TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Connecticut's Suit Against Vonage is Less Than Baseless

Re: Connecticut's Suit Against Vonage is Less Than Baseless

Tony P. (kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net)
Thu, 5 May 2005 07:12:07 -0400

In article <telecom24.197.8@telecom-digest.org>, jack-
yahoogroups@workbench.net says:

> http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=399

> 5/4/2005
> -Posted by Russell Shaw @ 4:05 pm

> Connecticut is the latest state to sue Vonage for misrepresenting the
> way in which the service handles "911" calls.

> Seems to me that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal
> instructed his staff to obtain a copy of the Texas suit -- and after
> doing so, did some CPR (cut, paste, rewrite). Then, they drafted the
> current suit.

> The Connecticut suit has less than no merit. No specific Vonage
> customer in Connecticut seems to have suffered the trying consequences
> of Vonage 911-connect failure like that customer in Houston may have.

> And what about the fact that Connecticut filed the suit just about on
> the eve of today's announcement that Vonage will work with Verizon
> (the main local telco in Connecticut) to enable E911 solutions? Maybe
> Blumenthal and his folks didn't bother to check. Or, maybe he and
> his staffers were concerned that 911 solution progress is slower
> between Vonage and SBC (which covers part of Connecticut) than it is
> between Vonage and Verizon.

Actually Connecticut is SBC, not Verizon. That might have something to
do with it.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Carl Navarro: "Re: Forward Fax to Email"
Go to Previous message: Thor Lancelot Simon: "Re: Connecticut's Suit Against Vonage is Less Than Baseless"
May be in reply to: Jack Decker: "Connecticut's Suit Against Vonage is Less Than Baseless"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page