[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:58:04 -0700
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! *****
- References: <[email protected]>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Wednesday 24 October 2001 14:29, you wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Dean Sanchez wrote:
> > Of course this analogy doesn't hold up because ISPs are not yet
> > recognized as public utilities.
>
> Network Service Providers and many ISPs qualify as common carriers for
> most transactions.
There is not one ISP in the USA which is a common carrier.
Common-carrier status is not something that just happens;
it results from explicit action.
--
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <[email protected]> ----------+