Folks, I'm working on a graduate policy paper regarding Internet filtering by blocking ASN's or IP prefixes. It is a variation of Net Neutrality, just by a different name. Is anyone in the IANAL field aware of any cases where : a. an ISP successfully defended a common carrier position b. an ISP unsuccessfully defended a common carrier position c. an ISP was treated as a common carrier, even if didn't want to be. d. an ISP was not treated as a common carrier, even if they wanted to. It seems to be way back in the 90's, Compuserve may have been involved in one variation of the above, but the cobwebs are too thick. Replies off list and I will summarize if there is interest. Eric
On Apr 13, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Eric Germann wrote:
I'm working on a graduate policy paper regarding Internet filtering by blocking ASN's or IP prefixes. It is a variation of Net Neutrality, just by a different name.
Except Network Neutrality is about QoS, not filtering.
Is anyone in the IANAL field aware of any cases where :
a. an ISP successfully defended a common carrier position b. an ISP unsuccessfully defended a common carrier position
ISPs are _not_ common carriers, and have never been (in the US at least). "Common Carrier" is a legal term, and carries lots of responsibilities as well as benefits. ISPs have essentially neither. However, assuming you meant a more general definition, I might have a case on point: Back in the early 90s, Prodigy & Compuserve (I think, maybe AOL instead of one of those) were involved in a slander case or something like that. Someone had posted "bad" stuff about company using these ISPs. One lost and one won. The reason was that Prodigy monitored its content for things like foul language, Compuserve did not. As a result, most ISPs after that would very, very intentionally not look at what their customers were doing so they could not be accused of monitoring or filtering or whatever.
c. an ISP was treated as a common carrier, even if didn't want to be. d. an ISP was not treated as a common carrier, even if they wanted to.
I can't think of a reason an ISP would not want to be a common carrier, unless you are talking about the federal legal definition and they're avoiding the responsibilities it carries. But then no ISP has ever been treated like that (unless they were _also_ a telco), so it never comes up. As for D, that happens all the time. For instance, there are plenty of times ISPs have had equipment seized, either as "evidence" or because they were being prosecuted directly, for things their customers did. Again, this assumes you are not talking about the legal definition. -- TTFN, patrick
Except when an ISP blocks Vonage completely, then they aren't neutral and it is QoS (unless the QoS == 0 for VoIP) -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 6:07 PM To: NANOG list Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore Subject: Re: Common Carrier Question On Apr 13, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Eric Germann wrote:
I'm working on a graduate policy paper regarding Internet filtering by blocking ASN's or IP prefixes. It is a variation of Net Neutrality, just by a different name.
Except Network Neutrality is about QoS, not filtering. [snip]
Eric Germann wrote:
Except when an ISP blocks Vonage completely, then they aren't neutral and it is QoS (unless the QoS == 0 for VoIP)
We (or its just me) might be curious about which ISP did that. Offlist if you want. Thanks.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 6:07 PM To: NANOG list Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore Subject: Re: Common Carrier Question
On Apr 13, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Eric Germann wrote:
I'm working on a graduate policy paper regarding Internet filtering by blocking ASN's or IP prefixes. It is a variation of Net Neutrality, just by a different name.
Except Network Neutrality is about QoS, not filtering.
[snip]
-- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. P.O. Box 175 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 5T7 tel 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net fax 514-990-9443
Madison River, a regional cable provider in North Carolina, did it last March and got fined by the FCC for its trouble: http://www.networkingpipeline.com/60405195 -C On Apr 13, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Alain Hebert wrote:
Eric Germann wrote:
Except when an ISP blocks Vonage completely, then they aren't neutral and it is QoS (unless the QoS == 0 for VoIP) We (or its just me) might be curious about which ISP did that.
Offlist if you want.
Thanks.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 6:07 PM To: NANOG list Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore Subject: Re: Common Carrier Question
On Apr 13, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Eric Germann wrote:
I'm working on a graduate policy paper regarding Internet filtering by blocking ASN's or IP prefixes. It is a variation of Net Neutrality, just by a different name.
Except Network Neutrality is about QoS, not filtering.
[snip]
-- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. P.O. Box 175 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 5T7 tel 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net fax 514-990-9443
From reading that, though, it looks like the ISP in question also has its own telephone product (after all, the quote in the article is that they are a "North Carolina service provider that calls itself the '17th largest phone company' in the US" In which case, the fine may stem from the anti-competitive nature of blocking their competitor rather than simply because they were blocking some sort random service. In other words, what juice would the FCC have against MomNPopISP.com who decided to block VoIP? D On Apr 14, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
Madison River, a regional cable provider in North Carolina, did it last March and got fined by the FCC for its trouble:
http://www.networkingpipeline.com/60405195
-C
On Apr 13, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Alain Hebert wrote:
Eric Germann wrote:
Except when an ISP blocks Vonage completely, then they aren't neutral and it is QoS (unless the QoS == 0 for VoIP) We (or its just me) might be curious about which ISP did that.
Offlist if you want.
Thanks.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 6:07 PM To: NANOG list Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore Subject: Re: Common Carrier Question
On Apr 13, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Eric Germann wrote:
I'm working on a graduate policy paper regarding Internet filtering by blocking ASN's or IP prefixes. It is a variation of Net Neutrality, just by a different name.
Except Network Neutrality is about QoS, not filtering.
[snip]
-- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. P.O. Box 175 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 5T7 tel 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net fax 514-990-9443
-- Derek J. Balling Systems Administrator Vassar College 124 Raymond Ave Box 13 - Computer Center 221 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 (845) 437-7231
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Derek J. Balling wrote:
From reading that, though, it looks like the ISP in question also has its own telephone product (after all, the quote in the article is that they are a "North Carolina service provider that calls itself the '17th largest phone company' in the US"
They do. I dealt with them as a customer once. (had a server hanging off one of their business dsl packages...the dsl was down for 4 weeks...) They do phone service in a lot of the coastal areas from Brunswick, GA up into NC, mostly in the areas that bellsouth isn't in. They have a lot of different names, all part of the Madison River conglomerate. They have cable companies, ISPs, and telcos. Warning if you ever have to deal with them: Level 1 tech support knows jack, and has no way to get ahold of Level 2, or anyone else. "All we can do is send an email through our ticket system..." I wound up calling home phone numbers for various company officials leaving voicemail. And what do you know, less than 24 hours later the circuit was back up... --- david raistrick http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html drais@atlasta.net http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Derek J. Balling wrote:
In other words, what juice would the FCC have against MomNPopISP.com who decided to block VoIP?
Vonage has claimed in testimony to the US Senate and other places that at least one cable company and at least wireless ISP company is blocking VOIP and it was "useless" to complain to the FCC about it. Remember the "myth" that the Internet isn't regulated. On the other hand, Jeff Pulver has proposed that "Most actual cases of port blocking have been human error," Pulver said. Engineers often block the virtual network "ports" commonly used for VOIP without knowing what they're doing -- and there are ways around it, such as assigning calls to a different port, Pulver said. Even AT&T has had problems with its CallVantage VOIP service being blocked on some networks because some ISPs had blocked TFTP which was being used by some network worms, and is also used by some VOIP phones to download its configuration files.
There have also been some non-US cases. See, for example, http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200211/msg0003... There was also the Canadian telco/ISP which blocked subscriber access to a pro-union web site critical of the company during a labor dispute.
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
One lost and one won. The reason was that Prodigy monitored its content for things like foul language, Compuserve did not. As a result, most ISPs after that would very, very intentionally not look at what their customers were doing so they could not be accused of monitoring or filtering or whatever.
As always you should consult competent advisors licensed to give legal advice in your jurisdicition. Someone writing a research paper on the topic should review the Cybertelecom web site. Robert Cannon has done a very nice job explaining the difference types of common carriage and common carriers, with citations and references. http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/common_carrier.htm In the USA, Congress essentially pre-empted Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy when it passed the good samaritan provisions in the Communications Decency Act (47 USC 230). http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/samaritan.htm Not only did ISPs receive broad immunity for carrying third party content, they also received broad immunity for actions voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict objectionable, etc content. This may include not just things such as ISP supplied parental control software, but may also include when an ISP takes a good faith action to stop a DDOS attack and drops some "good traffic" too. "Good faith" is not carte blanche to do anything. Nor will it stop someone filing a lawsuit, which can get very expensive even if you ultimately win.
participants (8)
-
Alain Hebert -
Chris Woodfield -
david raistrick -
Derek J. Balling -
Eric Germann -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Sean Donelan -
Steven M. Bellovin