On 12/08/2015 07:27 AM, Michael Tiernan wrote:
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.
Yes, that was my final point:
> I can't imagine it's that difficult to do. But they get revenue from those
> calls even if they don't originate on their network. It's traffic and
> someone pays for it.
So yes, it is better for them to *not* do this as they still get revenue for the
traffic. And in reality they don't really care about individual customers as
they have no voice. Spending even $200/month doesn't get you any attention from
a company whose net last year was over $9 billion. Until the FTC decides that
they *can* actually identify and regulate this traffic and that it serves the
consumer better then it's not actually going to happen.
Grant M.
--
Grant Mongardi
Senior Systems Engineer
NAPC
[email protected]
http://www.napc.com/
twitter: @Grantonator
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/grant-mongardi/19/34/182/
781.894.3114 phone
781.894.3997 fax
NAPC | technology matters
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
