>So, although it should be noted that by and large ISPs have resisted
>being classified telecommunications common carriers as specifically
>defined in CA1934 they seem to be treated by the law, in practice, as
>common carriers in the common law sense ...
You're right, but the legal setup is flipp
On June 11, 2007 at 06:22 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Levine) wrote:
>
> Also, ISPs in the United States are not common carriers. Even the
> ISPs that are owned by phone companies (which are common carriers for
> their phone service) are not common carriers.
Are you possibly conflating the gen
Hi all -
We had a large and lively group discussion at the Peering BOF XV at NANOG 40
last week in Bellevue. I tried to capture the essence of the
discussions embedded with Matt Peterson's photos of the event. For those who
could not attend (or could not hear because we packed folks in all the wa
>IIRC, AOL got whacked by a court years ago because they censored some
>chat rooms and not others. The court held that since they censored
>some content, they lost their status as a common carrier and were
>liable for other content they didn't censor (either by intent or
>mistake). This was a pa
4 matches
Mail list logo
