[kwlug-disc] voip.ms - tos? [Was: VoIP - Even without a server]

unsolicited at swiz.ca unsolicited at swiz.ca
Mon Feb 14 11:09:23 EST 2011


On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:10:37 -0800 (PST), Raul Suarez <rarsa at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> This one falls into the "I should have know this before!!!" category.
> 
> You don't need an Asterisk server to use a DID !! (d'oh)
.
.
.
> Something that I wasn't expecting, was total honesty. I read the Terms
of 
> service and they are very clear: "VoIP.ms does not pretend to offer 100%

> reliable service ... The customer shall not use this service as their
sole
> call 
> termination service".

As I said, thank for pointing this out.

Reading through their terms of service https://www.voip.ms/tosshort.php
...


1. ... The customer understands that VoIP.ms does not guarantee any
privacy on the communications through VoIP.ms. ...

    The lack of privacy assurance was a little startling. I wonder if
that's an issue in this day and age. AFAIK, with landlines, there are
privacy protections built in. Further, if you cross into the U.S.A.
[voip.ms, or softvox, is Montreal, Quebec based, so I would hope not an
issue for Canadian source and destination calls], presumably one enters the
realm of the Patriot Act and is open to wiretapping. Hmmm.


7. VoIP.ms will direct any payment, firstly to pay negative balances. The
customer understands that all negative balances are due, and use the
service with the acceptation that any call below negative balance does not
mean that the calls are not due. VoIP.ms reserves the right to suspend any
negative account., or any account that does not have a minimum 5 $ balance.

    This is more than a French -> English translation issue. And makes me
wonder about the 'Canadianness' of the company. [Yes, I understand what it
means, it's just poorly written. Which I didn't expect.]


10. ... use of 2 simultaneous channels ...

    This points out another aspect I had not considered until pointed out
to me by unlimitel some years back - the number of simultaneous channels.
Unlimitel is 5, or 15, I forget which. This has to do with how many people
can call you simultaneously and still get what you would expect. e.g. The
first channel might be the conversation you are having at the time. The
second might be an incoming call (call waiting), or might be someone
calling and sent to voice mail / IVR. The unlimitel limit seemed sufficient
(how many people are going to call ME simultaneously, after all) - not sure
that 2 channels with voip.ms is. For an average home family, that is.


11. Originating from payphones to VoIP.ms toll-free numbers are not
allowed.

    Hmmm. Guess not an issue in this day of cell phones. In years past ...
blew a tire, help!


16. ... Also, VoIP.ms will use reasonable efforts to assure obedience to
all the requirements of the law of Quebec, Canada about security and
confidentiality of any transactions or information.

    Takes some of the sting away from 1., above.


17. The customer agrees that he is not provided with the right to start
any claim, remedy or action, legal or OTHERWISE THAT may harm VoIP.ms in
any way that includes but is not limited to financially.

    Interesting that voip.ms feels the need to have that in there. I read
it as: by virtue of signing up with voip.ms, no additional rights of
anything is granted to the customer. One has certain rights, such as to
litigate, whether one is a customer or not, and especially if one is a
customer. This doesn't sign away those rights, merely specifies that no
additional rights are granted. Still, curious that its there.


20. NON-DISCLOSURE: ONLY IF SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY LAW, CUSTOMERS ARE
ALLOWED TO DIVULGATE THE STRICLY NECESSARY INFORMATION ABOUT USE OR
PAYMENTS OF THEIR VoIP.ms SERVICES, IN ALL OTHER CASES, IT IS PROHIBITED TO
DIVULGATE INFORMATION ABOUT VoIP.ms Including BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO END
USERS.

    Troublesome. Probably pretty standard these days, but still feels
nefarious. As in, if you tell anyone about something they do to you, and it
harms their business, be prepared to declare bankruptcy - you won't be able
to afford the lawyer's fees you will incur to fight any nonsense they may
start with you.

    Is this sort of clause pretty standard these days?



More information about the kwlug-disc mailing list