[854] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Carrier Liability Legislation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will@cup.portal.com)
Tue Jun 18 21:38:18 1991
To: com-priv@uu.psi.com
From: Will@cup.portal.com
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 18:40:32 PDT
<Telephone companies and other common carriers escape this problem
<because, as common carriers, they are statutorily immune from
<liability arising from the contents of messages they carry. No
<one here is remotely suggesting that inter-network companies be
<taken the common carrier route, as it is inimical to the successful
<model of free enterprise which is to be employed in the development
<of the next stage of the Internet.
This may be nitpicking, but I think the last sentence of this
paragraph confuses a legal concept with an economic one. A
common carrier, in the legal sense, is just a company that
transports for hire and must do so for any customer. I don't think
that the term necessarily implies either monopoly or oligopoly,
although in practice it usually seems to work out that way.
Maybe someone who understands the common carrier laws can correct
me on this if I'm wrong.
Maybe the point to make is that internet providers need the
protections afforded to common carriers without the government
regulation and licensing that usually results in a large
barrier-to-entry into a market?
Will Estes Internet: Will@cup.portal.com
UUCP: apple!cup.portal.com!Will
