Hacker Read

int_19h · 2021-07-19 02:29:26

Do you consider the already-existing (in other fields) common carrier arrangement to be absurd and dystopian?

lr4444lr | karma 7275 | avg karma 3.12 · | 2023-08-29 19:49:24

I think the concept of Common Carrier is a direct refutation to what you're saying, but hey, that's just my opinion.

keslag | karma 148 | avg karma 1.83 · | 2015-02-28 23:04:47+00:00

You mean like the shit-show that railways, telephones, and the internet as it stands right now are?

edit: In addition to down voting me zaroth, would you mind including examples of how common carrier doesn't work for the examples I provided? I'm genuinely interested.

reply

dotancohen | karma 9525 | avg karma 1.72 · | 2021-10-11 04:30:23

I believe that the concept is called Common Carrier in other fields and legislation is very well established and developed.

gwright | karma 3466 | avg karma 2.17 · | 2023-08-30 10:56:07

I'm not sure if this transitive common carrier approach makes sense.

Wouldn't that mean that every company that used telephony, railroads, airlines, or shipping would have to be behave like a common carrier?

I'm not sure what the correct balance is but I don't think it makes sense to force common carrier status to propagate in the way you seem to be suggesting.

reply

roywiggins | karma 12849 | avg karma 3.52 · | 2019-08-05 02:32:06

A common carrier is a specific thing. They're not one.

rhelz | karma 937 | avg karma 1.31 · | 2023-08-30 15:22:33

Sounds good to me, but (as another perceptive commentator wrote) we do already have common carrier laws on the books; don't they pretty much cover what is intended here?

jayd16 | karma 10887 | avg karma 2.09 · | 2021-06-13 21:29:18

Not everything is a common carrier and I don't think it should be.

akira2501 | karma 10559 | avg karma 3.02 · | 2023-03-28 12:43:40

Then how are they considering themselves a "common carrier?" Isn't this precisely against that definition?

inkblotuniverse | karma 167 | avg karma 0.76 · | 2021-08-29 05:05:01

Yes, they should be common carriers.

Alex3917 | karma 30435 | avg karma 3.42 · | 2012-05-03 09:10:55

I believe that common carriers are forced to comply with certain rules, so in a sense yes.

thespin | karma 71 | avg karma 1.65 · | 2012-05-10 02:24:18+00:00

How do people in the Netherlands feel about the notion of "common carrier"?

http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/citi/citinoam11.html

Is common carrier a useful concept for society?

What do you think?

reply

shadowgovt | karma 15568 | avg karma 1.91 · | 2022-09-17 13:37:13

They might be able to do so if they were reclassified as common carriers. Why? I'm not exactly sure, I am accepting the fact that common carriers are currently so constrained without understanding the deeper story of how.

d110af5ccf | karma 1163 | avg karma 2.0 · | 2022-09-22 18:20:24

Yes, in the US there is quite a bit of precedent for this. See for example common carriers.

rayiner | karma 121493 | avg karma 4.24 · | 2014-01-14 21:56:46

An extremely vast, outdated, and oppressive regulatory regime applicable to common carriers.

amadeuspagel | karma 9759 | avg karma 3.63 · | 2020-12-22 21:43:41+00:00

Do the people outraged about this also oppose common carrier laws?

andylei | karma 1816 | avg karma 3.36 · | 2011-11-29 16:23:16+00:00

that's not my point. clearly you and i do not have enough money to start such a carrier. why do you think such no one else has started such a carrier? should we wait around for someone to start one? what if we wait 10 years and no such carrier emerges? or should we push for new regulations?

ticktocktick | karma 57 | avg karma 2.59 · | 2014-05-14 15:00:41+00:00

Now we know why common carrier will never happen.

potatolicious | karma 31022 | avg karma 5.68 · | 2009-07-26 22:30:21+00:00

> I don't know how they could possibly remain a common carrier.

They are not. It's a common urban legend that common carrier status applies to ISPs.

reply

LocalH | karma 3340 | avg karma 1.99 · | 2021-12-30 22:17:39

Pretty sure they're not actually considered common carriers in the first place.