Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!hoss!hoss.unl.edu!riddle From: riddle@hoss.unl.edu (Michael H. Riddle) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Common carrier Usenet? Message-ID: <1990Nov27.003228.18125@hoss.unl.edu> Date: 27 Nov 90 00:32:28 GMT References: <6657@sugar.hackercorp.com> <43541@sequent.UUCP> <1343:Oct801:36:3590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <13119@hoptoad.uucp> Sender: news@hoss.unl.edu (Network News Administer) Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Lines: 42 In lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) writes: >>While it is true that you have to provide service to everyone, not all >>common carrier have their rates of return set by the government. >Based on what Rick Adams said a while ago, my understanding is that >there is an untariffed version of a common carrier, known as an >enhanced service provider. He claimed there were three rules to being >an enhanced service provider: >[1] You must pass traffic without regard to content. >[2] You must provide service to any who request it. >[3] You must not yourself make use of the service; or something > really odd, like that. >There's a very boring book on the subject in which I confirmed [1] and >[2]. [3] is a weird one; perhaps ask rick. If you could without a great deal of trouble, can you provide the reference book you cited? I think the Second Computer Inquiry discusses enhanced service providers, with the conclusion they are /not/ common carriers. I don't have the exact language in front of me, but the cite is Second Computer Inquiry, Final Decision, 77 F.C.C. 2d 384, 47 R.R. 2d 669 (1980), reconsidered 84 F.C.C. 2d 512, 50 R.R. 2d 629 (1981), aff'd sub nom. Computer and Communications Indus. Ass'n v. F.C.C., 693 F.2d 198 (D.C. Cir. 1982), cert. den., 461 U.S. 938 (1983). I think the three tests you cite are more toward who /is/ a common carrier, and if met establish some immunities at common law, but subject the carrier to regulation. Enhanced Service Providers, because they alter, store, etc., not just relay communications, were determined by the F.C.C. not to be common carriers and to be exempt from F.C.C. regulation. Mike Godwin, can you help? -- riddle@hoss.unl.edu | University of Nebraska riddle@crchpux.unl.edu | College of Law mike.riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org | Lincoln, Nebraska, USA