I note that despite your apparent anger and ranting against my expressing my choice to use the Magic Jack, you have not presented a cheaper alternative that does the job as well...
Chill out, guy... the only one flipping his lid in this thread is you. I simply pointed out in the beginning that if you legitimately couldn't tell any difference in call quality between MJ and a POTS landline that you might need to get your hearing checked, which is a legitimate response and concern for your aural health given how low-quality the audio codecs are used by the company you're trumpeting.
I have made NO CLAIMS that the product is "more than it really is."
Sound quality is fine. I can't see any difference between this and my previous (expensive) VOIP provider or even the old land line.
There's the quote for you. By the way, that certainly reads like your claiming it's more than it really is. It's also why if you can't personally hear the difference, I had expressed genuine concern about your hearing. Instead, you took things as a personal insult and are still clearly spoiling for a fight.
Now you get to be an object lesson.
If you'd actually read my responses, you would have noticed I've already pointed out a superior provider for the same
amount of money that you're spending in this very thread (technically cheaper
if you count the device costs between the two) by name-checking NetTalk, and the very guide I manage on these forums (which contains a distillation of years of research and documentation) has several far superior providers for less than $4 a month more than what you're spending.
A poor man can't afford to spend money on garbage no more so than a rich man can afford to throw money away on garbage. Your experiences with MJ are not
the norm, and quite frankly I suspect you're lashing out because you're trying to save face or lie to yourself after being publicly cornered on the documented quality for cost issue. It seems a bit Hans Christian Andersen.
The service is widely regarded as low quality by nearly anyone who's ever used it, and there's mountains of evidence to that very point well out in the open. I even linked some of the lowest hanging fruit documenting that.
People who genuinely need reliable, quality communications service shouldn't be afraid to spend the money necessary to ensure reliability. The cost line between one of the best VoIP providers on the market (VOIPo) and your service (when start-up and equipment costs are factored) is a whopping $5.44 a month more expensive when put against MJ's best
deal (five years, which is way too long to be locked into any
VoIP provider). You go annual billing with MJ, that gap closes to $3.27 a month.
A $10 a month savings may be a big deal, but the line between spending $4.44 a month (with the possibility of it slowly getting cheaper the longer you go, barring hardware failure) and $7.71 a month for verifiably higher quality service with a reputable company that provides good customer support if something goes sideways and doesn't have a history of sketchy billing practices is a reasonable and minimal amount to ensure a wise investment in any necessary communications infrastructure... especially if it is needed for business. That is the ideal concept of frugality. Frugality has nothing to do with choosing the absolute cheapest provider available no matter what, and is what defines that line between it and being cheap
. Being cheap is yielding to the same sort of stingy, tightwad priorities that you see in threads started by people trying to milk things like Swagbucks, where they "borrow" electricity and data just to claim a few extra pennies every night.
You may be happy with your service, and that's fine, I even said as much... but I've got solid empirical data that says it's not even a reasonably good deal. Choosing MagicJack for new phone service over any of the known competition is just bad advice.