OT: "network neutrality" and the internet

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:30:15AM -0400, Kenneth Brody wrote:
> Quoting Jay R. Ashworth (Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:34:10 -0400):
> [...]
> > > But doesn't "common carrier" status mean you have to follow some
> > > additional, "special" rules?
> >
> > It would, but Internet backbone carrier are not, in general, Common
> > Carriers as that term of art is used in the telecom business.
> 
> I thought that they had common carrier status, which protects them
> from suits over things like carrying "illegal" things like kiddie
> porn and harassment?

That protection came not from that status, but more from Cubby v
Compuserve and Stratten-Oakmont v Prodigy, which I understand have been
usurped by a Good Samaritan provision in... TCA96?

Some of the backbones are running atop lines operated by entitied which
are Common Carriers -- in fact, possibly Most of them.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Designer                          Baylink                             RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think                        '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 647 1274

     A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
     Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? 
     
     A: Top-posting.
     Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?