Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bu.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: ktl@grieg.wag.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Query About Long Distance Blocking of BBS
Message-ID: <13799@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 90 04:56:04 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 17
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 745, Message 4 of 13


	In article <13618@accuvax.nwu.edu>, John Higdon mentions that
blocking of calls to specific numbers could jeopardize the telco's
common carrier standing.  Since the carrier is regulating traffic
content, it could be seen as liable for negligence in not stopping
other harmful traffic.

	The way that telcos (Pac*Bell in particular) seem to get
around this with regard to undesirable 976 or (900) type traffic is to
get the public utilities commission or equivalent to write the content
regulations into the tariffs.  Since the regulation is imposed from
above, there is no liability issue.  Since the telcos typically have
the PUCs in their pockets and since the audience for the content is
typically limited and nonvocal, there is little to stop this process.


Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wag.caltech.edu, KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1)