On Monday, 5 August, 2019 09:16, Mel Beckman <m...@beckman.org> wrote:
>“Now, enough of this off-topic stuff and back to our regularly >scheduled programming.” >Keith, what could be more on-topic than an ISP’s status as a common >carrier? Seems pretty operational to me. I think that is closing the barn door after the horse already left. It is my understanding that in your fabulous United States of America that "carriers" (meaning having no content serving nor content consuming customers*) may be "common carriers" or can claim to be common carriers. The rest of you who are not pure carriers are, thanks to Ijit Pai, merely Information Services and do not have common carrier status, nor can you claim to be common carriers. A "common carrier" is one who must provide carriage provided the fee for carriage is paid. This is not the case for "Information Service" providers as they are not required to provide carriage to any who can pay the fee for carriage. *I hate the term "content", it is somowhat lame. -- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
