Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goemon@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they should lose common carrier protections.
I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goemon@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they should lose common carrier protections.
I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers.
They're not - but that can (and IMHO should) be changed. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On April 27, 2014 at 21:56 LarrySheldon@cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goemon@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they should lose common carrier protections.
I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers.
Here we go again! There is more than one commonly used meaning for "common carriers". There is a Communications Common Carrier as defined in the US Communications Act of 1934 regulated under the FCC and as subsequently amended by...blah blah blah. And there is the much older common law usage which can apply to trains, planes, taxis, delivery services, stagecoaches, etc which basically recognizes that in general many services engaged in "COMMON CARRIAGE". They can't be assumed to know what (or who for that matter) they are carrying for a fee -- when they don't. Obviously if one can prove they did or should have known that's an exception. So therefore shouldn't be assumed responsible for the contents if illegal or whatever. And not dragged into civil lawsuits if, e.g., someone claims that carrying the package caused harm unless perhaps the carrier threw it at the head of the recipient in which case they'd probably be culpable. Another requirement of a common law common carrier is that they provide their service to the public without discrimination other than ability to pay and whatever reasonable rules apply to everyone -- e.g., package can't be dripping liquid or weigh more than someone's "before" picture in a nutrisystem ad. The details of that of course have been beaten to a fine powder in court cases and subsequent law and regulation. SOOOOO...an ISP (et al) can be considered a common law Common Carrier without being a Common Carrier as defined in the Comm Act 1934 (and subsequent, Telecom Act 1996, etc.) ISPs don't in general have knowledge of the contents of the data they carry except when you can prove that they did which is generally assumed to be the exception or as a result of being served proper notice. But I thought we agreed on all those terms in 1991 on the com-priv list? :-) IANAL, if you mistake what I said for legal advice or accuracy you are your own fool. But I don't have to be an animal expert to point out y'all don't know the difference between a dog and a cat. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Barry Shein wrote:
On April 27, 2014 at 21:56 LarrySheldon@cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goemon@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they should lose common carrier protections.
I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers.
Here we go again!
There is more than one commonly used meaning for "common carriers".
There is a Communications Common Carrier as defined in the US Communications Act of 1934 regulated under the FCC and as subsequently amended by...blah blah blah.
And there is the much older common law usage which can apply to trains, planes, taxis, delivery services, stagecoaches, etc which basically recognizes that in general many services engaged in "COMMON CARRIAGE".
Common AND civil law, and the context within which the 1934 act defines telecommunications carriers.
Another requirement of a common law common carrier is that they provide their service to the public without discrimination other than ability to pay and whatever reasonable rules apply to everyone -- e.g., package can't be dripping liquid or weigh more than someone's "before" picture in a nutrisystem ad. The details of that of course have been beaten to a fine powder in court cases and subsequent law and regulation.
SOOOOO...an ISP (et al) can be considered a common law Common Carrier without being a Common Carrier as defined in the Comm Act 1934 (and subsequent, Telecom Act 1996, etc.)
And that is the key to all this bunkum about "network neutrality" - it's an issue only because the FCC has made the choice not to treat ISPs (or more precisely IP transport providers) as common carriers, but as "information service providers." The recent Supreme Court decisions seems to have implied that the FCC has the power to, under current law, to define IP carriers as common carriers, and impose the obligations of common carriage on them. (Note that this does NOT immediately imply that the FCC would have to apply all the regulations and procedures typically associates with, say, telephone carriers.) All the FCC really has to do is promulgate a rule saying "IP transport is common carriage" - and network neutrality would become a non-issue. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
participants (3)
-
Barry Shein
-
Larry Sheldon
-
Miles Fidelman