6 ms·

Read David's and Darkmane's comment on the blog. If GV emulates the functionality of a common carrier, then the same guiding principles with regards to net neut

Read David's and Darkmane's comment on the blog. If GV emulates the functionality of a common carrier, then the same guiding principles with regards to net neutrality should apply.

zaphar 17y ago
GV doesn't emulate the functionality of a common carrier though. Which is the point.
- gojomo 17y ago
  Then can AT&T offer a cheaper 'AT&T Voice' long-distance, that opts out of 'common-carrier' requirements and doesn't connect to the expensive rural numbers? If "the point" is that Google can choose to offer phone functionality that's less-than-common-carrier-compliant, why can't AT&T be allowed to offer a cheaper service, too?
  - jwhite 17y ago
    That may open up a new revenue stream for AT&T, but I don't think it solves the cost issue in their long-haul business that they were trying to address by not carrying calls terminating at expensive LEC's. I don't know the details of it, but it seems like they are obliged by regulation or legislation to provide that service to rural LEC's. It could be compared to Starbucks trying to close down an unprofitable rural store and being told they had to keep it open to satisfy rural coffee drinkers' caffeine addictions.
  - ekiru 17y ago
    Google Voice doesn't offer phone functionality(with the exception of SMS). It offers bidirectional phone call forwarding functionality. The price isn't the real issue. The difference in functionality is. Edit: I was less clear than I meant to be. The price to the customer is not the issue here.
    - gojomo 17y ago
      Then why can't Google's mere "bidirectional phone call forwarding" include the disputed rural endpoints? I assure you the dollar costs of complying with the regulation (paying the rural phone services), and thus the prices at which competing services can be profitable, are the only "real issue" here. Neither Google nor AT&T are charities. Everything they do -- even when writing whiny letters to the FCC (which both are guilty of) -- is motivated by profits.
      - ekiru 17y ago
        Google Voice doesn't compete with AT&T any more than a VOIP provider that you use via your DSL or cable internet competes with your ISP. They provide different services, and the one you are arguing competes with the telephone carrier or ISP actually relies on the customer paying a telephone carrier or ISP. I don't think we should ask: "Why can't Google's mere 'bidirectional phone call forwarding' include the disputed rural endpoints?", but rather "Why should a call forwarding service be held to the same network neutrality constraints issues as an actual phone provider?". When you make a call with Google Voice, Google doesn't transmit your voice over the internet or over telephone wires or via microwaves. Your phone provider does that. Regardless of whether it would be better for GV to allow you to call those rural areas(which of course, it would be), we should not expand the jurisdiction of the FCC to include services that are not actual communication networks of any kind.
        gojomo 17y ago
        When you make a call with Google Voice, Google doesn't transmit your voice over the internet or over telephone wires or via microwaves. Your phone provider does that. If true, why are certain numbers blocked, and the right to block numbers at Google's discretion asserted in the GV terms-of-service? Those calls are not being routed over your existing phone provider, or else Google wouldn't care about the destination. And why shouldn't a "forwarding" service -- one that includes a new dialable endpoint number, SMS, conferencing, free long-distance, and more -- meet the same regulatory standards as other competitive services offering a phone number/SMS/conferencing/bundled-long-distance/etc.? If Google can route an inbound call to any of several numbers purchased from other providers (mobile/home/office), even switching mid-call, how are they doing that if their service does not travel over and depend on "actual communication networks of any kind"? It's unseemly that Google argues from general principles of fairness when asking the FCC to make rules in new areas (as with network neutrality), but then splits semantic hairs to define their quacks-like-a-duck GV offering as an exempt "Web-based software application".

Read David's and Darkmane's comment on the blog. If GV emulates the functionality of a common carrier, then the same guiding principles with regards to net neutrality should apply.

zaphar 17y ago

GV doesn't emulate the functionality of a common carrier though. Which is the point.

gojomo 17y ago
Then can AT&T offer a cheaper 'AT&T Voice' long-distance, that opts out of 'common-carrier' requirements and doesn't connect to the expensive rural numbers? If "the point" is that Google can choose to offer phone functionality that's less-than-common-carrier-compliant, why can't AT&T be allowed to offer a cheaper service, too?
- jwhite 17y ago
  That may open up a new revenue stream for AT&T, but I don't think it solves the cost issue in their long-haul business that they were trying to address by not carrying calls terminating at expensive LEC's. I don't know the details of it, but it seems like they are obliged by regulation or legislation to provide that service to rural LEC's. It could be compared to Starbucks trying to close down an unprofitable rural store and being told they had to keep it open to satisfy rural coffee drinkers' caffeine addictions.
- ekiru 17y ago
  Google Voice doesn't offer phone functionality(with the exception of SMS). It offers bidirectional phone call forwarding functionality. The price isn't the real issue. The difference in functionality is. Edit: I was less clear than I meant to be. The price to the customer is not the issue here.
  - gojomo 17y ago
    Then why can't Google's mere "bidirectional phone call forwarding" include the disputed rural endpoints? I assure you the dollar costs of complying with the regulation (paying the rural phone services), and thus the prices at which competing services can be profitable, are the only "real issue" here. Neither Google nor AT&T are charities. Everything they do -- even when writing whiny letters to the FCC (which both are guilty of) -- is motivated by profits.
    - ekiru 17y ago
      Google Voice doesn't compete with AT&T any more than a VOIP provider that you use via your DSL or cable internet competes with your ISP. They provide different services, and the one you are arguing competes with the telephone carrier or ISP actually relies on the customer paying a telephone carrier or ISP. I don't think we should ask: "Why can't Google's mere 'bidirectional phone call forwarding' include the disputed rural endpoints?", but rather "Why should a call forwarding service be held to the same network neutrality constraints issues as an actual phone provider?". When you make a call with Google Voice, Google doesn't transmit your voice over the internet or over telephone wires or via microwaves. Your phone provider does that. Regardless of whether it would be better for GV to allow you to call those rural areas(which of course, it would be), we should not expand the jurisdiction of the FCC to include services that are not actual communication networks of any kind.
      - gojomo 17y ago
        When you make a call with Google Voice, Google doesn't transmit your voice over the internet or over telephone wires or via microwaves. Your phone provider does that. If true, why are certain numbers blocked, and the right to block numbers at Google's discretion asserted in the GV terms-of-service? Those calls are not being routed over your existing phone provider, or else Google wouldn't care about the destination. And why shouldn't a "forwarding" service -- one that includes a new dialable endpoint number, SMS, conferencing, free long-distance, and more -- meet the same regulatory standards as other competitive services offering a phone number/SMS/conferencing/bundled-long-distance/etc.? If Google can route an inbound call to any of several numbers purchased from other providers (mobile/home/office), even switching mid-call, how are they doing that if their service does not travel over and depend on "actual communication networks of any kind"? It's unseemly that Google argues from general principles of fairness when asking the FCC to make rules in new areas (as with network neutrality), but then splits semantic hairs to define their quacks-like-a-duck GV offering as an exempt "Web-based software application".