Vonage charges for services it cannot provide Vonage is not recommended.

The clue I missed from the onset was that Vonage uses the term "Vonage Customer Care"
to identify what most good "service" providers call "Customer Service". 

"Customer Care" is most appropriate because Vonage does not care, only the customer does.

This was my experience summarizing 78 emails [sent-received].

The order: Provide Vonage "service" on an existing "Distinctive Ring" telephone number.

After 21 days had elapsed, Vonage did not dispute the following facts:
 (1) The ordered "service" was, and would, never be connected or provided;
 (2) Vonage never identified a date when the promised "service" would be "connected";
 (3) The Vonage ordering process falsely claims that all orders will be completed;
 (4) The ordering process lacked disclosure of contract obligations adverse to consumer choice;
 (5) Vonage billed from the order date for the promised "service" that was never provided;
 (6) Double billing for the telephone number occurred because Vonage failed to transfer it;
 (7) The Vonage advertised "free" "service" was never provided;
 (8) Vonage charged $58.80 for the two (2) month's of advertised "free" service;
 (9) Vonage charged $39.99 to cancel the "service" order that was never completed;
 (10) Vonage deliberately and knowingly charges credit cards for services not rendered;
 (11) Vonage charges credit cards even when specifically not authorized by the consumer; 
 (12) Vonage has absolutely no process in place to comply with Federal LNP* Law.
 
* Federal Law requires that service providers comply with Local Number Portability [LNP]
  requirements whereby consumers can keep their existing telephone numbers.

A Complaint was filed with the Better Business Bureau regarding Vonage

 
The complaint contained the following issues:
 (1) Ordering process misinforms consumers;
 (2) Ordering process lacks disclosure of contract terms and conditions adverse to consumer choice;
 (3) Does not fulfill contract obligations (service never provided);
 (4) Bills for service not rendered; 
 (5) Processes credit card transactions for services not rendered; 
 (6) Processes unauthorized credit card transactions; 
 (7) Withholds monies collected for services not rendered; 
 (8) Charges for fulfillment of money back guarantee; 
 (9) Advertises for services that cannot be delivered;
 (10) Does not offer refunds consistent with generally accepted business practices; 
 (11) Customer service delivery system inconsistent with generally accepted business practices; 
 (12) Poorly trained customer service and technical resources.

The Federal Communications Commission never responded to the complaint.

 
The FCC, Vonage and the Better Business Bureau were informed of the above issues.
 
The following was sent to Vonage on June 13, 2008 [day #21]:

"A number of legal issues arise, both tort and criminal, that require investigation on many levels
which would affect repudiation of any such contract or agreement in part or on the whole. Holding 
monies with due consideration to the above facts, and exacerbating the matter by taking more 
monies without authorization demands an investigation by law enforcement, regulatory authorities, 
and public and private consumer protection agencies. In the event Vonage insists on retaining 
monies for services never provided, the entire service order charge related to the Vonage order 
will be reported as a fraudulent charge and reported to law enforcement as a larceny, if full 
reimbursement for said monies is not forthcoming by 5:00PM June 13, 2008."

After receiving the foregoing email, Vonage truncated their typical stalling process and provided 
a reimbursement at about 3:30PM on June 13th.

The Better Business Bureau did nothing and closed the case.

The following was sent to the BBB:

The central issue of my complaint was that Vonage deliberately and knowingly charged me for 
services that were not delivered and Vonage knew full well they would never be delivered. All of 
facts presented were undisputed by Vonage. The Vonage responses were rich in contradictions 
to their own "terms and conditions". Vonage never responded, apologized or pledged to remedy the 
systemic issues related to the central issue which is an important matter of moral, legal and 
ethical significance. The reason time was taken to communicate with the BBB is that Vonage clearly 
does not live up the BBB`s "Vision, Mission and Values" which I read with great interest on the 
BBB web site. The thinking was that the BBB would recommend some sort of remedial action to protect 
consumers in future transactions where it is clear my events will be repeated again and again. I am 
deeply disappointed that Vonage`s behavior apparently reflects the BBB`s "vision" of "trust", 
"best practices", "excellence", " and "a marketplace role model". As a result, I have depreciated 
the value of the Better Business Bureau trademark accordingly and will make this recommendation to 
my business partners as well.

The FCC has not responded at all.

After the Vonage order was cancelled, an order was placed with Comcast who completed the order 
in about seven days, including a service technician installing the service on site. The modem
has a nominal monthly rental fee of $3.00. There was a $29.95 activation fee and the $99.00 
installation fee was waived. Service is $29.95 for the first six months and $39.95 thereafter.
Billing started only after the "service" actually worked. Everyone in the ordering process and 
technical support knows what they talking about. And ... everybody speaks english.