No Busy Signal??

[slycat63]

When I try to call someone that is already using there phone to talk to someone else, I don't get a busy signal, I get a brief pause then it returns to a dial tone. Any help Thanks

[az2008]

That's the way MJ works.

Mark

[slycat63]

Why wont they tell you that?

[az2008]

Why wont they tell you that?

It's been my impression nobody at MJ uses MJ. I suspect Dan, his family, associates, et. al., are proud users of cell phones, landlines, etc.

Chat support is in the Philippines. I think there are companies reselling MJ in the Philippines. But, it's probably a niche market for Filipinos with contacts in the US. I.e., it's not like the chat support team are employed by MJ and have access to the device, or an incentive to use it to perform their jobs better.

I guess it's possible nobody at MJ knows how a busy signal works. If someone had the time and energy, it might be worthwhile to report it as a problem with chat support. Just follow their inane scripted dialogue by saying "ok, I did that, but the same problem exists" until you can get them to escalate it to an engineer.

As for it to be escalated, and for a definite commitment (timeline) that someone will contact you. Ask for a supervisor. Record the names of everyone who chats with you and let them know that you intend to contact the CEO if they don't handle your problem.

Then contact Dan about not only the busy-signal problem, but also your experience with chat support. Contact info is on the wiki FAQ.

Who knows. You might actually get them to fix it.

Mark

[JoelIrwin]

Not sure the back to dial tone issue is a busy signal on the other end. I have been seeing this problem on and off for a few months and I seem to get it whether there is someone on the other line or not (in my judgment).

Like many of the other 'issues' being discussed in the last day in these threads, it happens to quite a few of us, could be regional, and often seems to happen randomly.

The fact is, the price of the MJ and service is extremely low, making it almost impossible because of their low profits to stay on top of the constantly emerging issues as other vendors make changes which impact their product. It behooves us as users to either put up and expect these constant issues or move on to a more expensive but perhaps better tested and support service.

For example, there is a particular phone number for the main office of Fidelity Brokerage here in Houston. It gets answered by a voice response system where you key in options. Every time I call it with MJ, it goes to the wrong phone number at Fidelity and I end up in some Fidelity employees office. I have just gotten used to using my regular land line to call that number. I have reported this multiple times to MJ and they are obviously not going to fix that problem.

[az2008]

Not sure the back to dial tone issue is a busy signal on the other end. I have been seeing this problem on and off for a few months and I seem to get it whether there is someone on the other line or not (in my judgment).

I agree. Going back to dial tone is what happens when the numbered dialed is busy. But, it's not the only time it goes back to dial tone.

I've had it go back to dial tone when the number dialed isn't busy. And, I've received busy signals when the number dialed isn't busy (like an "all circuits are busy" signal).

After awhile I develop a knack for it. I can identify the erroneous back-to-dialtone because it occurs so rapidly after completion of dialing. Redialing 5-10 times causes it to finally go through. When the number is really busy, it seems to take 2-3 seconds longer to go back to dialtone.

Mark

[hsweiss]

Just to add more mush to the discussion - of late I have actually gotten a busy signal. The call completion seems to take longer than usual (which means its terribly long), and then I got 3 busy tones before it went back to dial tone. I repeated this a few times and each time had the same result. I then grabbed my cell phone and sure enough, the dialed number was indeed busy.

[aoeu00]

After awhile I develop a knack for it. I can identify the erroneous back-to-dialtone because it occurs so rapidly after completion of dialing. Redialing 5-10 times causes it to finally go through. When the number is really busy, it seems to take 2-3 seconds longer to go back to dialtone.

Mark

It's a shame we have to accept these flaws in the product. I really wonder how many software developers they have to enhance and/or fix issues. Since this problem appears to be very widespread, you'd think the engineer would be able to easily reproduce this problem and correctly issue back a busy signal.

[JoelIrwin]

Based on the price we pay and what I perceive to be their business model + the fact that their support group is a multi-company support group that is not part of their company, I would have to assume their development programmers are likely contractors and that they not only don't have specific alligence to the company (i.e., no profit sharing) but they are also overwhelmed with work. And quite frankly, my years of IT experience for Exxon (though I am no longer in IT and am now a composer) leads me to assume that when you have a limited programming resource, you make more money by doing new development and enhancements and not by fixing problems and doing support.... ESPECIALLY, since the payment model locks in a 'captive audience' -- since you preinvest for 1 year or 5 years you can drag on the support problems without risking incoming loss in the short term (which is important to a startup company like this).

I don't like the above, but I have to say its BRILLIANT both business wise and technically.

[az2008]

Based on the price we pay ... but I have to say its BRILLIANT

Heck, I'd be happy to get free calls and tuberculosis for $1.67 per month. If Dan dropped the price to $1.25 I'd consider a venereal disease.

Is low cost and poor service really brilliant? I'll give Dan credit for bundling all the nerdy details of VoIP into one, supposedly simple, plug'n'play device. He made VoIP something the average infomercial retard can touch and feel (without wading through a smorgasbord of add-on features like ATA, phone number, minutes per month).

That was genius. But, I'm not sure competing over 42 cents per month is too inspiring when so many people have so many problems. At some point, 42 cents isn't worth the penicillin shots.

I have to assume their development programmers are likely contractors

MJ seems to consist of MJ for consumer-facing, YMAX for the network, SJphone[1] for development and, perhaps the same entity, Softjoys[2].

[1] http://www.sjlabs.com/
[2] http://www.softjoys.com/

Mark

[JoelIrwin]

What I was thinking the brilliant part is that this company has put together a perfectly legal way of doing what I would have called a pyrimad/ponzi approach had it been in a 'different lifetime'. What makes it perfectly fine and legal is they provide a minimal amount of service to thwart any action against them. I can't think of a way to get the operational costs lower or the service poorer -- they are really riding that fence!

Then they accumulate all this pre-invested funds which they can what they wish for. I would say it is highly unlikely they will be in the biz their in, in 5 years. Either they go belly up or they'll get bought out and its no guarantee the purchaser will honor the remaining time.

[az2008]

What I was thinking the brilliant part is that this company has put together a perfectly legal way of doing what I would have called a pyrimad/ponzi

To me, it doesn't qualify as either.

A pyramid is a multi-level marketing scheme where early entrants benefit from the cascading effect of their recruits recruiting more participants (who recruit more participants, etc.). We don't receive a benefit for recruiting MJ customers.

A Ponzi scheme is defined as an *investment* that pays an unusually (unsustainably) high return using the capital injections of newer investors.

I can see how MJ resembles a Ponzi scheme. A lot of speculation exists that they aren't making enough profit to provide services. But, that's true of most start-up businesses. Operating at a loss isn't the definition of a deception.

Maybe the time factor makes a difference. Instead of purchasing cash-carry at the local hardware store or restaurant, the pre-purchasing of service makes it look *more* like a Ponzi scheme. The offer to prepurchase five years of service looks even more like an "investment."

But, it's clearly stated up front that you're buying a service and no refunds exist (whether you choose to withdraw your "investment," or MJ goes out of business). That's significantly different than a true investment where return of principal is expected, and if enough people withdraw their principal it brings to light how principal was used to pay yield.

I agree that the longer the offer and the more unreasonable the promise of return (infinite, unsustainable), the more it looks like a Ponzi scheme. MJ's one-year and five-year plans don't look like it to me. But, a competing VoIP service's promise of a "lifetime of free service" for a one-time hardware purchase does. (I hope that remark doesn't attract the VoIP Scientologists.).

Mark

[JoelIrwin]

As this is not a thread on the topic currently discussed I'll make one final comment.

As the business markets have shown me (perhaps 'us'), (a) part of economic reality is about how those involved believe it to be regardless of what it really is (sometimes they're the same), and (b) a business loss is defined by accounts. Assuming the truth is told, 'cash flow' may be significantly different and profit or loss is dependent on how the story is told.

I spent 23 years in evaluating technology for Exxon and I have been quite amazed that MJ has been a one horse race.... if its business model or technology is tempting, where is the competition. Its been by itself for too long. So why is that? Can't be competition waiting on the sideline to see what happens... they wait too long and lose market share and momentum. So what does this tell us? (rhetorical question)