Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: graff@mlpvm2.iinus1.ibm.com (Michael Graff) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: {Journal-Constitution} Editorial on Prodigy Message-ID: Date: 20 Feb 91 20:56:28 GMT Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Reply-To: graff@mlpvm2.iinus1.ibm.com Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 22 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 140, Message 1 of 8 Originator: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu In issue 131, Peter Marshall writes: > Prodigy argues it's an electronic newspaper, and like the J-C > itself can set its own rules. But the newspaper said Prodigy > e-mail "closely resembles a common-carrier communication medium > like the mails or the phone systems ..." I'm reminded of the old Saturday Night Live TV commercial parody in which a husband and wife argue whether a new consumer product is a floor wax or a dessert topping. A Friendly Announcer steps in and tells them "You're both right, it's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!" It seems to me that Prodigy could be classified as both an electronic newspaper and a common carrier, depending on which part of Prodigy you're talking about. For that matter, so could GEnie, CompuServe, and most of the other commercial online services. And if the BOCs are allowed to become information providers, they'll be in the same boat. ...Michael