| reply to NY Tel
Re: What is the point? Someone is making money here....GC may never need to charge if they stay below the radar
said by NY Tel:This will work until Grand Central begins charging to connect these types of calls. It is stated in the Beta TOS that eventually, they will charge a "fee" for outgoing connections. For now, enjoy the calls. I also have a similar setup minus the spinning propeller on my head.  |
|
 NY TelPremium
join:2004-04-09
Smithtown, NY
kudos:3
 ·AT&T CallVantage
| said by xsiddalx:Someone is making money here....GC may never need to charge if they stay below the radar said by NY Tel:This will work until Grand Central begins charging to connect these types of calls. It is stated in the Beta TOS that eventually, they will charge a "fee" for outgoing connections. For now, enjoy the calls. I also have a similar setup minus the spinning propeller on my head. Yes, I know they do make money with all of the termination charges/fees/etc. etc. but I can't imagine someone won't want to "double dip" and get re-reimbursed from the carriers AND the end users. It is the way of the old "Bell System"... |
|
| said by NY Tel:said by xsiddalx:Someone is making money here....GC may never need to charge if they stay below the radar said by NY Tel:This will work until Grand Central begins charging to connect these types of calls. It is stated in the Beta TOS that eventually, they will charge a "fee" for outgoing connections. For now, enjoy the calls. I also have a similar setup minus the spinning propeller on my head. Yes, I know they do make money with all of the termination charges/fees/etc. etc. but I can't imagine someone won't want to "double dip" and get re-reimbursed from the carriers AND the end users. It is the way of the old "Bell System"... The problem is none of the carriers want to charge their customers for pure bandwidth/connectivity. They all want to double dip. The system is not restricted to Bell. The newspapers do it (failing model?), cable does it (failing model?), grocery stores do it (failing model?). Those are three easy pickings, there are certainly more.
I certainly think what GC is doing makes perfect sense and they SHOULD do it. It is just a matter of time before old arbitrage game ends and a new one begins Regulatory encourages some of this, but then again, so do contracts engaged by short sighted dominant players. How else would Cogent have a plan?
The BOCs are idiots (IMO), but their size and clout generally get them out of trouble every time (again IMO). |
|
