Ralph,
I read the bill and I believe you are correct.
Paragraph (3)(B)(i) appears to state that the bill does NOT apply to the
provider of a telecommunications or Internet access service.
As of 5/16/07, I don't see anything in this bill or any Congressional
Action on this bill that requires ISPs to block specific websites. That
doesn't mean it couldn't be amended later to include ISP requirements
but the authors do not appear to be targeting ISPs as part of their
enforcement attempts.
For those who want to read the bill, it's here.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.980:
For the moment anyway, it appears that ISPs will not be required to
block websites based on either "suspicion" or on the orders of
governmental agencies that may or may not have specific political
motivations to deny free speech in the name of protecting public
"security" or "safety".
jack
Ralph wrote:
Read the act itself.
I don't *think* it applies to us. Look at C
`(3) This subsection does not apply to--
`(A) the delivery, distribution, or dispensation of controlled substances by
nonpractitioners to the extent authorized by their registration under this
title;
`(B) the placement on the Internet of material that merely advocates the use
of a controlled substance or includes pricing information without attempting
to propose or facilitate an actual transaction involving a controlled
substance; or
`(C) any activity that is limited to--
`(i) the provision of a telecommunications service, or of an Internet access
service or Internet information location tool (as those terms are defined in
section 231 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231)); or
`(ii) the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or
translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without
selection or alteration of the content of the communication, except that
deletion of a particular communication or material made by another person in
a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 230(c)) shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the
content of the communication.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 10:59 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] ISP's Required to Block Sites
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/05/17/senate-pushes-web-pharmacy-regu
lations
or
http://tinyurl.com/2cl7cs
Personally I think its great they are finally doing something about online
pharmacies but requiring ISP's to block sites is ridiculous. What will be
next.
It should be completely illegal to use or actively participate in the use of
email or telemarketing for the marketing of prescription drugs directly to
consumers. Credit card processing companies should be held liable as well.
Matt
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
