END OF MESSAGE

it would involve a huge capital expense for TER.

 
Instead, just click on the gal's website, and then click on her photos.   it really isn't all that difficult to do.

It may not be side to side comparison, but if her photos don't stick in your mind, then probably she's not the gal for you anyway.

I agree and that TER would never want to host pics. However, it could be set up using their current system of displaying linked pics hosted on other sites.  
.
Providers would have to maintain those pics and links, but that, itself, would be a sign of their up-to-datedness and such.  IF it worked to influence callers, they would make sure that their photobucket and imagecoast links were working properly!  
.
Here's a picture in a picture in a picture in a picture ... and none of them are stored (hosted) on TER.

It's not just storage space. They pay for bandwidth to download those files to your browser. Using the current system, they just have to send a measly little link to the host site to send the picture to your browser.  
.
I agree that it doesn't seem like much, storage-wise or bandwidth-wise, but TER has the stats and should come up with cost estimates.  In my other post, I was going to point out the huge disparity of file sizes (kb), image sizes (inches x inches), resolution, etc.. TER should try to make sure that they display with some degree of uniformity.  
.
Hmmmm ... another revenue stream? "Add a photo (stored on TER servers) to your Profile: $1 per month; $10 per year."