Could we please change the Subject line to "Consumer's Union attempts to
end robocalls"? Every time I see "CU attempts to end robocalls" the
subject line, I think we're talking about the venerable Unix utility
'cu', and I wonder what clever technique someone's come up with to use a
modem dialer from the early 1980s (late 1970s?) to stop robocalls. (
1/2 :-) )
Mark Rosenthal
On 12/8/15 10:10 AM, Grant M wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
