nanog mailing list archives
Re: NYT on Thing.net (fwd)
From: David Schwartz <davids () webmaster com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 04:30:03 -0800
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.
Governments 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. DS
Current thread:
- Re: NYT on Thing.net (fwd) Paul Wouters (Jan 14)
- Re: NYT on Thing.net (fwd) Miles Fidelman (Jan 14)
- Re: NYT on Thing.net (fwd) David Schwartz (Jan 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: NYT on Thing.net (fwd) Paul Wouters (Jan 14)
- Re: NYT on Thing.net (fwd) Mikael Abrahamsson (Jan 14)
- Re: NYT on Thing.net (fwd) Måns Nilsson (Jan 19)
- Re: NYT on Thing.net (fwd) Mikael Abrahamsson (Jan 14)
- Re: NYT on Thing.net (fwd) Miles Fidelman (Jan 14)