This is about an ISP that claims they can't stop spammers because they have to offer "universal service"
------ From Barry Shein <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 05:40:15 GMT From: Barry Shein <email@example.com> Subject: Re: SOME NEW SLIMY SPAM! Earn money from your web site with no work If he got harrassing calls at home from someone would he accept the phone company demurring because they can't listen to the traffic? Of course not. Once someone complains that veil is pierced. He's also probably confusing "common carriage" obligations with "universal service" obligations. Universal service was a stipulation of the Communications Act of 1934 which created the AT&T monopoly and obligated them to provide service to all comers who could pay and generally not shut off or deny service without certain extreme and mostly pre-approved reasons (other than not paying.) Since he is not a monopoly and not party to any monopoly legislation that doesn't apply to him and he can suggest they take their business elsewhere. People who grew up with AT&T's monopoly seem to often be very confused about their obligations thinking they're under the same sort of legislative mandates. They're not. Business prudence, possibility of harm, etc, requires one not to act frivolously if they are to avoid potential consequences, but nothing more. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | firstname.lastname@example.org | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 ============================== ISP Mailing List ==============================
Back to Other Voices