On 12/7/15 5:05 PM, Grant Mongardi wrote:
I always thought this would be simple for the major carriers [...]
Doesn't that assumption (which I'm sure we've all had) predicate itself
on them *wanting* to stop this traffic? Traffic=$$$$ so why interfere
with it? They'd have to spend money to prevent money from coming in.
Doesn't seem to be a good choice from a strictly business standpoint.
Now, if we could penalize them, say treble charges, for each occurrence
of a ?session? being initiated/transferred/perpetuated, then the cost
balances would shift and it would be in their business interests to
change these things.
--
<< MCT >> Michael C Tiernan. http://www.linkedin.com/in/mtiernan
Non Impediti Ratione Cogatationis
Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs
should relax and get used to the idea. -Robert A. Heinlein
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
