Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:23:44 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (Rodney W. Grimes) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, n@nectar.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Filtering port 25 (was Re: On hub.freebsd.org refusing to talk to dialups) Message-ID: <199909291723.KAA15997@usr06.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199909290058.RAA17813@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Sep 28, 99 05:58:45 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Yes, I know there is no RFC or other standards document that says what > > > an ISP is and how one must perform. I am merely expressing my opinion > > > on the matter. > > > > Actually, there should be such RFC's. At the very least, it is > > a topic ripe for Best Current Practice RFC's. > > I've been thinking exactly that for the past few days. > Care to help me co-author one?? I'll do better than that, in the near future, as I've been working on code, some of which is tagged for technology transfer to ISPs. > > Legally, it's important for ISP's to be recognized as common > > carriers, such that the Australia debacle gets resolved, and the > > responsibility of implementing the unfunded mandates of a foreign > > government does not devolve to people who are not even citizens > > of the offending country. > > Ahhh... ISP's will never be classified as ``common carriers'': > 47 USC 153 (10) COMMON CARRIER. -- The term ``common carrier'' or ``carrier'' > means any person engaged as a common carrier [sic, self refering definition, > can not be resolved :-(] for hire, in interstate or foreign communication > by wire or radio or in interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy, > except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this Act; > but a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such > person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier. I think this applies to anyone who endpoints Internet connectivity for their customers. In time, I think that ISPs will be put under that umbrella, if only to tarrif them as IP telephony comes online, and the current RBOCs start losing their sources of revenue. > They more properly fit one of the more defined carrier classes: > 47 USC 153 (11) CONNECTING CARRIER. -- > 47 USC 153 (26) LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER -- > 47 USC 153 (37) RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANY -- > 47 USC 153 (44) TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER -- [this is the best fit] > > We, as in Accurate Communications, Inc, fall under 47 USC 153 (11), (26), > and (44). We are treated as common carriers by reference from 153 (44) > to 153 (10) with respect to only ``telecommunications services > (47 USC 153 (46))''. It's all a very twisted maze of definitions that > takes about 10 readings to even start getting the picture right. I think we will also see Internet communications regulated as telecommunications, including "legal" wiretapping (quoted to emphasize the hypocrisy inherent in wiretapping in the context of the 5th Ammendment). Anything else will eventually result in a lot of federal regulators losing their jobs (a sad day, indeed). > And furthermore, though many view the benifit of having a Title 18 > exclusion from criminal and civil prosecution under several portions > of the code at large as a big benifit, they seem to ignore the very > large offsetting requirements of having to meet a whole new section > of law, USC 47, and all the legal problems it can bring, like universal > access, requirements to file State PUC and Federal FCC yearly billing > reports, etc, etc. Loss of right to refuse service, requirements of > equal treatment of all clients, etc, etc. It is a _huge_ burden, one > that must be weighted with great care. These requirements are actually not strictly associated with "Common Carrier", as you point out, but "Telecommunications Carrier". > Our final solutions was to operate as seperate, but assoctiated legal > entities. The ISP is operated as a totally seperate legal entity > from the Carrier business, they do have a possible affiliated status under > the 47 USC act, but so far the lawyers have keep us clean on that one. Heh. You're a "Kairetsu". Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909291723.KAA15997>