Who Is An ISP?

happynut writes "Last Friday there was an article about the new anti-spam U.S. legislation that might become law. Within this bill, the only non-government party that can sue for damages is an 'Internet Access Service' (Page 44, line 1 (Sec 7(g)), and Page 8 line 15 (Sec 3(11)) of the bill). Some reports have treated 'Internet Access Service' as the same as an ISP. But if you follow down the definition listed in Sec 3(11) (see 47 USC Sec 231(e)(4)), it defines an Internet Access Service as: '(4) Internet access service -- The term 'Internet access service' means a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet, and may also include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to consumers. Such term does not include telecommunications services.' My question is: isn't this definition so broad as to cover all of us who run a mail server? It doesn't mention commercial, or for money, or to the public; it just says 'as part of a package of services offered to consumers.'"

Comments

What about a simple home page?

[wierdling]

The way I read it, this would cover a home page as well, as it offers customers (family) access to information (your pictures of the kids, blogs, whatever). Does this make sense to anyone else?

Well, actually...

[Faust7]

as part of a package of services offered to consumers.

It doesn't mention commercial, or for money, or to the public; it just says 'as part of a package of services offered to consumers.'

Consumers = the public in this case.

Internet access packages = typically non-free.

Selling it on any appreciable scale = often commercial.

I believe these are the interpretations they're aiming for, and the ones that will be upheld should they ever be taken to task.

I asked this exact same question...

[forevermore]

I asked this exact same question the other day, and received an informative reply that was quite disturbing. Basically, even if I'd be allowed to sue as an ISP, I'd have to prove no less than $75k in damages before anyone would even bother to look at my case. Does this mean that I turn off my spam filters and create a bill of $50 for each spam email (at $50 per hour/partial-hour per message verified as spam)?

Granted, I still haven't even been able to find the full text of the bill anywhere in order to verify this.

Re:hey, that's me!

[cmacb]

He MAY have meant that his woody box allows HIM to access the internet, just as mine does. Also most ISPs now accept multiple users per houshold and will even supply a router to help you do that if you wish. Some people use a Linux box to do the NAT function as well. Nothing wrong with that.

How Do you Kow What's Right?

[reallocate]

You don't have to be a business to generate spam. All you need is a single mail server.

Are you arguing that your right to operate a personal mail server trumps my right not to receive spam?

Well, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong.

So, welcome to the land of politics and the courts. That's how things work around here. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Living in a democracy obliges you to accept the outcome, or keep on fighting for what you believe in and be willing to accept the consequences.

The alternative is to anoint someone to decide what's right and wrong. I don't like that option.

As James Madison argued, the U.S. Constitution is a means to balance conflicting interests to the benefit of the most people most of the time. It isn't a means to determine moral correctness.