gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (10/29/90)
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) wrote: > Wtf is wrong with USENET being a common carrier? It looks like it will > eventually become a common carrier, legally. That status makes sense and > ensures the privacy that people want. Mail fraud and wire fraud laws are > quite effective without a central censor. Being a common carrier is tough. You have to provide service to anybody who wants it. You are severely regulated by the government. Your 'rate of return' (how much money you can make) is directly set by a government agency. Besides, the Usenet is not an organization or a company. If you could make the Usenet a common carrier, would I, the owner of hoptoad, be bound by all the common carrier rules? I know there's little of the Constitution left, and the taking of private property by the government is routinely done, but I somehow had the impression I could choose what users would have accounts on my own system, and who I set up uucp links to at my own expense. > > So if for example I was notified by a user that some child molesters (Is > > it really true about a child molestation BBS in Portland? I kind of assumed > > it was an urban legend.) were secretly using comp.protocols.tcpip.eniac > > with a distribution of "local" as a means of conspiring to abuse children, > > I would call the cops. > > Sure. And if I were nosy and discovered that the National Enquirer is > really a front for drug dealers, I'd call the cops. Who are you guys, anyway? Do you phone in the license numbers of cars you see speeding, too? Leave hassling the other citizens to the cops, they do it so well already, and just lead your own life. (On the other hand, I *do* support calling in the license numbers of *COPS* you see speeding. It's the one good use I've found for a cellular phone. Nine times out of ten they aren't chasing anybody, they just think they're above the law.) -- John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com Just say no to thugs. The ones who lock up innocent drug users come to mind.
mkapor@eff.org (Mitch Kapor) (11/27/90)
>Being a common carrier is tough. You have to provide service to >anybody who wants it. You are severely regulated by the government. >Your 'rate of return' (how much money you can make) is directly set by >a government agency. While it is true that you have to provide service to everyone, not all common carrier have their rates of return set by the government.
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (11/27/90)
mkapor@eff.org (Mitch Kapor) writes: >While it is true that you have to provide service to everyone, not all >common carrier have their rates of return set by the government. Based on what Rick Adams said a while ago, my understanding is that there is an untariffed version of a common carrier, known as an enhanced service provider. He claimed there were three rules to being an enhanced service provider: [1] You must pass traffic without regard to content. [2] You must provide service to any who request it. [3] You must not yourself make use of the service; or something really odd, like that. There's a very boring book on the subject in which I confirmed [1] and [2]. [3] is a weird one; perhaps ask rick. For a good chemical sedative substitute, read _Telecommunications and the Law_, a collection of papers on the subject (I'll dig up an editor and publisher upon request). It discusses the history of all the fun and games. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) (11/27/90)
In <Nov.26.15.42.30.1990.25901@turbo.bio.net> lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: >>While it is true that you have to provide service to everyone, not all >>common carrier have their rates of return set by the government. >Based on what Rick Adams said a while ago, my understanding is that >there is an untariffed version of a common carrier, known as an >enhanced service provider. He claimed there were three rules to being >an enhanced service provider: >[1] You must pass traffic without regard to content. >[2] You must provide service to any who request it. >[3] You must not yourself make use of the service; or something > really odd, like that. >There's a very boring book on the subject in which I confirmed [1] and >[2]. [3] is a weird one; perhaps ask rick. If you could without a great deal of trouble, can you provide the reference book you cited? I think the Second Computer Inquiry discusses enhanced service providers, with the conclusion they are /not/ common carriers. I don't have the exact language in front of me, but the cite is Second Computer Inquiry, Final Decision, 77 F.C.C. 2d 384, 47 R.R. 2d 669 (1980), reconsidered 84 F.C.C. 2d 512, 50 R.R. 2d 629 (1981), aff'd sub nom. Computer and Communications Indus. Ass'n v. F.C.C., 693 F.2d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. den., 461 U.S. 938 (1983). I think the three tests you cite are more toward who /is/ a common carrier, and if met establish some immunities at common law, but subject the carrier to regulation. Enhanced Service Providers, because they alter, store, etc., not just relay communications, were determined by the F.C.C. not to be common carriers and to be exempt from F.C.C. regulation. Mike Godwin, can you help? -- riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska riddle@crchpux.unl.edu | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) (11/28/90)
In <1990Nov27.003228.18125@hoss.unl.edu> riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) writes: >I think the Second Computer Inquiry discusses >enhanced service providers, with the conclusion they are /not/ common >carriers. I don't have the exact language in front of me, but the cite is >Second Computer Inquiry, Final Decision, 77 F.C.C. 2d 384, 47 R.R. 2d 669 >(1980), reconsidered 84 F.C.C. 2d 512, 50 R.R. 2d 629 (1981), aff'd sub >nom. Computer and Communications Indus. Ass'n v. F.C.C., 693 F.2d 198 >(D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. den., 461 U.S. 938 (1983). I found the summary of decision and am including it below, as it may be of some value in this discussion. /////////begin quote from Second Computer Inquiry////////// 5. Based on the voluminous record compiled in this proceeding, we adopt a regulatory scheme that distinguishes between the common carrier offering of basic transmission services and the offering of enhanced services. Although more simplified terminology is employed, this basic/enhanced dichotomy for network services is consistent with the approach taken in the Tentative Decision. We find that basic service is limited to the common carrier offering of transmission capacity for the movement of information, whereas enhanced service combines basic service with computer processing applications that act on the format, content, code, protocol or similar aspects of the subscriber's transmitted information, or provide the subscriber additional, different, or restructured information, or involve subscriber interaction with stored information. 6. As the Tentative Decision recognizes, it is in the provision of enhanced services that uncertainty as to the communications or data processing nature of a service is significant. In the course of this proceeding we have made several attempts to adopt a definitional scheme that would provide an adequate regulatory demarcation between regulated communications services and unregulated data processing services. We conclude that the record does not support adoption of the definitional scheme proposed in the Tentative Decision and that any attempt to so categorize enhanced services is unnecessary under our statutory mandate and would be contrary to the public interest. Such use of a definitional scheme to classify various types of enhanced services would not result in regulatory certainty in the marketplace and would most likely result in the direct or indirect expansion of unnecessary regulation over currently unregulated vendors of enhanced services and deprive consumers of increased opportunities to have these services tailored to their individual needs. 7. The decision sets forth the regulatory scheme for basic and enhanced services. The common carrier offering of basic transmission services are communications services and regulated as such under traditional Title II concepts. Consistent with the determinations made in the First Computer Inquiry, we find that regulation of enhanced services is not required in furtherance of some overall statutory objective. In fact, the absence of traditional public utility regulation of enhanced services offers the greatest potential for efficient utilization and full exploitation of the interstate telecommunications network Significant public benefits accrue to the Commission's regulatory process, providers of basic and enhanced services, and consumers under this approach. ////////end quote from Second Computer Inquiry///////////// -- riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska riddle@crchpux.unl.edu | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (11/28/90)
In article <Nov.26.15.42.30.1990.25901@turbo.bio.net> lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: > >There's a very boring book on the subject in which I confirmed [1] and >[2]. [3] is a weird one; perhaps ask rick. For a good chemical >sedative substitute, read _Telecommunications and the Law_, a >collection of papers on the subject (I'll dig up an editor and >publisher upon request). It discusses the history of all the fun and >games. I'd be interested in having you post that here, Eliot. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed mnemonic@eff.org | every thing would appear to man as it is, Electronic Frontier | infinite." Foundation | --Blake
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (11/28/90)
Mike, See _Telecommunications and the law: an anthology_; Walter Sapronov, ed.; copyright 1988 Computer Science Press; ISBN 7167-8155-7. The book gives you a pretty good overview of Computer II and III and enough citations to have kept me busy for quite a while. -- Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]
edguer@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu (Aydin Edguer) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov27.225549.18851@eff.org> mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) writes: >In article <Nov.26.15.42.30.1990.25901@turbo.bio.net> lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: >> >>There's a very boring book on the subject in which I confirmed [1] and >>[2]. [3] is a weird one; perhaps ask rick. For a good chemical >>sedative substitute, read _Telecommunications and the Law_, a >>collection of papers on the subject (I'll dig up an editor and >>publisher upon request). It discusses the history of all the fun and >>games. > >I'd be interested in having you post that here, Eliot. Well, I'm not Eliot, but here goes. Information courtesy of MELVYL... Title: Telecommunications and the law : an anthology / editor, Walter Sapronov. Rockville, Md. : Computer Science Press, c1988- Description: v. <1 > : ill. ; 24 cm. Series: Advances in telecommunication networks series. ISSN: 0888-2223 Notes: Chiefly reprints of articles originally published <1938-1986 > Includes index. Subjects: Telecommunication -- Law and legislation -- United States. Call numbers: KF2765 .T45 1988 -- Just remember: On-line libraries catalogs are your friend. Aydin Edguer