[54711] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NYT on Thing.net (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Schwartz)
Tue Jan 14 07:31:28 2003
From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <mfidelman@civicnet.org>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 04:30:03 -0800
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0301140619490.23790-100000@sun10101.dn.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 06:25:51 -0500 (EST), Miles Fidelman wrote:
>This is why ISPs should be treated as common carriers - just=
like
>telcos.
>The primary characteristic of common carriers is that they HAVE=
TO
>serve
>all customers except under very tightly controlled=
circumstance,
>like a
>court order against on obscene caller. Everyone is protected -=
the
>telcos
>can't tell you who you can and can't call or what you can say on=
a
>phone
>conversation, and at the same time the telcos are not liable=
for
>what you
>say. Common carrier status is typically associated with heavy
>regulation,
>but it need not be.
=09Governments have already conclusively demonstrated that they're=
not
competent to decide what traffic belongs on my network. How long=
has
it been, and still not only no law against spam but not even a
definition of one. Better to leave the control of what traffic=
passes
over my network to me.
=09DS
