Page 7 of 7

Re: Overall Cost of OOMA

Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 8:13 pm
by Hollywood
sfhub wrote: So basically your assumption that what gets collected all goes to the government is not correct. Actually it could be the case that none of it goes to the government, especially if Ooma starts collecting taxes in addition to the existing fees. Right now it seems they are just eating the taxes.
[/quote]

I specifically did not assume that.

Re: Overall Cost of OOMA

Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 8:16 pm
by sfhub
Hollywood wrote:
sfhub wrote: So basically your assumption that what gets collected all goes to the government is not correct. Actually it could be the case that none of it goes to the government, especially if Ooma starts collecting taxes in addition to the existing fees. Right now it seems they are just eating the taxes.
I specifically did not assume that.
Hollywood wrote:The charges, as I interpret them are not for the free service on their end, but for taxes and charges that they have to pay out. If some of that is not "profit", then I was wondering how MagicJack does not have to pay out a similar cost.
Sorry, then, I must have read this the wrong way.

Re: Overall Cost of OOMA

Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 8:53 pm
by Hollywood
your scenario of a profitable company seems possible. I hope so! :)

Re: Overall Cost of OOMA

Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 6:52 am
by lbmofo
Hollywood wrote:
lbmofo wrote:I know someone with Magic Jack. The quality is really bad a lot of the times. Very dependent on PC; when that goes busy, adios phone call.
I know, I tried it. it is not a "real" replacement for a home phone service like ooma is.
BTW, this cracks me up everytime:

Image

MagicJack's outspoken founder Dan Borislow on 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."