On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 04:48:24PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: > Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > A mirror operator in general /does/ make choices about the content > carried on the mirror. The closest analogy that would already have been > litigated is a Cable TV system. The U.S. FCC decided that Cable TV > networks were not common carriers /because the subscriber did not > determine the programming./ This was appealed and the court agreed with > FCC. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_TV > > Now, there might be a way make a mirror qualify. You would have to set > it up so that the mirror would mirror /everything /that is sent its way > without discrimination. The mirror operator could take money to do this, > but would not be able to turn customers away. > > Then, you might have some chance of convincing a judge that the mirror > provides a communications service in an entirely non-discriminatory > fashion, which is what a common carrier does. I guess Akamai would be > the closest example today to a mirror operating this way.
Being a former Akamai employee, I can state (and refer you to the appropriate people inside Akamai) that Akamai does not and never has operated in this fashion. Exactly like a cable TV network, in fact, Akamai redistributes the content that customers -- content providers -- pay for. Akamai is fully able to turn customers away, and has done so for various reasons (e.g. the customer is a spammer). For an example of a non-discriminatory mirror, consider the many ISPs which provide general HTTP caching services through Squid. Whether as a transparent or voluntary proxy, the goal of these caches is to improve content availability and transfer speed, while reducing bandwidth costs. -dsr- -- Nothing to sig here, move along.