Pure FUD. by blueskies · · Score: 1

      3 nines uptime does not cut it in the telecom world

      Who lives in the telecom world? Three nines is what, 1.5 minutes of downtime for every 24 hours and 5 nines is 0.015 minutes of downtime? Does it really matter at this point? Doesn't everyone own a cell phone at this point anyway?

    3. Re:Pure FUD. by Cramer · · Score: 1

      My cell phone .... I personally leave my home on occasion, and thus have no access to 911 via my POTS line.
      Right. And that cell phone has no access to 911 at all? Your point is mostly chicken-little-screaming, most likely from someone with little to no actual knowledge of any of the systems.

      Is a POTS line a requirement? The answer is increasingly "no". Cell phones, even ones without a service plan, can call 911. For that matter, so can any POTS line still physically connected to a switch. The issue with voip-911 has NOTHING AT F'ING ALL to do with local phone companies. 911 calls are normally processed directly to a 911 call center over a dedicated trunk. For voip providers to provide the same level of service, they'd need the same dedicated connectivity. To hundreds of thousands of call centers all over the country. That's why Vonage, et. al. send 911 calls to a national call center who then transfer the call to an appropriate local center... over a non-dedicated line. (the same as calling the local directory number for the center instead of 911.)
    4. Re:Pure FUD. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Uh, I don't know if you misunderstood my post, or are confusing things on purpose. My point was that when you leave your house, you have no better 911 service than if you have VIOP. Cell phone 911 works basically the same as VIOP 911. Thus, if you leave your home, you are obviously not all that concerned about the difference between POTS 911 and non-POTS 911.

      "The issue with voip-911 has NOTHING AT F'ING ALL to do with local phone companies."

      Wrong. Vonage offers E911 in many areas. These are the areas that the local phone company has allowed them, or has been forced to allow them to connect to the local 911. In the areas that Vonage does not have E911, it is because the locals are putting up roadblocks to interoperability. Given that you register your location with Vonage, it would be trivial to automatically route 911 calls to the local 911 center if the locals did not put up roadblocks, so no, a dedicated trunk is not why calls are routed to a national call center. It is amazing that such a poor argument is even made.

    5. Re:Pure FUD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mention SLA's so I'm assuming you're aware of the marketing BS of mentioning how many nines without mentioning the time period.

      99.9% a month = ~44 minutes of downtime a month
      99.9% a year = ~9 days of downtime a year
      99.9% over 10 years = %@!%$!@!%%@!

      I want to believe that you used %99.9 in a "It works all the time!" kind of way, but this is Slashdot so someone will always be an a-hole :P

      My estimations will be corrected in 3..2..

  19. Re:The original article about the patents infrigem by certron · · Score: 1
    However, if you look at the most recent ars technica article, you will see that there is a note that negates the entire rest of the article.
    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070402-vona ge-hangs-up-on-verizon-patent-infringement-with-ne w-agreement.html

    After the story ran, Ars was contacted by a Vonage spokesperson that claimed that the agreement with VoIP, Inc. has "nothing to do with the patent situation." She described the deal as another termination deal similar to those Vonage has signed with other carriers, reiterating that the agreement was unrelated to the Verizon agreement.
    --

    fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
    eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
  20. It does explain the declined call quality by cheros · · Score: 1

    Call quality over Vonage has dramatically declined in the last few weeks, I guess this explains it..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    1. Re:It does explain the declined call quality by mathcomat · · Score: 1

      thats strange, my vonage has worked great. and i love the international rates.