Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to rahvin112
Re: Fix The Loophole said by rahvin112:NN is all about the last mile, it's about your ISP blocking traffic, I'm not an expert on NN, but it seems like if the principle is desirable at your end of the line, it should be (and must be) desirable across the entire network.
This article says that's exactly the case. That it's an end-to-end principle:
quote:
The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally. This allows the network to carry every form of information and support every kind of application. The principle suggests that information networks are often more valuable when they are less specialized – when they are a platform for multiple uses, present and future. (For people who know more about network design, what is just described is similar to the "end-to-end" design principle).
-- »timwu.org/network_neutrality.html
That makes sense to me. Why should an entity further upstream be able to make choices about which content is profitable, desirable, etc., but the last entity (the customer's ISP) shouldn't? What kind of principle is that?
I think ATT makes a good point. They're prevented by law from blocking numbers. Google isn't, and they block them. And, Google's the loudest muckracker over so-called neutrality (when it's at ATT's expense).
Mark |
|
| Yes NN means any CARRIER can't discriminate. Google isn't a Carrier. They don't provide last mile service or provide long haul network capacity for any site other than their own.
It simply doesn't apply to them because they aren't preventing you from using the service. Google Voice won't connect to the numbers but you aren't prevented from connecting to a service that does.
NN is all about ISP and carriers blocking or slowing traffic for profit or advantage. Google isn't providing any carrier services. If ATT decides to block traffic to Google all their customers including long haul could be prevented from completely accessing the web site. If Google blocked a site no one would even know because Google doesn't provide connections.
You've fallen into the trap ATT wants you to, by redefining what NN is so that they can use it as a weapon against NN itself. The quote you provided talks about CARRIER networks exclusively but you blindly follow the ATT illogic in applying it against Google Voice which is a service on the network, not a carrier network. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by rahvin112:Yes NN means any CARRIER can't discriminate. Google isn't a Carrier. They don't provide last mile service or provide long haul network capacity for any site other than their own. Well, I'll leave it to others who understand (care about) Network Neutrality more than I do.
But, it seems extremely self-serving for Google to provide a service that's usually provided by last-mile providers, and then block numbers to consumers of other last-mile providers, and for Google to say Network Neutrality doesn't apply to them just because they're not a last-mile provider (or a carrier who might affect consumers of last-mile providers).
It seems like you're arguing the technicality of Network Neutrality, not the spirit. It's the spirit which Google has championed, but doesn't want applied to themselves.
Mark |
|
| reply to rahvin112
Considering google can now be used as your phones voice mail they should follow by the same rules that att and verizon do. |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| said by majortom1029:Considering google can now be used as your phones voice mail they should follow by the same rules that att and verizon do. Then they should be entitled to all the tax breaks and USF payments that the others get which basically "socializes" the services of AT&T and Verizon already. If Google does not get any government/taxpayer handouts, why should they be subject to those taxpayer protection rules?
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by n2jtx:said by majortom1029:Considering google can now be used as your phones voice mail they should follow by the same rules that att and verizon do. Then they should be entitled to all the tax breaks and USF payments that the others get which basically "socializes" the services of AT&T and Verizon already. If Google does not get any government/taxpayer handouts, why should they be subject to those taxpayer protection rules? I think USF and tax breaks go more to the point that incumbent carriers are different than VoIP because they're required (or subsidized) to provide service where, if left to "free markets" service wouldn't exist. That's the reasoning behind the poorly-written rural telco rules which created the condition for Google (unregulated) to block numbers that ATT (regulated) can't.
I think the question of whether VoIP (and Google Voice) should be regulated goes to the question of how ubiquitous they are becoming, and if left to "free market" forces will they present the kind of risks to the "national interest" that we sought to protect ourselves from when regulating incumbent carriers. Not necessarily cherry-picking service areas. But, the whole thing of network hardness, reliability, visibility by regulators.
I.e., what if GV became the hub for all telephone users, and one day it goes out of business? What effect would that have on our national interest? If all anyone knows each other by is there GV number? (The "too big to fail" problem that we're experiencing now in the financial markets after 25 years of deregulatory politics and "free markets" turned into a Theory of Everything?).
Mark |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
| reply to majortom1029
said by majortom1029:Considering google can now be used as your phones voice mail they should follow by the same rules that att and verizon do. Why?
Google is not even a phone service. You need to buy phone service from a phone company or voip provider to use google voice to make calls.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by r81984:said by majortom1029:Considering google can now be used as your phones voice mail they should follow by the same rules that att and verizon do. Why? Google is not even a phone service. ... Doesn't it depend on what we call a "phone service?"
A few years ago people said VoIP isn't a phone service because they don't own copper. Today, we've come to a "new normal" of what is a phone service.
Google's definitely providing a service involving phones, and it's to the same end users that more traditional providers serve. It interconnects to those traditional providers.
I believe that it won't be too long before we view that as a type of "phone service," presenting its own set of challenges, risks, etc.
Mark |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| You need phone service to use google voice.
Unless google voice becomes a stand alone voip it will never be phone service.
The only reason voip cannot be regulated like traditional phone companies is because traditional phone companies own the connection for the phone service while voip providers do not. Voip cannot offer any guarantee of connectivity because of this.
Voip has always been a phone service, I don't know who told you it was not.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by r81984:You need phone service to use google voice. Unless google voice becomes a stand alone voip it will never be phone service. It depends on how you define "phone service." Does it have to cost money? Does it have to be your primary service, or something that interconnects to (and largely becomes, based upon your usage,) your phone service.
Just because it's different, I wouldn't say "it's not a phone service." It could present the kind of challenges and risks that caused us to regulate traditional phone companies, and more recently VoIP.
It's much closer to being a "phone service" than a conference-calling service is. It provides you a DID (from a regulated CLEC?). The service you receive from that DID is largely the same service you receive from your primary "phone service." It interconnects to others who use more traditional "phone service." Just because it "fronts" your primary "phone service" doesn't mean it's not a "phone service." Just that it's a new type of service, much the same way VoIP was new a few years ago, and the challenges/risks it posed weren't fully understood until adoption increased.
It's qualities make it close enough to a "phone service" to me that I wouldn't automatically reject the need for regulation.
Mark |
|
r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
·row44
| It is not a phone service any more than using a calling card is.
If you take away google voice you still have your phone service.
If you take away your cell, voip, or landlind then you lose phone service and cannot use google voice.
--
Democrats are not Socialists any more than Republicans are. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by r81984:It is not a phone service any more than using a calling card is. That seems like apples and oranges. You don't get a DID with a calling card. You don't use a calling card to front-end your phone service, replacing it to a large extent, handing out your Google phone number instead of your real phone number, and dependent upon the underlying CLEC(?) servicing the number you've handed out to everyone.
I'm not saying Google is the same as ATT. But, neither are VoIP companies. But, they've come to be regulated (such as number porting, etc.).
I'm keeping an open mind about Google. It may present challenges/risks that would would benefit from regulation.
Mark |
|
