[Moderator's note: I'm forwarding this one message, but I will not be forwarding any further messages on what regulations ISPs should or should not be subject to -- that is beyond the scope of the mailing list. --Perry]
Perry, et al., "If I ran the zoo", then I would give the big ISPs this choice: (1) You accept common carrier designation, which means you are not responsible for your content but you have to charge the same for transporting X bits independent of what those bits are. (2) You can charge whatever you want to charge, e.g., get into the premium movie distribution business, but you are not a common carrier and you are responsible for the content you carry. Note that what they want is the good parts of both (we can charge what we like and it is never our fault). --dan "Perry E. Metzger" writes: -+------------------------ | Slightly off topic, but not deeply. Many of you are familiar with | John Young's "Cryptome" web site. Apparently NTT/Verio has suddenly | (after many years) decided that Cryptome violates the ISP's AUP, | though they haven't made it particularly clear why. | | The following link will work for at least a few days I imagine: | | http://cryptome.org/cryptome-shut.htm | --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
