1995-02-09 - Re: S. 314 and existing situation

Header Data

From: Thomas Grant Edwards <tedwards@src.umd.edu>
To: “Richard F. Dutcher” <rfdutcher@igc.apc.org>
Message Hash: f5797e684a16f6b3ce79e4f9b8a75747c4567d8388172f60796338f84bfaf86d
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950209125321.25320B-100000@thrash.src.umd.edu>
Reply To: <199502090439.UAA23399@mail.igc.apc.org>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-09 17:55:25 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 09:55:25 PST

Raw message

From: Thomas Grant Edwards <tedwards@src.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 09:55:25 PST
To: "Richard F. Dutcher" <rfdutcher@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re: S. 314 and existing situation
In-Reply-To: <199502090439.UAA23399@mail.igc.apc.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950209125321.25320B-100000@thrash.src.umd.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, Richard F. Dutcher wrote:

> Gee, fellas, looking over this bill, *most* of what's going on is
> just porting existing telephone law over to cybercomm. Given the
> existence of 900-sex-talk, the phone companies are clearly not being
> held responsible for content.

Doesn't the common carrier status of RBOCs give them protection from 
this?

-Thomas

Thread

• Return to February 1995

• Return to ““Richard F. Dutcher” <rfdutcher@igc.apc.org>”
• Return to “slowdog <slowdog@wookie.net>”
• Return to “storm@marlin.ssnet.com (Don Melvin)”

• Return to “Thomas Grant Edwards <tedwards@src.umd.edu>”

• 1995-02-09 (Wed, 8 Feb 95 20:38:25 PST) - S. 314 and existing situation - “Richard F. Dutcher” <rfdutcher@igc.apc.org>
  • 1995-02-09 (Thu, 9 Feb 95 09:55:25 PST) - Re: S. 314 and existing situation - Thomas Grant Edwards <tedwards@src.umd.edu>
    • 1995-02-09 (Thu, 9 Feb 95 11:01:54 PST) - Re: S. 314 and existing situation - slowdog <slowdog@wookie.net>
      • 1995-02-10 (Fri, 10 Feb 95 14:59:09 PST) - Re: S. 314 and existing situation - storm@marlin.ssnet.com (Don Melvin)