Something on your mind? Want to give us feedback on something in particular or everything in general? Tell us how we are doing!
#18453 by dr150
Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:07 pm
atici wrote:I know there are better competitors.

My point was that all this trouble for $50 in international calling credit is not really worth it. Because it just is not working.


Well, my suggestion is to try to at least get your money's worth on the $50 and call Ooma Tech Support (accessed on the "Contact" button above on this website).

This is a technical issue that has to be resolved on the technical side.....
#18533 by mikepa
Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:54 am
oomg wrote: Actually, I think your reluctance (or refusal) to respond to simple questions coupled with your attempt to dismiss the analogy as irrelevant is all the answer we need.

Partners? It is irrelevant whether I or anyone else here is an attorney, the law (at least in Florida) is abundantly clear.

I can understand why you are no longer in business.


I never mentioned anything about legal obligations, so I don't understand why you are hung up on the legal definition of a partner? Unless we are in court, wouldn't Websters definition of a partner be more appropriate for this forum? If Ooma had legal obligations I'm sure they would have taken care of this issue long ago. My discussion is based on good business practices and what Ooma as a partner could do to to satisfy customers that were mislead by Costco.

I didn't return the Ooma to Costo because I found it cheaper elsewhere. I returned it because the deal changed from what they advertised and customer service recommended I return it if I wasn't happy with the deal. While your questions do not directly apply to the matter at hand, I will answer them for the sake of your satisfaction. #1: I would offer the customer a refund of difference of my price and the lower price to save the customer the hassle of returning the product and buying it again. Customer service and satisfaction is paramount to my businesses - that are successful and still operating. #2: Yes! Any authorized dealer is a partner with the manufacturer in delivering a product to the customer. If the mower develops a fault, the manufacturer would expect me to handle it, as sending a lawn mower back to the manufacturer for repair is clearly not practical. #3: No the lawn mower analogy is not a good analogy for the issue at hand.

OK, So I answered your questions, how about you answer mine. How did you know about the 90 day expiration before you got your Ooma as you have claimed?
#18563 by niknak
Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:28 am
hmmmm lets see - 72 posts so far times average of 5 minutes to read/respond to each post =360 minutes divided by $7.00/hr (minimum wage) = $51.00 in time wasted to read this topic = amount of Int'l Calling Credit

ENOUGH ALREADY - If you don't want OOMA - RETURN IT!!!!
#18579 by hackerguy
Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:18 am
hmmmm lets see - 72 posts so far times average of 5 minutes to read/respond to each post =360 minutes divided by $7.00/hr (minimum wage) = $51.00 in time wasted to read this topic = amount of Int'l Calling Credit

ENOUGH ALREADY - If you don't want OOMA - RETURN IT!!!!


Glad that someone finally said what lots of us have been thinking.
#18588 by oomg
Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:24 pm
mikepa wrote:
oomg wrote: Actually, I think your reluctance (or refusal) to respond to simple questions coupled with your attempt to dismiss the analogy as irrelevant is all the answer we need.

Partners? It is irrelevant whether I or anyone else here is an attorney, the law (at least in Florida) is abundantly clear.

I can understand why you are no longer in business.


I never mentioned anything about legal obligations, so I don't understand why you are hung up on the legal definition of a partner?


Because you persist in claiming that ooma is Costco's partner, and vice-versa. I hate to burst your bubble, but without some fairly well defined laws, we would likely cease to function in a commercial sense. I can look up the law, or consult an attorney. As soon as a majority of appellate courts in this country start citing "mikepa" as the legal authority, I will consider accepting your definition.

mikepa wrote:Unless we are in court, wouldn't Websters definition of a partner be more appropriate for this forum?

Apparently you haven't looked at Webster's either.

mikepa wrote:If Ooma had legal obligations I'm sure they would have taken care of this issue long ago. My discussion is based on good business practices and what Ooma as a partner could do to to satisfy customers that were mislead by Costco.

There you go again: "what Ooma as a partner could do..." I'm not quite sure if you sell products or not, but assuming for the sake of discussion that you do, would you pay the debts of the company that sold you their products for resale simply because you are their partner. Looking at it from the other side (e.g. you produce a product and distribute it through a wholesale chain) would you pay your retailer's debts (assuming he could not meet his obligations) because you are his partner? I tend to doubt it... in either case.

mikepa wrote:I didn't return the Ooma to Costo because I found it cheaper elsewhere. I returned it because the deal changed from what they advertised and customer service recommended I return it if I wasn't happy with the deal. ?

I will believe you when you pay a similar amount from another retailer. Let's face it you found a better deal. What's that word again... oh yeah, disingenuous.

mikepa wrote:While your questions do not directly apply to the matter at hand, I will answer them for the sake of your satisfaction. #1: I would offer the customer a refund of difference of my price and the lower price to save the customer the hassle of returning the product and buying it again. Customer service and satisfaction is paramount to my businesses - that are successful and still operating. #2: Yes! Any authorized dealer is a partner with the manufacturer in delivering a product to the customer. If the mower develops a fault, the manufacturer would expect me to handle it, as sending a lawn mower back to the manufacturer for repair is clearly not practical. #3: No the lawn mower analogy is not a good analogy for the issue at hand.


An authorized dealer... how about an unauthorized dealer? Let's see, if one is authorized, they are a partner, if not authorized, then not a partner. Not much incentive to being an authorized dealer.

mikepa wrote:OK, So I answered your questions, how about you answer mine. How did you know about the 90 day expiration before you got your Ooma as you have claimed?

I already answered this question on multiple occasions although I never said I knew about it before I purchased my ooma system. I believe I said that I was aware that the Costco.com deal came with the $50 international calling credit, and the the credit expired after 90 days. I also believe I said that I wasn't sure how I became aware of that particular information.
#18593 by mikepa
Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:07 pm
Oomg, why are we arguing over the definition of "a partner"? Whether Costo & Ooma are legal partners is irrelevant. Either Ooma or Costo could have done better to satisfy the customer after Costo mislead. Though it actually sounds like there's a glimmer of hope coming from Ooma over this.
#18599 by oomg
Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:21 pm
mikepa wrote:Oomg, why are we arguing over the definition of "a partner"? Whether Costo & Ooma are legal partners is irrelevant.

Because you insist on providing you own self-serving definition of the term "partner."

Please understand, I have absolutely no objection if either ooma or Costco were to step up and say, "Hmmm, maybe we could have been more clear" (or something similar) followed up with "and in light of the possibility that some consumers might have been confused (or misled, or ???) here is what we propose..." I think I expressed my view regarding the need for any limitiation several pages earlier. However, I do object to people calling the offer deceptive when it does not meet the legal definition, or stating that ooma (or Costco for that matter) must do something because they are partners when, in fact, the relationship has none of the attributes of a partnership.
Last edited by oomg on Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#18713 by oomg
Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:54 am
thbjr wrote:Image

'nuf said?

well... maybe for another three months.
#18925 by nathan
Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:51 pm
Wow thanks for all the unstinted expressions! This has been an interesting read. Until tonight, when I accidentally came across these posts I didn't know that the $50 credit was a 90 day affair. Like most of you have said I did read all the fine print and it was no where to be found, both on Costco or Ooma.

Secondly, I bought the ooma with international credit on July 18, 2009 and when I went to check the credits today they were all gone. I had used about $5 dollars worth but was slowly planning on using all of it of course had I not known about the expiration. So I didn't even get my 90 days worth, will have to call them tomorrow!

$50 dollar might not be much to spend all this time on and it certainly isn't but I am kinda the guy that likes the principle of things. Besides I don't get paid and hourly rate to watch TV so not all my time is valuable :-) I am a business owner and when and if a customer points out something that is reasonable in nature (like this case in point) then I go out of my way to do the right thing. It is hard to say whether the fault likes with Costoco or Ooom and in truth little bit on both, but like most have said Costco has now done the right thing by providing the disclosure and they will always return the product so in my mind they are off the hook, with ooma the least they should do is extend the expiration or in my case give me the 90 days worth now that I know about it. I love Ooma and will not abandon them over this issue but when the Telo comes out I will not think twice to return my current device to costco if they don't resolve this issue for me. Deception (in any of its forms) is never a good thing in business. If something is promised and if it is not explicitly denied then it is assumed to not go away as a service then it should remain that way. If there was an expiration date next to my credit under ooma then I would have known this a long time aog and they could have pointed to it as disclosure so by ooma not doing this they led us to believe that the credits wouldn't expire, which the ones you pay for don't so there was no reason to assume otherwise. By not disclosing the expiration date on their lounge there was no reason for you to believe these credits were any different than the ones you would have purchased.

Now whether or not this affects you personally you should always stand for the principle of the issue and see if it is OK for a company to operate in this manner. We don't have laws that just affect the majority in our country (unlike most parts of the word) but basic rights both the majority and minorities share. Like someone in the thread mentioned if they in the next 6 months did away with the free US calling then would you still be ok or would some of us say well I just use it for local calling and inbound calls so it doesn't affect me. The principle by which a company operates is very important in my opinion and especially for a company we all want around for a long time. So it is important for this issue to be resolved in a manner to satisfy and rectify the matter in which the deal was presented is paramount. I think all of us should call them and have them correct this issue even if we don't personally gain from the conduct just to have them be accountable and make them aware that it is important to always do right by the customer always!

Of course one can just return the device to costco, which is one solution and a last resort for me if this doesn't get handled in a satisfactory manner. But then the time wasted with the premiere service plus I have already ported a number yada yada. For something that is not my own doing that is a lot of effort. In any case I will not leave ooma over this that would just be plain stupid, but I don't think we should let them get away with it either since this could lead to other things disappearing in the future. Stand up for it and they will then think twice about removing any of the premiere or other services from their lineup in the future. Not that they will but it would make them think twice because of this incident - maybe!

Sorry to make this long but I thought everyone brought up good points (I even like the ones that say too much time has been wasted on this issue and there has but it is time well spent if we get some results from it, that would be priceless) and we were making some resolution at least getting costco to add the disclosure was very good. Now ooma needs to do something similar - if enough of us complain they might. I am off to doing my part and also getting my initial 90 days now!

-Nathan


Update (10 Minutes Later):

Here is the jist of the email I sent to CSR via their web,
....
I got my ooma service via costco's $50 international calling promotion on July 18, 2009. To my surprise today reading the forums I found out this is only good for 90 days. That is not right and I think ooma needs to extend the date of expiration - Please! I love this service and product and can't have an ethical issue like this prevent me from fully appreciating it. But more importantly I checked the lounge and my credits are poof! gone! I had used all of $5 dollars and it has only been little more than a month so first please get me my 90 days trial as promised and then please extend it for at least a year!

many thanks and look forward to your quick response!
.....

my fellow ooma compadres please help me by adding your drops (emails) to mine so we may generate a torrent that can't be ignored. For now I am just a drop among many.

thanks.

-N

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests