>> Thor Lancelot Sim>>> In article , Danny Burstein
>>> Unfortunately, the actualy duration of the problem was several hours;
>>> Vonage is, quite simply, lying. And the problem recurred on two >>> successive days.
>>> No doubt about it. It caused major problems for me.
>>> If Vonage were a regulated entity -- which it's gone to great lengths
>>> to not be -- there would be significant penalties not just for this
>>> sort of service failure (note that Vonage hasn't exactly contacted its
>>> customers and offered to refund any of their money for the time that
>>> their phones were out of service) -- but also for lying about it.
>> What this proves is that Vonage is simply not a viable replacement for
>> wireline service. I've been a Vonage user from the beginning,
>> suffering through echos and quality issues for the first several >> months.
>> I figured it was all worth it for the unlimited, inexpensive "out
>> WATS." But, now that SBC offers unlimited nation-wide toll for a
>> competitive price, it makes me think about using only my wireline
>> (which I never got rid of). The only advantage Vonage offers today
>> are virtual numbers.
> I'd like to know what part of $88 you consider reasonable. That's what
> Verizon was getting from me for unlimited national/local.
Well, compared to long-distance bills I had of $1,100 per month in the mid-1970s, which would equate to $,4000 or $5,000 per month today, $88 seems quite reasonable.
You are comparing Vonage's total cost with SBC's total cost. I guess if wireline, E911, commercial power protection, etc., is not worth much to you then go with Vonage and the unpredictable outages.
I have a critical conference call later this morning. I'll use my Vonage, but my SBC phone is close at hand in the event the Vonage connection zaps 45 minutes, or so, into the conference call. That has happened twice in the past two months.