reply to iansltx
Re: MagicTalk isn't "this week" said by iansltx:LECs aren't required to complete calls that are long distance because they cost more than local calls. I never said LECs are required to complete long distance calls. Which is apparently why you don't want to quote what you're replying to. It makes it easier to create strawman arguments?
said by iansltx:MagicJack shouldn't be required to complete all calls for a similar reason. The problem is, MagicJack is serving the role of both a LEC and long-distance carrier, which is required by law to complete calls to rural LECs.
said by iansltx:Flat-rate and unlimited long distance plans from landline and cell carriers tend to hide this issue because they've run the numbers and decided that the percentage of their subscriber base that calls high cost areas is minimal. MagicJack "ran the numbers" too. They were making a terrific profit until blocking rural numbers 2-3 weeks ago.
They let higher-population areas subsidize the lower. In the same way lighter (1 call per 48 hours) users subsidize the heavier users (10 calls per 12 hours).
said by iansltx:Those call carriers and landline companies also charge more for service than MagicJack...way more. Reducing costs isn't an excuse to evade the law.
That's like saying "I don't pay income tax because I want to be 'competitive.' If you made me pay income tax, I'd have to charge as much as the people who do pay income tax. That would make me 'uncompetitive.'"
That's sophomoric.
said by iansltx: I think that's a good thing. See my immediately previous post about the selective nature of enjoying government subsidy. | 
·