And the device can use a computer as its network connection (helpful for hotspots or if you only have one jack and no switch handy, and this configuration is also USB bus-powered), or wired Ethernet like Ooma.
And you can use any SIP client, including a soft client netTALK will provide - even a smartphone app, which is itself free - to access your account, all at no extra charge. Compared to Ooma's app that costs $9.99 and calls that are 1.9¢/minute, on top of your paid service. And all features (except for international calling) are in the base and only package. Canada calls are free same as US.
I like Ooma. I think their service is superior, technologically speaking (since customer service seems to be lacking and depends greatly on who you reach). I like the feel of my Hub and Scouts (sorry - can't compare to the Telo since I have never seen one in person). But they need to rethink some of their costs.
I got a Hub several years ago, and got grandfathered on the no-more-costs-ever they used to have. If I were to make my decision now rather than when I did, I'd probably get netTALK instead. The reason is simple: They have fundamentally similar service and quality. But netTalk is $69.95 + $29.95 each year after the first, while Ooma is now (for my area) $249.99 + $41.64/year starting the second month.
I have gotten used to the "broadband answering machine" feature. If I had netTALK, I might need to create a Chumby app to fill the role. But I'd readily make that trade-off to save $180 up-front and another $11.69/year for what seems to be the same service - and considering that the lower cost would include soft-client abilities, I'd actually get more features that I would actually use.
When I got my Hub, I made comparisons to the Mac in terms of quality feel. But Ooma seems to be following Apple in other ways as well, unfortunately - in themes of "do it our way or don't do it at all" and "we're worth a higher price just because it's us."
lbmofo wrote:Ooma is probably going through some heavy influx of new subs due to the Consumer Reports exposure. This is a good thing.EA PA wrote:Still looking for the OOMA response to Magic Jack ads on TV...
OOMA OOMA OOMA
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.
Also, let's not forget about this.....Consumer Reports Users Survey Rates OOMA #1lbmofo 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.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.rakesh15 wrote:Did anyone get a cchance to compare the voice quality of TK6000 v/s ooma?
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.
Reliability = Good, Call Quality = Good
Reliability = Poor, Call Quality = Poor
NetTalk didn't even make the list.
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.
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.
Unfortunately, most people would beg to differ. Otherwise, MagicJack wouldn't be trying so hard to get porting available; they are in Beta now, I see. I wouldn't even consider NetTalk because of no porting; not only because I need to keep my number but also lack of this service makes "Fly-by-nights" more believable.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.
You are right, NetTalk not making the list doesn't automatically mean NetTalk quality is bad...but I know it means NetTalk is still a nobody. Again, makes "Fly-by-nights" more believable. Couple that with anecdotal NetTalk poor quality stories I hear, I wouldn't give NetTalk the time of day.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.
If WOW is not in your area, I suppose Verizon FiOS is your next choice? C'Mon man?! You going to sign up with FiOS because they got rated higher in both reliability and quality? I see that Vonage scored the same on these 2 measures...is Vonage a toss up to you compared to Ooma?!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.
And I found after my post that WOW is a cable provider - as is Bright House, for that matter - despite that they are labeled in the chart as VoIP. Seems that cable providers are considered VoIP for purposes of the comparison.
Hidden revenue source to ?offset user fees: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?
FCC Finds MagicJack Can’t Collect Access Charges From AT&T
FCC Rules VoIP Provider May Not Collect Access Charges
But here are the good ones:
http://blogs.forbes.com/ericsavitz/2011 ... -from-att/
http://www.telecomlawmonitor.com/2011/0 ... s-charges/
I guess MagicJack owns its carrier, YMax. What a name. They somehow knew their calls would end up sounding like Max Headroom.