Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!umich!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS Message-ID: <13618@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 16 Oct 90 08:32:02 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 30 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 741, Message 2 of 14 On Oct 16 at 0:05, TELECOM Moderator writes: > The blocking of paid traffic by a > telco is quite unethical to say the least, if not actually illegal, > which I suspect it is, without going to look through a bunch of > tariffs. It would seem that in addition to being illegal, a telco or IEC could possibly jeapordize its common carrier standing by such actions. One reason that a telco, RCC, or IEC is protected from legal liability as a result of what travels over its facilities is that it is required to serve all qualified customers (those who pay). If any carrier is going to start making judgements about what will and will not be transmitted, assumptions could be made that the management has assumed responsibility for the messages. If some harmful or potentially harmful messages were passed (say, classified material leaked to a reporter) it could be said that the carrier had failed in its (self-imposed) duty. This is the stuff lawsuits are made of. It's called negligence. In essence, a would-be common carrier can't have it both ways. Either it passes all messages on a content-neutral basis, or it assumes responsibity (and liability) for the content of the information it carries. No? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !