View Single Post
Old
  (#11)
YackieMobile (Offline)
DEALER
Prepaid Fan
 
YackieMobile's Avatar
 
Posts: 173
Join Date: 30 Aug 2006
Location: Fort Lauderdale

Country:
Default 28-10-2007, 15:18

Quote:
Originally Posted by n875 View Post
I think you still can make money, instead of let other VOIP providers get the money if users try to take advantage of free incoming call and use the cheap VOIP callback... then why don't you provide that cheap VOIP callback for them since you also offer VOIP... as long as your VOIP price competitive or even a little bit higher, I think people will choose your solution, because they won't have to deal with another VOIP provider...
Hi n875,

If this were a viable option, then prepaid roaming operators would be using it. The reason why you are able to do this (in rare occasions) on a +354380 number is because of a situation where some operator along the way has made an error in his rate tables. So here's the scenario.

1) Operator A makes mistake in rate tables
2) Your VOIP operator doesn't realise that this is a mistake so routes cheaply to +354380
3) You make cheap calls with your VOIP operator, also not realising that this is a mistake
4) Operator A's billing system eventually finds out he is losing money on this destination so he blocks access
5) Your operator can't terminate to this destination
6) You can't make any more calls.

In many countries it would be classified as fraud for an operator to willingly/knowingly take advantage of a price difference like this (arbitrage).
Someone has to pay for the free incoming whilst roaming, it's just that in this case the operator along the way pays for most of it.
If carriers have rates that are not sustainable (i.e. too low) it is in many cases a matter of policy for carriers to inform the other and attempt to correct this situation for the mutual benefit of all carriers.

We strive to play fairly in this market, and this situation is also what causes poor access to many free incoming roaming number series.

Last edited by YackieMobile; 29-10-2007 at 12:01..
   
Reply With Quote