In the WSJ, Bret Swanson, wrote a piece opposing the Google phone application. Swanson states:
"Google thinks net neutrality should regulate only traditional phone and cable companies. Phone carriers have long been ordered to connect all calls. And open Internet principles agreed to by all sides in 2005 offer similar guidance for the Web: no blocking of Web sites or applications."
Swanson knows or should know better. Google voice in an application. Google does not control or own the transport mechanism. That is the carrier such as Comcast et al. Yes the Google app is disintermediation, but welcome to the new world. Google may or may not be a common carrier but that had nothing to do with Internet Neutrality.
Let me redefine Internet Neutrality in simple terms:
1. No carrier or transport provider shall discriminate in any manner with any packets transported across their network and shall treat all packets equally.
2. Nothing in the above shall prevent a carrier or transport provider from managing packets, in an indiscriminate manner, so as to optimize the performance of their network and nothing in the above shall require that any carrier or transport provider shall delimit the fees they charge for various levels and degrees of service.
Simply, we are all equal, but if I use more I pay more, or if I want better I pay more.
Now Swanson makes a totally flawed argument. Google as Google phone has nothing to do as a carrier or transport provider. One may ask why has Swanson written this and what motivated the WSJ to ever publish it. Welcome to the world of money, just follow its flow.
Finally, as we stated before, one finds no justification for the FCC getting into this fray. They have no jurisdiction, there is no enabling legislation. What a waste of time and money!
"Google thinks net neutrality should regulate only traditional phone and cable companies. Phone carriers have long been ordered to connect all calls. And open Internet principles agreed to by all sides in 2005 offer similar guidance for the Web: no blocking of Web sites or applications."
Swanson knows or should know better. Google voice in an application. Google does not control or own the transport mechanism. That is the carrier such as Comcast et al. Yes the Google app is disintermediation, but welcome to the new world. Google may or may not be a common carrier but that had nothing to do with Internet Neutrality.
Let me redefine Internet Neutrality in simple terms:
1. No carrier or transport provider shall discriminate in any manner with any packets transported across their network and shall treat all packets equally.
2. Nothing in the above shall prevent a carrier or transport provider from managing packets, in an indiscriminate manner, so as to optimize the performance of their network and nothing in the above shall require that any carrier or transport provider shall delimit the fees they charge for various levels and degrees of service.
Simply, we are all equal, but if I use more I pay more, or if I want better I pay more.
Now Swanson makes a totally flawed argument. Google as Google phone has nothing to do as a carrier or transport provider. One may ask why has Swanson written this and what motivated the WSJ to ever publish it. Welcome to the world of money, just follow its flow.
Finally, as we stated before, one finds no justification for the FCC getting into this fray. They have no jurisdiction, there is no enabling legislation. What a waste of time and money!
Posts
