So "global redundant network" is not the same as a "global redundant site" then. You're just looking at multiple carriers for the data. If the data center goes offline (network issue, power issue, someone trips over the power cord (ahem - rackspace), or the electric room catches on fire (ahem - the planet), or the basement is flooded (uhh.. can't remember the datacenter, but it was in Chicago) - so those items don't necessarily play into the roll of a redundant NETWORK - these relate to the SITE in particular.

See, for me, my idea of redundant would be a multi-location site where if your site goes offline at one place, you're still online. This is what has been broadcasted on a number of places offering CLOUD and how stable and superior Cloud really is. Where in fact it's nothing more than shared hosting with the ability to increase processing power, disk space, memory etc all on the fly.

Let me know if I got that right.