magicJack and MagicJack Plus Support, Reviews, FAQs and Hacks Forum Index magicJack and MagicJack Plus Support, Reviews, FAQs and Hacks
magicJack and magicJack Plus Unofficial Technical Support. Your Magic Jack and Magic Jack Plus phone service information resource
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Porting out from Magic Jack
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    magicJack and MagicJack Plus Support, Reviews, FAQs and Hacks Forum Index -> magicJack Tips, Tricks, and Hacks
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cell14 wrote:
I believe- and so do IMO most telcos- that it was the intention of the FCC to consider port out fees illegal, although the language is neither clear or strong enough. For this reason IMO most companies do not attempt to charge such port out fees, not even those providers who could easily collect after a completed port.


Based on what? After more research on the issue, I think you are wrong as well, but whatever.

I found examples of companies charging and other companies offering to pay the port fee that was being charged on port-out fees.

I would love to see any actual links to sources, where it is anything but forum posts, saying the FCC actually "thinks" it's illegal. If they think something is illegal, they certainly are not shy about putting a stop to it.

And apparently Google doesn't agree either. They are charging a huge $3 fee to port out:

http://support.google.com/voice/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1316844

The fee doesn't apply if you ported your mobile number in, but it is a port-out fee nonetheless. And looks like they lock your number down until you pay the $3. You do have to give them credit for being creative. They "lock" your number down to prevent it from being ported without your consent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Google
AdSense





PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:18 pm    Post subject: Magicjack support, tips, tricks, and hacks

Back to top
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I would love to see any actual links to sources, where it is anything but forum posts, saying the FCC actually "thinks" it's illegal. If they think something is illegal, they certainly are not shy about putting a stop to it.

I did not say that they"think" that it is illegal.
The problem here is that if they though that it WAS LEGAL,without regulating the amount to be charged,a company could simply impose a $ 1000 port out fee ( show me something which would make THAT illegal) and by the virtue of that make port OUT effectively impossible. That certainly was NOT the FCC intent.
Google's position is that they are not a telecom company, that they provide a free service and they own the numbers so if you did not port in your number from elsewhere they may try to sell it to you/charge for it. Whether impeding your port out for non payment is something Google in their specific situation can get in troubles with I do not know.I certainly will not sue them if I ever need a port . It is a fully free service which makes it different. What might be more of a problem are some reports that there are issues with former GV numbers after a port out.
Oh, maybe you want to attach the list of companies which charge and effectively collect port out fees.


Last edited by cell14 on Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ohhhhh....I gotcha. It was the "the intention of the FCC to consider port out fees illegal", but they just don't "think" it's illegal. Explain to me that difference. You should be a politician with the double-speak.

And MagicJack doesn't consider themselves a telecom company either, so what difference does that make? And although Google feels that way, they certainly backed off blocking whole exchanges when the FCC called them on the carpet on it. Something MagicJack continues to do, apparently at will.

If the FCC considered port-out fees to be illegal, or intended them to be illegal, it would take them 30 seconds to clarify any confusion with another regulation and put a stop to a $3, $30 or $1,000 port-out fee.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Explain to me that difference
I actually provided the explanation.BTW, check the edit on my previous message.
There is entirely possible that if FCC receives a few hundred complaints about Google impeding the port for non payment that they step up. That's why Google chose the $ 3.- fee instead of a $ 30.- fee. Most people do not think that it is worth the hassle or feel like me that $ 3.- is a damned good deal for all the free service and a DID of their liking.
Quote:
You should be a politician with the double-speak.

Finance my campaign and I will not forget you. Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cell14 wrote:
Quote:
Explain to me that difference
I actually provided the explanation.


No you didn't. You said that it was your opinion that the FCC intended to make the port out fees illegal. So by definition, you "think" that the FCC "thinks" they are illegal. Whether or how they enforce it, and on who, is an entirely different issue.

Virgin Mobile and CallCentric are others that are charging port-out fees, in differing situations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
No you didn't.

Yes I did. By implication, if FCC considered unlimited and unregulated port out fees acceptable, they would not have mandated the porting availability in the first place. Every company could impede the port by simply charging excessive port out fees.
With port IN it is different, you choose the company and you can decide whether their porting fees are good enough as a part of the deal and take your number to a different provider if you do not like what you see. With port OUT, you were simply stuck and had to give up your number which is exactly what the FCC tried to prevent. Obvious enough.

Quote:
Virgin Mobile and CallCentric are others that are charging port-out fees, in differing situations


Your list seem to be very short. Please include some of the"others".
Virgin Mobile denies charging port out fees.
Callcentric charges port out exclusively on the free NYC DID's. Most people with exception of NYC residents will have no interest to port those DID's anyway ( I have one of them btw). And same as with Google Voice- Callcentric walks the line here and if a bunch of people seriously complains they may have to adjust their policy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cell14 wrote:

Yes I did. By implication, if FCC considered unlimited and unregulated port out fees acceptable, they would not have mandated the porting availability in the first place. Every company could impede the port by simply charging excessive port out fees.


Ummmm, no you didn't. If they "intended to say it was illegal" they must have thought it was illegal. If they didn't think the fees were illegal they wouldn't go to the effort of intending to say they were. The FCC has made it very clear that the port cannot be impeded by any charged fee being unpaid. They have not said ANYWHERE that charging the fee is illegal.

There is a huge difference between "unlimited and unregulated port out fees", as you are now saying, and your initial statement that I responded to that "it was the intention of the FCC to consider port out fees illegal." There were no qualifications about unlimited and unregulated fees in your statement whatsoever. The fact that you now want to clarify it doesn't change the fact that you did initially say the FCC considers/thinks port out fees are illegal.

In addition, your initial post on this thread said "MJ cannot charge you anything for port out.Completely illegal. Okay, considered illegal by who, if not the FCC? It is very clear that they cannot hold up a port because of an unpaid port fee. It is extremely less obvious that it is illegal to charge the fee and try to collect it.

I never said the list of those charging a port-out fee was long. All I said was it is being done. The stuff I saw earlier on Virgin was either old, or non U.S., because it does seem clear that they don't charge.

But what line is Callcentric walking? I have yet to see anything from you where there is anything but your opinion that "I believe- and so do IMO most telcos- that it was the intention of the FCC to consider port out fees illegal" I would even settle at this point for a reliable source that says their statement actually refers to them being concerned not about the illegality of port-out fees but their unlimited and unregulated usage.


Last edited by nailgunner on Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did find an interesting quote from the FCC Q&A regarding port fees from a few years ago:

Carriers are allowed to recover their costs of implementing wireless LNP by charging fees to customers. They have been allowed to do this in advance of the LNP deadline because they have been incurring costs for LNP upgrades in preparation for the deadline.

Carriers may recover their costs either by including line-item fees for LNP on their customers' monthly bills or by raising the monthly rate. Carriers that have been adding line items to consumer bills to recover LNP costs have typically been charging from a few cents to a little over a dollar.

Carriers are also allowed to charge a fee to customers at the time their number is ported. However, there are no rules preventing a new carrier from paying an old carrier's porting costs for the benefit of the new customer. You should ask the new carrier whether it has a policy of paying or reimbursing such charges.

The link given took me to the current Q&A where the wording has been changed and shortened. But it's clear that they allowed port-out fees at one time. I find it extremely hard to believe that what was once allowed is now not allowed without a specific regulation/notice from the FCC on the issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nailgunner, the wording of my original posting was indeed incorrect in that sense that companies can attempt to charge for port out , they just cannot impede the port if you do not pay.

I cannot find anything what currently specifically allows port out fees. Context indicates that the accepted fees are for port in.
In my experience, big telcos charge whenever and whatever they can charge. If they do not do that there has to be a reason.
The problem that Callcentric may get down the road would be a complaint from a customer who refused to pay the porting fee and did not get his free DID ported, even more so because the $25 charge could be hardly considered "just and reasonable". Their free DIDs are a pretty new service so they probably did not run into those problems yet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cell14 wrote:
Nailgunner, the wording of my original posting was indeed incorrect in that sense that companies can attempt to charge for port out , they just cannot impede the port if you do not pay.

I cannot find anything what currently specifically allows port out fees. Context indicates that the accepted fees are for port in.
In my experience, big telcos charge whenever and whatever they can charge. If they do not do that there has to be a reason.


What? You need to swear off the eggnog. Now, you agree they can attempt to charge to port-out, just not hold it up for nonpayment. But context says it's port-in only especially since big telcos would charge it if they could. Making less sense with each new post.

I'm not interested in you finding something that allows port-out fees. I already found something where they were allowing it a few years ago. I would love to see something where they don't allow the fees to back-up what I think is still your view.

It's possible that the big telcos aren't doing it because they don't want the hassle of messing with a small revenue stream knowing that most people will find out they don't have to pay it. Or they can't justify charging another porting fee when they have their in-house porting costs already covered by the monthly LPN fees most of them are charging.

And Callcentric needs to worry about justifying a $25 one-time fee being just and reasonable? Any freshman student taking Cost Accounting 101 could give them the data they needed after 1 week of class. I can see the big FCC investigation now. No guys, $25 is not just, we think $18.50 is much more reasonable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some update here : Calcentric currently does not allow port out of the free NY DID's at all. As a matter of fact, you cannot even convert them into regular paid DID's, if you get a paid DID you can keep both and use them simultaneously.
Further Google is not a telecom carrier or interconnected VOIP provider according the FCC rules, so FCC or state regulation do not apply to them as i was told. So apparently they can do whatever they choose to do.
Not posted with the intent to revive discussion. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SteveHC
Dan isn't smart enough to hire me


Joined: 26 Dec 2011
Posts: 498
Location: Southwest Florida

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To chime in (just noticed this interesting thread, & I've got nothing better to do at the moment anyway):

You are correct, cell14 - Because of the limitations inherent in the way it's set up and operates, Google Voice is considered to be a data service, not a telco-type VOIP service. (MJ, on the other hand, is considered to be a unique hybrid service - part data service offered in connection within a retail consumer hardware product (the "MagicJack" product), and, on a very limited telecom regulatory basis - part telco (the YMAX telecom service)).

As far as number porting goes, the laws and relevant regs are so complicated, convoluted, and laden with a zillion loopholes and limitations that for all practical purposes any company can practically do whatever the heck it wants if it REALLY wanted to. The only thing that truly stops them from doing whatever they please is their not wanting to be constantly tied up dealing with consumer and FCC annoyances - thus the situation with MJ wherein they charge a $30 port-out fee but don't necessarily block the port-out if they don't receive it (as far as *I* can tell, failure to pay the $30 seems to delay the port-out longer than it would take if the $30 was paid).

- Just my 2 cents, FWIW.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As far as number porting goes, the laws and relevant regs are so complicated, convoluted, and laden with a zillion loopholes and limitations that for all practical purposes any company can practically do whatever the heck it wants if it REALLY wanted to. The only thing that truly stops them from doing whatever they please is their not wanting to be constantly tied up dealing with consumer and FCC annoyances


Unfortunately, you are right on this. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The porting regulations may be complicated. But if it was illegal to charge a port-out fee, one would think the FCC would simply state so. It would be a fairly easy thing to do.

But by clearly stating that the port-out cannot be help up for non-payment of a porting fee, it seems very obvious that they do not consider the charging of the fee to be illegal, just the holding up of the port for non-payment of the fee. I'm not sure how it could be much simpler than that. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rhino
MagicJack Newbie


Joined: 13 Jan 2013
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Porting out from Magic Jack Reply with quote

cell14 wrote:
MJ not only keeps on demanding $ 30.- for porting your number OUT to another provider, they even became slicker than before.
Now, they will send you an email where you have to confirm your port and fill out an information sheet. Part of it is your credit card information. If you do that you WILL be charged the 30 $.
MJ cannot charge you anything for port out.Completely illegal. Ignore this e-mail. They will put your port on hold for a couple of days and then proceed with the port. Just be patient.
BTW, you MJ number which you see when you log on your MJ is not your account number. To get your account number which you will need for your new carrier in order to get the port processed you have to contact MJ customer service. You will also need your account password and the exact address you registered MJ with.


which I'd known before I paid the port fee: I used the #'s for advertising etc. to weed out spam and email addicts. they both worked for strictly that purpose (didnt ever use it much for outgoing calls wifi was too sketchy, which i believe is my problem with the mj+ not working off the compter, ie plugged in wall) one worked for an addit 4mo and the other one 8mo when I was deciding to buy the MJ+ they wanted $30 to renew the reg mj's and you only got the months remaining had you done it when it expired, so I'd be curious. I use my first MJ+ to replace the land line # that was @ the house for 40yrs. just got the 2nd one. biggest bitch i have is problems logging on the the mj site....pain in the ass
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    magicJack and MagicJack Plus Support, Reviews, FAQs and Hacks Forum Index -> magicJack Tips, Tricks, and Hacks All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB Turbo Extended Edition © 2013, phpBB Group
magicJack and magicJack Plus are trademarks of magicJack LLP. This website is in no way affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by magicJack LLP, and is an unofficial forum for consumers to openly communicate regarding their experiences with the magicJack products.