GV only blocking about 100 numbers nationally Page 2
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Links: Reply New Topic
Forums » Voice Over IP - VOIP » VOIP Tech Chat » GV only blocking about 100 numbers nationally
page: 1 · 2
PX Eliezer @ 1st Nov 09:27PM:
Re: GV only blocking about 100 numbers nationally
said by kieranmullen :
Perhaps you replied to the wrong conversation? I do not believe anyone is saying that Google should provide access to this numbers.
You are incorrect.
AT&T is certainly saying that GV should provide access.
Several members of Congress representing rural states said that GV should provide access.
The FCC has indicated its concern regarding the issue.
AVonGauss seems to be saying that GV should provide access, unless I am misreading his post.
-----------------------------------------
said by kieranmullen :
Perhaps you replied to the wrong conversation?
People can engage in the general discussion of the topic without worrying about who is replying to what post.
I was not "replying" to anyone in particular, especially not you. :mad:
reply
PX Eliezer @ 1st Nov 09:35PM:
Re: GV only blocking about 100 numbers nationally
said by AVonGauss :
The 900 / 976 numbers are classified for use as paid services, are they not? The numbers in question look no different than any other number in that block yet for some, unknown, mysterious reason seem to cost more for termination.
Respectfully, it is not an unknown, mysterious reason.
It is a deliberate racket.
Again, see:
»www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/busin···tml?_r=1
Here in Jersey, we know a racket when we see one.
reply
kieranmullen @ 1st Nov 09:36PM:
Re: GV only blocking about 100 numbers nationally
Perhaps I was wrong. I was just trying to figure out who you were trying to reply to. Not that I disagree with any of your points.
In other news firetrucks are often red.
said by PX Eliezer :said by kieranmullen :
Perhaps you replied to the wrong conversation? I do not believe anyone is saying that Google should provide access to this numbers.
You are incorrect.
AT&T is certainly saying that GV should provide access.
Several members of Congress representing rural states said that GV should provide access.
The FCC has indicated its concern regarding the issue.
AVonGauss seems to be saying that GV should provide access, unless I am misreading his post.
-----------------------------------------
said by kieranmullen :
Perhaps you replied to the wrong conversation?
People can engage in the general discussion of the topic without worrying about who is replying to what post.
I was not "replying" to anyone in particular, especially not you. :mad:
--
KieranMullen »360oregon.com
reply
AVonGauss @ 1st Nov 09:39PM:
Re: GV only blocking about 100 numbers nationally
You're not misreading it, I am not in favor of providers selectively providing access to destinations (telephone or Internet). While in this case I empathize with the providers (Google, AT&T), that doesn't make it right in my book and is an extremely bad precedent. I really think the FCC / industry just needs to fix the root problem and be done with it. Until or in lieu of the root problem being fixed, providers should just pass the additional cost on to the consumer and let the market effects take play.
reply
AVonGauss @ 1st Nov 09:40PM:
Re: GV only blocking about 100 numbers nationally
Apparently I did a bad job, but that was intended as sarcasm.
reply
PX Eliezer @ 1st Nov 09:52PM:
Re: GV only blocking about 100 numbers nationally
said by AVonGauss :
You're not misreading it, I am not in favor of providers selectively providing access to destinations (telephone or Internet). While in this case I empathize with the providers (Google, AT&T), that doesn't make it right in my book and is an extremely bad precedent. I really think the FCC / industry just needs to fix the root problem and be done with it. Until or in lieu of the root problem being fixed, providers should just pass the additional cost on to the consumer and let the market effects take play.
Agreed, in one sense.
But if it meant that GV could no longer offer its services, or had to charge for them, it would be a damn shame. It would mean that the bad guys won.
When you say "pass the additional cost on", wouldn't that be rewarding the bad guys?
Is it better to follow a policy of appeasement (Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain; President James Buchanan) or to stand up to evil (President Ronald Reagan---and BTW I'm a Democrat but Thank God for Reagan).
reply
AVonGauss @ 1st Nov 09:58PM:
Re: GV only blocking about 100 numbers nationally
I prefer if the industry/FCC just corrected the problem, however in lieu of that passing the cost on the consumer through direct additional costs for calling those numbers would allow normal marketplace effects to take place. Right now, the carriers are footing the bill thus isolating the consumers for those business that advertise "free" services. Somehow, I doubt they will be as successful if the consumer is directly paying for the service.
reply
PX Eliezer @ 1st Nov 10:03PM:
Re: GV only blocking about 100 numbers nationally
said by AVonGauss :
Apparently I did a bad job, but that was intended as sarcasm.
Understood. Mea culpa.
Again regarding GoogleVoice, if someone is offering a service for free I think they deserve a lot more leeway.
And it is not as if they were blocking calls to a particular political party, or blocking calls to family planning clinics, or blocking calls to the NRA (or PETA), or blocking calls to certain religious institutions.
They're just trying to block calls to some folks who are abusing the system.
A long time ago, a Supreme Court justice commented, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".
GV should not be put in that position either.
----------------------------------------
Y'know, they framed it wrong. If GV had just said at the start, "No calls to conference call services, and no calls to sex lines" that would have solved most of the problem, and few people would have objected.
Even an Iowa Congressman does not want to be defending sex lines.
reply
kieranmullen @ 2nd Nov 12:40AM:
Re: GV only blocking about 100 numbers nationally
Free Market Solution = Blocking (If you dont like it dont use their free service)
Bigger Government - Write up some new laws and while you are add it add a side of pork in there. Appropriate some money for a new jet.
One method is quicker, easier and more cost effective.
--
KieranMullen »360oregon.com
reply
AVonGauss @ 2nd Nov 01:00AM:
Re: GV only blocking about 100 numbers nationally
said by kieranmullen :
Free Market Solution = Blocking (If you dont like it dont use their free service)
I don't think that is an accurate representation, the entities involved are charging a significantly higher termination rate that traditional carriers are forced to pay due to government regulations. Google is claiming that they don't need to abide by those rules because they are not a carrier. Even if that argument is true, the Google Voice service (a la "web application") must be using underlying service carriers to provide their service which more than likely do have to abide by those rules. The Google Voice service is not free, but I don't really see how that plays in to the situation one way or the other.
This is by far not a new issue, it just now has the Google name and scope and Google's quite public stance on other neutrality issues driving it to the forefront. If regulations and or clarifications are issued, they will most likely extend beyond the current "Google" situation.
Back to the underlying issue, the abnormal rates charged for some destinations. Technically, in the end, correcting the root problem should erase more regulation lines than it will add. This is already not a free market situation as the "alternative service providers" such as the conference call companies are shielded from the market by the government rules which force the traditional companies to pay abnormally high termination rates.
A quick fix today more often than not means you will just have a bigger low tomorrow.
reply
kieranmullen @ 2nd Nov 01:06AM:
Re: GV only blocking about 100 numbers nationally
The point is...
If more phone companies stand up and have the guts to block them like ATT did (for a little while) various voip companies Google & others...
Then no government regulation will be needed.
It will become a moo point
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=iObtPBh3NXs
said by AVonGauss :said by kieranmullen :
Free Market Solution = Blocking (If you dont like it dont use their free service)
I don't think that is an accurate representation, the entities involved are charging a significantly higher termination rate that traditional carriers are forced to pay due to government regulations. Google is claiming that they don't need to abide by those rules because they are not a carrier. Even if that argument is true, the Google Voice service (a la "web application") must be using underlying service carriers to provide their service which more than likely do have to abide by those rules. The Google Voice service is not free, but I don't really see how that plays in to the situation one way or the other.
This is by far not a new issue, it just now has the Google name and scope and Google's quite public stance on other neutrality issues driving it to the forefront. If regulations and or clarifications are issued, they will most likely extend beyond the current "Google" situation.
Back to the underlying issue, the abnormal rates charged for some destinations. Technically, in the end, correcting the root problem should erase more regulation lines than it will add. This is already not a free market situation as the "alternative service providers" such as the conference call companies are shielded from the market by the government rules which force the traditional companies to pay abnormally high termination rates.
A quick fix today more often than not means you will just have a bigger low tomorrow.
--
KieranMullen »360oregon.com
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC