Thus spake "Kuhtz, Christian" <christian.kuhtz@bellsouth.com>
From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen@sprunk.org] [..] Common carrier status exists for this very reason. Unfortunately, it probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS, since filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection -- see the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.
Come on, don't go lumping DoS and smut into the same basket. You can't be possibly serious about considering the two to be equals.
Okay, I'll admit filtering DoS will probably survive given it's a problem for the carrier, not just the customer. But my original point is that as long as ISPs do not examine the contents of a customer's packets, they cannot be held liable for what's in them. Content filtering, whether for smut, spam, or piracy, is a serious argument against ISPs claiming common carrier status.
In other words, you reasoning is quite flawed the way I see it, and blocking DoS is indeed legitimate and legally supportable. Excesses are rarely protected by any legal statutes.
To the extent a customer attacks or defrauds the carrier itself, protection measures are allowed. But you cannot "protect" the public at large without a court order to do so. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking