|
Posted by Scott Dorsey on February 15, 2005, 10:14 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> That's what gets me. Last I remember, to qualify as a common carrier, an
> ISP isn't allowed to exact any sort of traffic control beyond what is
> necessary to maintain the stability of the network. Anything more and it
> could be seen as having the ability to control its content, and would be
> vicariously liable for crimes committed over its infrastructure and
> services.
> Isn't that still the case?
I don't know of any ISPs that have classified as common carriers
(although I know some common carriers who also run ISPs.
Part of the regulation that you have to accept as a common carrier is
that you cannot perform any traffic control beyond what is required
for stability, yes. But you also have to deal with a vast additional
body of regulation having to do with connection between networks,
international connections, etc. Getting the government to assign
common carrier status to you is not a trivial business. Why would an
ISP go through that?
scott
-- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map