Nope, I'm talking about *any* ISP blocking access to certain IP addresses or IP blocks. They all have consistently and collectively used the argument that they are "common carriers" not "publishers." A position I agree with, in general. And, the argument goes, since they're required to carry the traffic of all comers they're not responsible for any of it. When they start limiting access to specific addresses or blocks of addresses, a cogent argument could be made that they've given up their "common carrier" status. -- Michael Fraase ARTS & FARCES LLC mfraase at farces.com www.farces.com PGP Fingerprint: 3D85 F3F4 9E65 4949 176A 260C CB47 190D C864 9A96 > -----Original Message----- > Message: 17 > Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 13:13:15 -0500 > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > From: Mike Paulsen <mpaulsen at charter.net> > Subject: Re: [TCLUG] AT&T filtering sites?.sdm > Reply-To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > > ATT the telco is not the same as ATT the ISP. ISPs are > "enhanced service > providers" and do not enjoy the benefits nor suffer the > regulatory burdens > which come with common carrier status.* > > ATT (the telco) is required to give ISPs access to the > telephone lines. ATT > (the ISP) is considered an end user just like any other ISP. > > *That's not entirely true, as they do enjoy some of the same > benefits (and > possibly burdens) as common carriers under things like the DMCA.