magicJack and magicJack Plus Support, Reviews, FAQs and Tricks

Good evening, dcham1.

dcham1 wrote:Upon reading that you can't fax with Magic Jack, I have to ask you what fax machine you used? I have a Brother 575 Fax machine and I have had a 75% fax success rate with Magic Jack. The things I did was: (1) I installed a DSL line filter. (2) I changed the compatibility mode to basic to ensure that the baud rate was 9600 (3) I changed the overseas mode to yes (this is Brother's ECM(Error Correction Mode)) (4) Run the magic jack on a VISTA machine vs. my XP Professional. I understand that Magic Jack does not support faxing, but I have been able to get it to work. Maybe with the forthcoming enhancements, we will be able to fax at a better percentage rate and run this program on Mandriva 2009 Linux.

The fax machine I was using is a Sharp UX-355L. This is an extremely low-end fax machine (i.e. piece of junk!) I think I paid all of USD50.00 for it brand new when I purchased it off of QVC back in 2001.

My faxing needs are minimal at best and I only had one recurring application for faxing, which amounted to sending one fax every 12 months to an out-of-country contact.

Since my faxing needs were so minimal, I decided to work out a means of sending scanned images of the faxed data via encrypted e-mail.

As I am no longer a magicJack user, the issue of faxing via magicJack is academic now. I haven't tried faxing using Skype, but I imagine it's not likely to function any better than it did with magicJack for me.

Thanks for bringing this question up though. You reminded me that I need to get rid of my fax machine!

lcompton wrote: As I am no longer a magicJack user

How come? Is it because it doesn't work with your thin client?

Good morning, fruitfast777.

fruitfast777 wrote:

lcompton wrote: As I am no longer a magicJack user

How come? Is it because it doesn't work with your thin client?

I abandoned magicJack because they instituted outbound call caps, which at last report are either 01:59:00 or 02:00:00. Call caps are unacceptable to me.

lcompton wrote:Good morning, fruitfast777.

fruitfast777 wrote:

lcompton wrote: As I am no longer a magicJack user

How come? Is it because it doesn't work with your thin client?

I abandoned magicJack because they instituted outbound call caps, which at last report are either 01:59:00 or 02:00:00. Call caps are unacceptable to me.

Can you describe what solution you adopted and how you evolved to it?

Did you ever get your free MJ?

(I am considering a VOIP solution for my landline and have concluded that it is not MJ.)

Good morning, kcowan.

kcowan wrote:

lcompton wrote:Good morning, fruitfast777.

fruitfast777 wrote: How come? Is it because it doesn't work with your thin client?

I abandoned magicJack because they instituted outbound call caps, which at last report are either 01:59:00 or 02:00:00. Call caps are unacceptable to me.

Can you describe what solution you adopted and how you evolved to it?

Yes, the following are direct links to every post I wrote on the subject of my abandonment of magicJack, the replacement solution using Skype with a D-Link DPH-50U on my Thin Client and technical details on getting there. It may take some time, but you will need to read each post, in order, if you want the full story, which directly answers your question.

Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Post 4
Post 5
Post 6
Post 7
Post 8
Post 9
Post 10
Post 11
Post 12
Post 13
Post 14
Post 15
Post 16
Post 17
Post 18
Post 19
Post 20
Post 21
Post 22
Post 23
Post 24
Post 25
Post 26
Post 27
Post 28
Post 29
Post 30
Post 31
Post 32
Post 33
Post 34

kcowan wrote:Did you ever get your free MJ?

As a matter of fact, I did. It's sitting on my desk beside me at the moment -- unopened. I haven't made time to list it on eBay, which is what I have planned for it. I certainly can't use it.

kcowan wrote:(I am considering a VOIP solution for my landline and have concluded that it is not MJ.)

magicJack functioned extremely well for me for the eight months that I used it. Borislow and company did what no one else could and effectively killed the product for me by instituting outbound call caps, which are completely unacceptable to me. If not for the call caps, I'd still be a magicJack customer.

I've been on Skype since January and I'm a happy camper. I can make calls with absolute confidence that the call won't be forcibly terminated by someone who has decided that he knows better than I how much time I need to be on the telephone.

Admittedly, there are many happy campers (mostly men) on here who don't mind the call caps. So, if you can live with someone else deciding your call limits, then magicJack may not be a bad solution. It's certainly less costly than Skype.

Good luck!

lcompton wrote:Good morning, kcowan.
...
Admittedly, there are many happy campers (mostly men) on here who don't mind the call caps. So, if you can live with someone else deciding your call limits, then magicJack may not be a bad solution. It's certainly less costly than Skype.

Good luck!

Thanks for your quick reply. I will investigate your alternative solution. Our home system is used by my wife and any outbound call limits are unacceptable. In fact, I use MJ to give me an out line when she is on the landline phone. I sometimes connect to teleconferences that go for longer times.

(PS I am impressed with your efforts and sharing.)

Good afternoon Lisa
I have been through your saga of call caps and Skype. I have been a Skype user for 3 years but I prefer using telephones. I use it for video calls to other Skype users now although I still have some credit in my SkypeOut account.

Now that you have been using Skype for over 5 months, would you mind sharing how the costs line up? We use Yak for 3.5 cents a minute on our landline phone and so we use that plus Skype plus MJ (for shorter calls).

The landline phone costs are $55/mo and we spend only 5 months there (Vancouver). So if I can switch that over to VOIP, then I can take it with us to PV (where I am right now). We leave a PayGo cell phone for the tenants that rent our place in Vancouver each season.

Good evening, Keith.

kcowan wrote:I have been through your saga of call caps and Skype. I have been a Skype user for 3 years but I prefer using telephones. I use it for video calls to other Skype users now although I still have some credit in my SkypeOut account.

I'm a little concerned about your comment here because it seems to suggest that one cannot use telephones with Skype. This is not the case and I am using my analog Uniden cordless telephone system with Skype via the D-Link DPH-50U. I'm sure this is documented in one or more posts I provided previously.

kcowan wrote:Now that you have been using Skype for over 5 months, would you mind sharing how the costs line up? We use Yak for 3.5 cents a minute on our landline phone and so we use that plus Skype plus MJ (for shorter calls).

Hmmm... This information is also well-documented in at least one of the posts that I provided previously. I pay USD29.50/annum for outbound calling, which includes unlimited local, toll and long-distance calling throughout North America. Skype defines, in writing, unlimited calling as 10,000 minutes per month or less.

I also pay USD30.00/annum for a DID (Skype calls it Skype-In), which includes caller ID and voicemail. So, the total annual cost for my Skype home telephony service is USD59.50. That's hard to beat.

kcowan wrote:The landline phone costs are $55/mo and we spend only 5 months there (Vancouver). So if I can switch that over to VOIP, then I can take it with us to PV (where I am right now). We leave a PayGo cell phone for the tenants that rent our place in Vancouver each season.

That's nice. You'll need a broadband connection anyplace you plan to use VoIP. That's something to keep in mind. Broadband is getting pretty pricey, too. Cable Internet or FiOS Internet (without any other services such as television or telephony) are both more than USD50.00/month where I live. I use Verizon DSL and pay USD30.00/month, which includes a USD11.99/month discount because I have my Verizon DSL and Verizon Wireless billed together.

Good evening.

I'm posting some additional information, which updates Post 27 in the above posting of mine in which I provide links to all of the D-Link DPH-50U/Skype/Thin Client information.

I ended up finding a better driver and better installation instructions for the DPH-50U. Download the driver here and follow the detailed installation instructions here.

This is the driver I am using presently on my DPH-50U and it is excellent. For one thing, the Atcom driver is more current than the D-Link driver and the instructions for installation are easier to follow.

Don’t worry about the fact that the driver is not D-Link branded. The underlying hardware for the DPH-50U and the Atcom AU-600 is identical. It seems that the folks supplying the Atcom took greater care in developing and updating the drivers for their hardware, which benefits the rest of us.

During installation on the Hewlett Packard t5710 Thin Client, the driver installation program prompted me for the location of seven files. Initially, I thought that it just couldn't find the files so I pointed the driver to the specific files. However, I later discovered that the driver installer wasn't having difficulty finding the seven files, it simply didn't like the versions of the seven files present on the Thin Client.

The reason the driver installer doesn't like the versions of the seven files it needs on the Thin Client is because the Thin Client does not get updated through Microsoft Update and the seven files in question are too old for the DPH-50U driver.

So, to resolve this problem, I copied the newer versions of the seven files from my Hewlett Packard m400y Windows XP Media Center P.C. to the Thin Client replacing the seven older versions of the files already present on the Thin Client.

The specific files and versions of the new versus old files are as follows:

1. drmk.sys OLD VERSION: 5.1.2600.2180/NEW VERSION: 5.1.2600.5512
2. ks.sys OLD VERSION: 5.3.2600.2180/NEW VERSION: 5.3.2600.5512
3. ksproxy.ax OLD VERSION: 5.3.2600.2180/NEW VERSION: 5.3.2600.5512
4. ksuser.dll OLD VERSION: 5.3.2600.2180/NEW VERSION: 5.3.2600.5512
5. portcls.sys OLD VERSION: 5.1.2600.2180/NEW VERSION: 5.1.2600.5512
6. stream.sys OLD VERSION: 5.3.2600.2180/NEW VERSION: 5.3.2600.5512
7. wdmaud.drv OLD VERSION: 5.1.2600.2180/NEW VERSION: 5.1.2600.5512

The paths to each file are as follows:

1. C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\drmk.sys
2. C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\ks.sys
3. C:\WINDOWS\system32\ksproxy.ax
4. C:\WINDOWS\system32\ksuser.dll
5. C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\portcls.sys
6. C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\stream.sys
7. C:\WINDOWS\system32\wdmaud.drv

REMEMBER: This solution functioned on a Hewlett Packard t5710 Thin Client. The flash image was the original operating system downloaded from Hewlett Packard's web-site. Back-up these seven files on your Thin Client before replacing them with newer versions from a full updated P.C. Consider yourself warned!

Good morning Lisa

lcompton wrote:

kcowan wrote:I have been through your saga of call caps and Skype. I have been a Skype user for 3 years but I prefer using telephones. I use it for video calls to other Skype users now although I still have some credit in my SkypeOut account.

I'm a little concerned about your comment here because it seems to suggest that one cannot use telephones with Skype. This is not the case and I am using my analog Uniden cordless telephone system with Skype via the D-Link DPH-50U. I'm sure this is documented in one or more posts I provided previously.

kcowan wrote:Now that you have been using Skype for over 5 months, would you mind sharing how the costs line up? We use Yak for 3.5 cents a minute on our landline phone and so we use that plus Skype plus MJ (for shorter calls).

Hmmm... This information is also well-documented in at least one of the posts that I provided previously. I pay USD29.50/annum for outbound calling, which includes unlimited local, toll and long-distance calling throughout North America. Skype defines, in writing, unlimited calling as 10,000 minutes per month or less.

I also pay USD30.00/annum for a DID (Skype calls it Skype-In), which includes caller ID and voicemail. So, the total annual cost for my Skype home telephony service is USD59.50. That's hard to beat...

My apologies on both counts. I started using Skype before they had their USB adapter available so my comment was meant to be historical, i.e. why I bought MJ last year.

I knew about your annual unlimited fees. I was thinking about us calling Mexico and I thought I recalled that you did some international calling.

Anyway, once again, thank you for lighting the way through this maize.

Good morning, Keith.

kcowan wrote:I knew about your annual unlimited fees. I was thinking about us calling Mexico and I thought I recalled that you did some international calling.

No, I don't make international calls anymore. I'm unfamiliar with Skype's international rates, but I have to believe they are not too difficult to research. Start at skype.com.

kcowan wrote:Anyway, once again, thank you for lighting the way through this maize.

Of course. No worries.

lcompton wrote:Good morning, fruitfast777.

fruitfast777 wrote:

lcompton wrote: As I am no longer a magicJack user

How come? Is it because it doesn't work with your thin client?

I abandoned magicJack because they instituted outbound call caps, which at last report are either 01:59:00 or 02:00:00. Call caps are unacceptable to me.

I am really pleased by your excellent post and journaling of your mj experience. and then suddenly you gave it up! Whoa in this post yo mention that mj instituted outbound call caps? Do you mean you can't call out for more than 2 hours?

That is incredible.
Is that still true?

Yes the 2 hr cap is still there. Last Dec it went from "unlimited" to 30 min!! Then it got bumped up to 1 hr and for the last 6 months or so it has been at 2 hrs and holding. True in MOST cases 2 hrs is plenty, BUT not the point as their commercials said "Call anyone and talk as long as you want"
I looked up "as long as" in the dictonary and it didn't say 2 hrs

So as long as you are not on hold with Tech Support somewhere 2 hrs is usually enough and if not you can call right back for another 2 hrs.. JUST not Tech Support!!!

Joe Sica

Good evening, nalsop.

nalsop wrote:

lcompton wrote:Good morning, fruitfast777.

fruitfast777 wrote: How come? Is it because it doesn't work with your thin client?

I abandoned magicJack because they instituted outbound call caps, which at last report are either 01:59:00 or 02:00:00. Call caps are unacceptable to me.

I am really pleased by your excellent post and journaling of your mj experience.

I'm glad that you appreciated the effort.

nalsop wrote:and then suddenly you gave it up!

Well... Not, suddenly. It took a few weeks to migrate from magicJack to Skype.

nalsop wrote:Whoa in this post yo mention that mj instituted outbound call caps? Do you mean you can't call out for more than 2 hours?

All outbound calls are forcibly terminated at two hours. You may be able to call back, but that is problematic in some instances such as technical support as bitstopjoe pointed out in the previous post.

No one knows how many total hours a person is allowed to call on magicJack. This has been the subject of intense debate and user dissatisfaction since some magicJack users were reportedly terminated last year for excessive use.

nalsop wrote:That is incredible.

Perhaps. Presently, I am using Google Voice —> Gizmo5 for inbound call traffic and T-Mobile for outbound call traffic. It's a good solution for me if Google Voice and Gizmo5 survive and remain free.

nalsop wrote:Is that still true?

bitstopjoe states yes. I no longer use magicJack so I'm unable to say.

Lisa, this is not to flame but merely to question and to raise an issue.

Since you are using GV, I am sure you realize that GV is within its rights per the TOS, to monitor all of your communications used with said service. I mention this because it seems a little odd to me that while caps are unacceptable to you that invasion of your privacy is not. Again, this is in no way meant to inflame but, rather, to make you aware, if you are not already aware, that GV TOS gives it access to the privacy their users.

Good afternoon, gots2go.

gots2go wrote:Lisa, this is not to flame but merely to question and to raise an issue.

No worries.

gots2go wrote:Since you are using GV, I am sure you realize that GV is within its rights per the TOS, to monitor all of your communications used with said service.

All telephony providers are within their rights to monitor all customer communications through their networks. Typically, such monitoring is done with a court order. However, as we have seen with N.S.A. domestic spying on U.S. citizens during the past decade with the help of A.T.& T., Sprint and Verizon, sometimes, even a court order isn't required.

Since you didn't quote any specific terms from Google's privacy policy or link to any specific pages regarding same, I'll expound on the relevant information in this response.

Google's voice service privacy policy is pretty simple and doesn't add much to Google's general privacy policy, which applies to all Google services usage. Interestingly, even though Google has the technology to do so, they don't even claim to data mine voice conversations through their service, which surprises me. Their voice service privacy policy does state that they record calling-party number, forwarding numbers, time and date of calls, duration of calls, SMS routing information, and types of calls. But, so do all telephony providers. Most of these recorded data elements typically appear on a person's wireless telephony bill for a pay service.

In contrast, magicJack's terms-of-service, which took me about ten minutes to find, do not assure any privacy of any kind either. Have you read item 10 in magicJack's terms-of-service? Here, I'll quote it for you:

10. Privacy Policy
Your registration data and certain other information about you are subject to this Terms of Service. You understand that by using the magicJack device you consent to magicJack's collection and use as set forth in these Terms of Service, including the transfer of this information to and from the United States and/or other countries for storage, processing and use by magicJack, its affiliates and business partners to provide you with information about communications-related service.

You acknowledge, consent and agree that magicJack and/or YMAX may access, preserve and disclose your account information if required to do so by law or in a good faith belief that such access preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process; (b) enforce this Agreement; (c) respond to your requests for customer service; or (d) protect the rights, property or personal safety of magicJack, its users and the public.

You understand that the technical processing and transmission of the magicJack device may involve (a) transmissions over various networks; and (b) changes to conform and adapt to technical requirements of connecting networks or devices.

This statement does not differ substantively from Google Voice's terms-of-service relating to privacy.

gots2go wrote:I mention this because it seems a little odd to me that while caps are unacceptable to you that invasion of your privacy is not.

Kindly point out to me where I wrote that I don't mind invasions of my privacy? No telephony providers assure customer privacy. They can't.

If you are able to provide a link to a carrier's terms-of-service that specifically assures customer privacy in their communications, I'd like to see it — and the price for the service.

gots2go wrote:Again, this is in no way meant to inflame but, rather, to make you aware, if you are not already aware, that GV TOS gives it access to the privacy their users.

Google Voice's privacy policy doesn't provide Google Voice any more invasive use of one's privacy than anyone else's privacy policies. While I am not fond of the lack of privacy in data communications in general (and, that includes voice, which is a data application after all), I don't completely avoid the medium either. Anyone desiring privacy in communications in this day and age needs to take deliberate steps to assure privacy.