I don't think those articles are very well written or convincing and seem to have a poor understanding of common carrier status and it's history. One of the sou

I don't think those articles are very well written or convincing and seem to have a poor understanding of common carrier status and it's history. One of the sources it cites provides a much better picture of what common carrier status means and where it comes from: http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/citi/citinoam11.html http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/citi/citinoam11.html Several parts of that directly contradict the arguments that techdirr is trying to make. Edit: For example, one of those articles says "American courts identify industries and businesses as common carriers if they do not distinguish between customers or decide what they will and will not carry. " Which gets the relationship between non-descrimination and common carrier status exactly backwards. Non-discrimination and interoperability are legal requirements imposed on private companies due to their common carrier status in exchange for reducing their liability.