comshaft strikes again

[Matthew Gillen]

Richard Chonak wrote:
> Hmmmm, I can't blame comshaft for this one.   This time.
> 
> Carrying a broad range of Usenet content on a server -- even text-only 
> -- subjects a cable provider to ongoing complaints that it is a direct 
> purveyor of objectionable material (pr9n, hate-speech, copyvios, etc.). 

Which is why ISPs should hold common-carrier status.  They don't want it,
because it limits them from screwing their customers in certain ways (read:
they aren't allowed to inspect traffic), but the whole idea of common-carrier
status is to make them immune from any liability for that kind of stuff.

Like Don said, I doubt they pay attention to customer complaints about stuff
like that.  They do pay attention to legal liability though.

For those that care, common-carrier laws indemnify the messenger, as long as
they don't inspect packages or discriminate amongst customers.  So this keeps
FedEx or AT&T from being indicted on conspiracy charges for any crime that
involves shipping something or using a telephone.  In return for such
protections, FedEx and AT&T must a) not open the packages/listen to phone
conversations, and b) provide (within reason) service to anyone who wants it.

What does this have to do with Comcast?  Comcast has repeatedly claimed that
common-carrier laws don't apply to them, and that's why they can use sandvine
to inspect traffic and discriminate.  IMO, their recent actions (backing off
the torrent throttling, and reverting to aggregate-usage throttling) suggest
that they don't want to push too hard on that front, since the FCC and/or
Congress may decide to expand the Telecom regulations that make POTS lines
fall under common-carrier status also apply to ISPs.

</rant>
Matt