rahulsharma73
07-10 10:12 PM
I have sent an email to 1800flowers.com to offer special price or sponsor this campaign as they may also get benefited from business or media coverage. I would suggest that we should speak to other flower shops and see if they will sponsor and it may increase the numbers and people who are shying away from high cost of flowers can also start participating. Also, we should come up with a new date or extend the time to send the flowers to increase the numbers.
What do you think???
What do you think???
wallpaper amber rose long hair.
Hunter
05-09 05:40 AM
I agree I too have never seen H1B only ad's anywhere even body shoppers never post this kind of ad which is blatant discrimination. .
IGATE Mastech was fined by DOJ not too long ago
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/h1_b_discrimination_doj_fine/
Pittsburgh computer consultancy is paying $45,000 in civil penalties over claims it discriminated against legal US residents by advertising only for developers on H-1B visas.
The case was brought against iGate Mastech for placing an ad for 30 programmers between May and June 2006 "that expressly favored H-1B visa holders to the exclusion of US citizens, lawful permanent citizens and other legal US workers" according to the US Department of Justice.
So-called citizenship status discrimination is prohibited by the US Immigration and Nationality Act. The DoJ said it is "committed to protection the right of all authorized workers in the United States against citizenship status discrimination".
Get your facts right before posting. mastech is not the only firm that did it. As you pointed out, many of these fly-by-night operators (and bigger outsourcing companies) offer below market salaries, pocketing the difference like parasites.
IGATE Mastech was fined by DOJ not too long ago
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/h1_b_discrimination_doj_fine/
Pittsburgh computer consultancy is paying $45,000 in civil penalties over claims it discriminated against legal US residents by advertising only for developers on H-1B visas.
The case was brought against iGate Mastech for placing an ad for 30 programmers between May and June 2006 "that expressly favored H-1B visa holders to the exclusion of US citizens, lawful permanent citizens and other legal US workers" according to the US Department of Justice.
So-called citizenship status discrimination is prohibited by the US Immigration and Nationality Act. The DoJ said it is "committed to protection the right of all authorized workers in the United States against citizenship status discrimination".
Get your facts right before posting. mastech is not the only firm that did it. As you pointed out, many of these fly-by-night operators (and bigger outsourcing companies) offer below market salaries, pocketing the difference like parasites.
mchundi
01-01 02:30 PM
mchudi,
These are very tough and partisian bills (immigration bills). This also being an election year, some lawmakers will try to puch their own agenda. Don't expect a featherbed solution. This will be a dogfight.
This time atleast there will be some democrats to vote for our bill, unless the anti guys find some way of preventing them from participating in it.
--MC
These are very tough and partisian bills (immigration bills). This also being an election year, some lawmakers will try to puch their own agenda. Don't expect a featherbed solution. This will be a dogfight.
This time atleast there will be some democrats to vote for our bill, unless the anti guys find some way of preventing them from participating in it.
--MC
2011 Amber Rose, Nia Long
mallikonnet
07-09 10:00 PM
This is just a message to 2005/2006/2007 PD guys. Please don't think that some miracle will happen and dates will be current soon, it will take its own time. Mostly for EB2 & EB3June 2006- June 2007 guys, it will be like a lottery if the PD becomes current somewhere in 2007 Oct-Nov time. Right??
So life is not always easy. There are people waiting since 2002-03-04.
Don't think that life is not a FIFO always.
Why some of the guys became violent when I said, INDIA IS GREAT???
Guys.. do you know why I always feel like this???
As my parents,in laws and most of my relatives stay there. Not only mine, allmost all guys who are in the IV, they must have parents and relatives in India for sure. There is no other reason why I said India is great.
Someone asked me to pack up... YES, I will if nothing happens;however, I will be waiting to see the progress for sure. This is July. Let's have a look over OCT bulletin after 2 months and for sure dates will move atleast 4-6 months for EB2 guys and 1 year for EB3 guys. So wait, be patient, instead of doing all this.
Anyway, our turn will come sooner or later, so why to become impatient just seeing the JULY bulletin CURRENT and then "U".
Mainly this is the message for 2005-2006-2007 PD guys. Please don't take it otherwise.
I agree what you said but why the heck the USCIS make my life restless for 2 weeks. i spent 5000 dollors for nothing... that is what we are asking for not to go ahead of people with older priority dates
So life is not always easy. There are people waiting since 2002-03-04.
Don't think that life is not a FIFO always.
Why some of the guys became violent when I said, INDIA IS GREAT???
Guys.. do you know why I always feel like this???
As my parents,in laws and most of my relatives stay there. Not only mine, allmost all guys who are in the IV, they must have parents and relatives in India for sure. There is no other reason why I said India is great.
Someone asked me to pack up... YES, I will if nothing happens;however, I will be waiting to see the progress for sure. This is July. Let's have a look over OCT bulletin after 2 months and for sure dates will move atleast 4-6 months for EB2 guys and 1 year for EB3 guys. So wait, be patient, instead of doing all this.
Anyway, our turn will come sooner or later, so why to become impatient just seeing the JULY bulletin CURRENT and then "U".
Mainly this is the message for 2005-2006-2007 PD guys. Please don't take it otherwise.
I agree what you said but why the heck the USCIS make my life restless for 2 weeks. i spent 5000 dollors for nothing... that is what we are asking for not to go ahead of people with older priority dates
more...
abuddyz
01-29 03:45 PM
Hi, Both my wife's and my approval notices state a WAC number. And I am stuck in PIMS for past 27 days now!!!!!!!!:mad:
thanks for posting your details..can you please let us know when was your H1 approved?
thanks for posting your details..can you please let us know when was your H1 approved?
saileshdude
09-13 10:39 AM
Arewethereyet,
In the email that you send to the streamline address, in the subject we have to write it in the format "I-485/MM". THe document says we have to write the month for "MM" but does not say whether the month is priority date month or the month that your PD will be current. What did you write?
Thanks.
In the email that you send to the streamline address, in the subject we have to write it in the format "I-485/MM". THe document says we have to write the month for "MM" but does not say whether the month is priority date month or the month that your PD will be current. What did you write?
Thanks.
more...
nrk
10-01 10:56 AM
Two of my colleagues on Nov 04 and Dec 04 didn't cleared out till.
I don't think so they are on IV, but they will use 6 cards (1+1 in one case and 1+3 in another case)
Since 2004 EB2 is cleared, I am seeing less number of posts being made on IV.Yay I became a senior member, will that mean I will get a green card?
I don't think so they are on IV, but they will use 6 cards (1+1 in one case and 1+3 in another case)
Since 2004 EB2 is cleared, I am seeing less number of posts being made on IV.Yay I became a senior member, will that mean I will get a green card?
2010 amber rose long hair. amber
english_august
07-11 12:18 PM
If you participated in the flower campaign and if you are in the Broward county area in Florida - please contact Ruth Morris of the Sun Sentinel (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/) asap.
She needs to file a story on this today. Her contact numbers are
305-810-5012
954-802-9530
She needs to file a story on this today. Her contact numbers are
305-810-5012
954-802-9530
more...
CADude
11-06 03:40 PM
Wow.. Applicants are waiting since 2002 and Govt Agency know it but don't do anything. Shame on you FBI NNCP :mad:
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
Check this:
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Liang%2010-30-07.pdf
Defendants assert that the background check is a complex
process that must accommodate an extremely large volume of requests
from the USCIS. Given the backlog of name-check requests and the
FBI�s limited resources, they maintain that the delay of two and a
half years in processing Mr. Liang�s background check is not
unreasonable. There is some validity to these points, and the
Court appreciates that the name-check process is indeed complex and
resource-intensive. But limited resources or not, a common-sense
rule of reason dictates that if the FBI was performing background
checks with due diligence, it would not take two and a half years
to process Mr. Liang�s name. While the Court is sympathetic to the
demands placed on the FBI and the limited ability of the USCIS to
control how the FBI allocates its resources, a lack of sufficient
resources devoted to name-check operations is a matter for the
agencies to take up between themselves or with Congress. The
executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its
statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those
duties have been met.
See Dong, 2007 WL 2601107 at *11 (�[I]t is
not the place of the judicial branch to weigh a plaintiff�s clear
right to administrative action against the agency�s burdens in
complying.�).
Moreover, although there is no Congressionally mandated
timetable for the processing of I-485 applications, Congress has by
statute expressed its view of what a reasonable amount of time is:
�It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days
after the initial filing of the application.� 8 U.S.C. � 1571.
The Court recognizes that this statute was enacted prior to the
events of September 11, 2001, and that the burdens on agencies with
responsibility for immigration matters have since increased.
Nonetheless, Plaintiffs� applications have been pending for five
times the length of the period identified by Congress.
Defendants argue that expediting Mr. Liang�s name check will
prejudice other applicants who have been waiting longer than he -in some cases, since as long as December, 2002.
While this would
be unfortunate, Defendants� failure to fulfill their statutory duty
to other applicants has no bearing on whether they have fulfilled
their statutory duty to Plaintiffs, and thus cannot serve as a
basis for denying Plaintiffs� motion.
While Defendants worry that
granting Plaintiffs relief may reward �the more litigious
applicants� or encourage other applicants to file lawsuits,
�perhaps recognizing this possibility will provide the defendants
with adequate incentive to begin processing [I-485] applications in
a lawful and timely fashion in order to obviate the applicants�
need to resort to the courts for redress.� Dong, 2007 WL 2601107
at *12.
hair Bisexual Amber turned up
Googler
08-06 04:07 AM
All of this info and more is available in the documents listed in this thread:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11087
All you have to do is read them.:)
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11087
All you have to do is read them.:)
more...
Saralayar
01-15 10:35 AM
Please register and vote positively, . Once logged in, search for immigration. AND vote for all the issues that are relevant for us. EB2 and EB3.. Vote for Legal immigrants
http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov
Search for Citizenship also. It is posted in the Homeland Security and Foriegn Policy.
http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov
Search for Citizenship also. It is posted in the Homeland Security and Foriegn Policy.
hot pictures amber rose long hair
sgupta33
01-10 01:38 PM
^^^^^^^^
more...
house wallpaper hair amber rose
rockyrock
07-31 03:52 PM
Pappu, special thanks for researching this topic, and posting updates regularly.
Last week I too consulted a high profile (about $200 per 15 minutes... you should be able to guess, I am not sure I am alowed to mention the name) lawyer to discuss this issue. To give you a brief background, my lawyer did not include the Employment Verification letter
1) He told me that he would re-submit the AOS. The comparison to the medical clearance requirement, according to him, was pointless, as they are two different things. If USCIS issues a statement they will not reject solely based on the EVL, then we can assume that is the truth. Their statement on Medical clearance cannot be interpreted to say they won't reject on the basis of another missing requirement, say the EVL.
2) Filing two AOS packets can indeed also cause confusion, but it is a smaller risk according to him, and should be mitigated by a covering letter that says you are re-submitting to provide the XYZ document that was missed from the first packet.
Based on this info, I have asked my lawyer to get a confirmation from the USCIS on the document that he missed in my case-- the EVL. If USCIS okays that, we do not resubmit. If they don't do that within a week, I will try to re-submit... not going to be easy considering my lawyer may not be in agreement... but that is what would be the correct way out of this, according to the second opinion I got last week.
Thanks!
just a question on #2 above - if you are filing second AOS with EVL, why not just withdraw the first AOS once you get the receipt? Wouldn't this be safer?
Last week I too consulted a high profile (about $200 per 15 minutes... you should be able to guess, I am not sure I am alowed to mention the name) lawyer to discuss this issue. To give you a brief background, my lawyer did not include the Employment Verification letter
1) He told me that he would re-submit the AOS. The comparison to the medical clearance requirement, according to him, was pointless, as they are two different things. If USCIS issues a statement they will not reject solely based on the EVL, then we can assume that is the truth. Their statement on Medical clearance cannot be interpreted to say they won't reject on the basis of another missing requirement, say the EVL.
2) Filing two AOS packets can indeed also cause confusion, but it is a smaller risk according to him, and should be mitigated by a covering letter that says you are re-submitting to provide the XYZ document that was missed from the first packet.
Based on this info, I have asked my lawyer to get a confirmation from the USCIS on the document that he missed in my case-- the EVL. If USCIS okays that, we do not resubmit. If they don't do that within a week, I will try to re-submit... not going to be easy considering my lawyer may not be in agreement... but that is what would be the correct way out of this, according to the second opinion I got last week.
Thanks!
just a question on #2 above - if you are filing second AOS with EVL, why not just withdraw the first AOS once you get the receipt? Wouldn't this be safer?
tattoo girlfriend amber rose long
sledge_hammer
11-24 10:35 AM
Buddy sledge_hammer this is the mess mortgage companies created, they need to face it.fanie's and fadie's caused this mess and they to need face it ?
I don't understand what you are trying to get at by asking me a question if Freddie and Fannie need to face "it"? If you are so sure they caused it, why ask me?
Who the hell are "fanie" and "fadie"? Are they your work buddies? Its "Fannie" and "Freddie"!
And why the hell is there an apostrophe ('s) to indicate plurality?
Do you think the individual should sit in that home and hit on their head with the 'sledgehammer' when they are in this mess? I would say get the f**k out of that house and lead peaceful life.
What mess? "punjabi77" is not in a mess! He is losing 20K if he sells his home. He is looking to relocate becuase he has found a better paying job.
You must be one of those idiots who can't construct logical arguments but just wants a piece of it on a forum to look like they too contributed to a current affairs topic. The likes of you read a couple of headlines on the internet or overhear someone at the water fountain talk "economics" and want to show off their new found knowledge over a forum where other ignorant and ill-informed trolls just like you give crappy suggestions and advices, and all of you think you know what you're talking about!
Sledge_hammer, use the thing in your screen name on your head to make your thoughts work correctly. Hey don't get me started.
Well, you should really have warned me about not getting you started at the begining of all that crap you wrote, not at the end! Now that I have gotten you "started", what are you going to do about it dimwit?????
I don't understand what you are trying to get at by asking me a question if Freddie and Fannie need to face "it"? If you are so sure they caused it, why ask me?
Who the hell are "fanie" and "fadie"? Are they your work buddies? Its "Fannie" and "Freddie"!
And why the hell is there an apostrophe ('s) to indicate plurality?
Do you think the individual should sit in that home and hit on their head with the 'sledgehammer' when they are in this mess? I would say get the f**k out of that house and lead peaceful life.
What mess? "punjabi77" is not in a mess! He is losing 20K if he sells his home. He is looking to relocate becuase he has found a better paying job.
You must be one of those idiots who can't construct logical arguments but just wants a piece of it on a forum to look like they too contributed to a current affairs topic. The likes of you read a couple of headlines on the internet or overhear someone at the water fountain talk "economics" and want to show off their new found knowledge over a forum where other ignorant and ill-informed trolls just like you give crappy suggestions and advices, and all of you think you know what you're talking about!
Sledge_hammer, use the thing in your screen name on your head to make your thoughts work correctly. Hey don't get me started.
Well, you should really have warned me about not getting you started at the begining of all that crap you wrote, not at the end! Now that I have gotten you "started", what are you going to do about it dimwit?????
more...
pictures Rose wore blue leggings to
kaisersose
03-26 02:07 PM
This is plain stupidity. These employers should first take a good look at an EAD and a GC. As for as work authorization is concerned, both these cards provide us with the same rights. The EAD says �The person identified is authorized to work in the US for the validity of this card� where as the GC says �The person identified by the card is authorized to work and remain in the US�.
So why does the legal department come into picture here? Is it because of the expiry date associated with EAD�s? If that�s the case even a GC has got an expiration date (a later date maybe). Does that mean that an additional budget is required to hire GC holders?
I was thinking exactly like you until she educated me on this yesterday.
The problem with the EAD is you are invoking AC21. There are several possible problems here including
1. Complying with AC21 requirements of job code, 180 days after 485 RD, etc.
2. Invoking AC21 without 140 approval. This is not against the law, but is risky in case of a 140 RFE.
There are more reasons, but these ought to provide enough clarity on the problem. It is in the employer's interest to ensure that the candidate does not have any such issues; issues which will lead to termination of employment. The Recruiter cannot check DOL job codes and USCIS documents. That is the job of Legal which means $$$.
So if the hiring manager does not have a budget for these extra costs or if he has an equally good candidate who is a GC holder or a citizen, it is easier to go with him or her.
So why does the legal department come into picture here? Is it because of the expiry date associated with EAD�s? If that�s the case even a GC has got an expiration date (a later date maybe). Does that mean that an additional budget is required to hire GC holders?
I was thinking exactly like you until she educated me on this yesterday.
The problem with the EAD is you are invoking AC21. There are several possible problems here including
1. Complying with AC21 requirements of job code, 180 days after 485 RD, etc.
2. Invoking AC21 without 140 approval. This is not against the law, but is risky in case of a 140 RFE.
There are more reasons, but these ought to provide enough clarity on the problem. It is in the employer's interest to ensure that the candidate does not have any such issues; issues which will lead to termination of employment. The Recruiter cannot check DOL job codes and USCIS documents. That is the job of Legal which means $$$.
So if the hiring manager does not have a budget for these extra costs or if he has an equally good candidate who is a GC holder or a citizen, it is easier to go with him or her.
dresses hot Amber Rose Short Hair pics
mundada
03-24 03:59 PM
Take printouts of emails, walk to a lawyer, file a lawsuit, chill for couple of months, and take home your loot!
This is illegal discrimination!
This is illegal discrimination!
more...
makeup 2011 Amber Rose amber rose
cbpds
04-01 12:45 PM
Rodnyb,
The below number is depressing, however dont you think DOS/USCIS always believe in keeping buffer and they may push the dates somewhere into 2009 just to accept 485 filings?
Why do think they will stop keeping any buffer?
[QUOTE=rodnyb;2494192]Teddy, I agree some of your data. Mine would be (90% confidence level)
0 pass 09/31/2007
The below number is depressing, however dont you think DOS/USCIS always believe in keeping buffer and they may push the dates somewhere into 2009 just to accept 485 filings?
Why do think they will stop keeping any buffer?
[QUOTE=rodnyb;2494192]Teddy, I agree some of your data. Mine would be (90% confidence level)
0 pass 09/31/2007
girlfriend Amber Rose, Ashanti,
file485
01-24 11:55 PM
Milind...
good writing skills in that pain too...
a 10 on 10 on that...
thanks for the post before even people book their tickets via British babu's place..
good writing skills in that pain too...
a 10 on 10 on that...
thanks for the post before even people book their tickets via British babu's place..
hairstyles Flix: Amber Rose, Nia Long
sledge_hammer
11-25 06:36 PM
You're not getting my point! If you the merchandise is defective it is perfectly fine to return it.
Why do you guys feel the need to simply assume things and put words in someone's mouth and then go off trying to show off their opinions????
Go back to my post and read!!!!!!!!!
Well, whether a merchandise can be returned after using, depands on the nature of the merchandise and the level of customer service provided by the seller.
If you are buying a TV or a home theater, you don't know if it is functioning properly until you use it. And returning it within stipulated "return period" is not only legal but also ethical.
Some high-end sellers will even guarantee customer satisfaction by allowing a return any time, yes any time if the customer is not fully satisfied with their product. There is nothing unethical about this. That is why these high-end stores charge you a premium in the first place.
Not allowing return of merchandise reflects the low level of customer service we used to get back home. Obviously that level of service expectaion has been engrained in us so much that we believe returning used merchandise, even when the customer is not satisfied, is unethical.
Why do you guys feel the need to simply assume things and put words in someone's mouth and then go off trying to show off their opinions????
Go back to my post and read!!!!!!!!!
Well, whether a merchandise can be returned after using, depands on the nature of the merchandise and the level of customer service provided by the seller.
If you are buying a TV or a home theater, you don't know if it is functioning properly until you use it. And returning it within stipulated "return period" is not only legal but also ethical.
Some high-end sellers will even guarantee customer satisfaction by allowing a return any time, yes any time if the customer is not fully satisfied with their product. There is nothing unethical about this. That is why these high-end stores charge you a premium in the first place.
Not allowing return of merchandise reflects the low level of customer service we used to get back home. Obviously that level of service expectaion has been engrained in us so much that we believe returning used merchandise, even when the customer is not satisfied, is unethical.
IVFOREVER
12-01 07:43 PM
HI addsf345,
it seems exceeded the limit of 5000 first time.
Thanks
Response FROM Vonage:
Dear XXXXXX XXXXX,
As per our recent emails, thank you for agreeing to decrease your usage. Please note that your account will continue to be monitored for usage for 7 days and that you can track your minutes (combined domestic & international) from your Online Account under the Monthly Usage Summary in the Billing section. Should we see that the usage continues to be inconsistent with normal use, we would then have to take action on the account. For more information, please refer to our Terms of Service section 5.4. 5.4 Inconsistent with Normal Use. If you use the service or the device in a way that is inconsistent with the normal use for your service or plan, you will be required, at Vonage's sole discretion, to pay the rates for the service or plan that would apply to the way you used the service or device, or terminate the plan. For example, if you subscribe to one of our residential service plans, and your usage is inconsistent with normal residential use, you may thereafter be required to pay our applicable, higher rates for commercial service for all periods in which your use of our service or the device was inconsistent with normal residential use. Unlimited voice services are provided primarily for continuous live dialog between two individuals. Lack of continuous dialog activity, unusual call patterns, excessive numbers and/or consistent excessive usage (i.e., More than 5,000 minutes per line per month for unlimited residential calling and/or more than 10,000 minutes per line per month for unlimited small business calling), will be considered indicators that use may be inconsistent with normal use, or that impermissible use may be occurring and may trigger an account review by us. The creation or use of related multiple accounts or excessive residential lines to circumvent these levels shall also be considered indicators that use of the service may be inconsistent with normal use for the subscribed monthly plan(s) and may trigger an account review by Vonage. Failure to contact Vonage in response to its notifications and/or failure to promptly correct usage activity to conform to normal use will result, in Vonage's sole discretion, in immediate mandatory transfer to another appropriate plan, suspension or termination of service. You acknowledge that if your service is terminated under this provision, you are subject to all applicable disconnection and device or other rebate recovery charges. Vonage's right to terminate your account under Section 6.5(b) (with or no reason) is not limited by this provision. For a non-exhaustive list of example!s of uses of our service inconsistent with normal residential use, see below.bbb If you have any questions,
please reply to this email or contact me at 1-(866)-254-3704.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXX
Vonage Usage DepartmentRevenue Operations
1-(866)-254-3704
it seems exceeded the limit of 5000 first time.
Thanks
Response FROM Vonage:
Dear XXXXXX XXXXX,
As per our recent emails, thank you for agreeing to decrease your usage. Please note that your account will continue to be monitored for usage for 7 days and that you can track your minutes (combined domestic & international) from your Online Account under the Monthly Usage Summary in the Billing section. Should we see that the usage continues to be inconsistent with normal use, we would then have to take action on the account. For more information, please refer to our Terms of Service section 5.4. 5.4 Inconsistent with Normal Use. If you use the service or the device in a way that is inconsistent with the normal use for your service or plan, you will be required, at Vonage's sole discretion, to pay the rates for the service or plan that would apply to the way you used the service or device, or terminate the plan. For example, if you subscribe to one of our residential service plans, and your usage is inconsistent with normal residential use, you may thereafter be required to pay our applicable, higher rates for commercial service for all periods in which your use of our service or the device was inconsistent with normal residential use. Unlimited voice services are provided primarily for continuous live dialog between two individuals. Lack of continuous dialog activity, unusual call patterns, excessive numbers and/or consistent excessive usage (i.e., More than 5,000 minutes per line per month for unlimited residential calling and/or more than 10,000 minutes per line per month for unlimited small business calling), will be considered indicators that use may be inconsistent with normal use, or that impermissible use may be occurring and may trigger an account review by us. The creation or use of related multiple accounts or excessive residential lines to circumvent these levels shall also be considered indicators that use of the service may be inconsistent with normal use for the subscribed monthly plan(s) and may trigger an account review by Vonage. Failure to contact Vonage in response to its notifications and/or failure to promptly correct usage activity to conform to normal use will result, in Vonage's sole discretion, in immediate mandatory transfer to another appropriate plan, suspension or termination of service. You acknowledge that if your service is terminated under this provision, you are subject to all applicable disconnection and device or other rebate recovery charges. Vonage's right to terminate your account under Section 6.5(b) (with or no reason) is not limited by this provision. For a non-exhaustive list of example!s of uses of our service inconsistent with normal residential use, see below.bbb If you have any questions,
please reply to this email or contact me at 1-(866)-254-3704.
Sincerely,
XXXXXXX
Vonage Usage DepartmentRevenue Operations
1-(866)-254-3704
sri1309
09-14 08:03 PM
Can somebody please send me the addresses for sending regular mail. I have 30 posters almost ready,. I am checking. I have those 6-7 addresses (Zoe, Director, John, department, etc) but I need many more.
I want to do this 1st thing MOnday morning. ..
Thanks,
Sri.
I want to do this 1st thing MOnday morning. ..
Thanks,
Sri.
No comments:
Post a Comment