|Re: Vonage Complaining Of VoIP 'Blocking'|
|Robert Bonomi (email@example.com)|
Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:16:47 -0000
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Tony P.|
> In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org says:
>> On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 17:07 -0500, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>>> Not concerned yet? Well consider this -- suppose your web page was
>>> Most ISPs of reasonable size have figured out that it's not worth it
>> That's what gets me. Last I remember, to qualify as a common carrier, an
>> Isn't that still the case?
Nope, that is *NOT* the case. Never was.
"Common carrier" is a *whole*lot* more complex than that.
As a common carrier, there _are_ some things you are prohibited from
There are other things that you must _actively_ perform.
Simply 'refraining from prohibited activities' does _not_ a common carrier
> Yep, and by those rules Cox shouldn't be considered a common carrier
*NO* ISP is, or ever was, a common carrier.
NO ISP has ever even _applied_ for common carrier status, let alone been
Common carriers' have certain immunities that ISP's _want_ you to
However, along with those immunities, comes a whole sh*tload of
For any ISP that claims "common carrier" status, or immunity
|Post Followup Article||Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply|
|Go to Next message: John Levine: "Re: Vonage Complaining Of VoIP 'Blocking'"|
|Go to Previous message: Michael D. Sullivan: "Re: Vonage Complaining Of VoIP 'Blocking'"|
|May be in reply to: Jack Decker: "Vonage Complaining Of VoIP 'Blocking'"|
|Next in thread: John Levine: "Re: Vonage Complaining Of VoIP 'Blocking'"|
|TELECOM Digest: Home Page|