kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL | correct me if i'm wrong...... and maybe this wouldn't apply here, but wouldn't this jeopardize AT&T's common carrier status and push them into the role as publisher?
if this video DNA service didn't work as advertised, there would be a possibility, at least, of lawsuits coming at them from a million different directions. although i'd have to think their TOS is bulletproof enough to protect them. |
|
 swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | I think the common carrier status was waived when the FCC declared it a "data service" instead of an "information service" or vice-versa or something like that - they had two categories and placed ISPs in one instead of the other and the common carrier principle was abolished. I probably have this mixed up; someone please correct.
Anyway, common carrier is a good principle and if it did still apply, or if it does, as soon as ATT started filtering it would become responsible for any infringing content. |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to kaila
said by kaila:and maybe this wouldn't apply here, but wouldn't this jeopardize AT&T's common carrier status and push them into the role as publisher? AFAIK, AT&T's "Common Carrier" status only applies to their ILEC and LD business, not to their Internet business.
What intrigues me is whether their Tier 1 Network (AT&T Worldnet Services) falls under their "Common Carrier" status, or not. I believe that their ISP business (AT&T Internet Services, which provisions their 'at&t Yahoo! HSI' DSL service) is not covered by their "Common Carrier" status.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
