lbmofo wrote:EA PA wrote:Still looking for the OOMA response to Magic Jack ads on TV...
OOMA OOMA OOMA
Ooma is probably going through some heavy influx of new subs due to the Consumer Reports exposure. This is a good thing.
I like Ooma's new ad agency, Heat: viewtopic.php?t=10572
I like the new ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8nOOCeHOkM
I am going to borrow Dan Borislow's words....
Here is what Dan Borislow, founder of MagicJack, said about NetTalk:
It's a piece of shit. It has static. The call quality is pathetic. There's no phone numbers available, and it's run by a bunch of fly-by-nights with no assets. They'll be bankrupt soon. We're a real company with the best network and best software.
lbmofo wrote:I don't mean to resurrect rakesh15 or anything but....rakesh15 wrote:I think ooma and TK6000 has got equal comeptition , neck to neck.rakesh15 wrote:Did anyone get a cchance to compare the voice quality of TK6000 v/s ooma?
I thought Ooma should be much much better....but here is something to check out. This one even comes from someone who is impacted by Ooma's recent carrier routing issues.onoccasion wrote:I hope Ooma is able to address the quality of service issue. I think that's the key thing that's holding back positive referrals. In my mind, they're already ahead of MagicJack in terms of function offered and not requiring a PC to be on. I also previously tried NetTalk TK6000 (now Duo) and returned that device within my 30-day money-back period; product/service were not as professional as Ooma, and service was far worse (frequently had to reboot the device and call quality was not as good - often like a bad cell phone call). When Ooma calls do connect correctly, I've found the voice quality to be very good.
MWPollard wrote:Number porting has nothing to do with whether a service will serve as a home phone replacement. I didn't port when I came to Ooma either.
MWPollard wrote:Call quality is a bigger issue, but whether or not Consumer Reports included a service in the list doesn't mean that the quality was worse than those that were on the list - it may just mean that there weren't enough survey respondents. And note that Ooma was only reported with "Good" quality and "Good" reliability; there are 5 others with better reported quality and 4 others with better reliability. And Ooma's support wasn't rated at all, as were almost half of them, which is probably explained in the article. Ooma was rated highly on value more than any other issue.
MWPollard wrote:WOW was rated better on both Quality and Reliability, just apparently a hair lower on Value to get a 1-point lower Reader Score, which the chart notes say is insignificant. I'm not comparing to MagicJunk.
just4fn wrote:My Ooma taxes are 3.47 month = 41.64 a year. How does Magic Jack only charge 19.95 a year? Do they pay the remaining taxes themselves? Taxes have to be paid don't they? Who pays the other 20.00 bucks a year?
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest