3 ms·
That's a legal theory that was never challenged (i.e. that ISPs could fall outside of Common Carrier status and bypass Title II). It was likely never challenged
by Someone1234 8y ago
That's a legal theory that was never challenged (i.e. that ISPs could fall outside of Common Carrier status and bypass Title II). It was likely never challenged because not being a Common Carrier might make them liable for the content traveling over the wire.
This article is ruminating on what might occur, not what actually occurred.
- polski-g 8y agoThe DC Court of appeals said just the same: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD0... an ISP making sufficiently clear to potential customers that it provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of “editorial intervention.” Id. ¶ 549. For instance, Alamo Broadband, the lone broadband provider that raises a First Amendment challenge to the rule, posits the example of an ISP wishing to provide access solely to “family friendly websites.” Alamo Pet. Reh’g 5. Such an ISP, as long as it represents itself as engaging in editorial interventi on of that kind, would fall outside the rule. See U.S. Telecom Ass’n , 825 F.3d at 743; FCC Opp’n Pets. Reh’g 28 -29; FCC Br. 146 n.53 . The Order thus specifies that an ISP remains “free to offer ‘edited’ services” without becoming subject to the rule ’s requirements . Order ¶ 556.