Source: http://cybertelecom.org/notes/common_carrier.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:55:00+00:00

Document:
"Infrastructures, for purposes such as transportation and communication, have long been vital to national welfare. They knit together a country's economy by facilitating the movement of people, products, services, and ideas, and play important roles in national security." - NSFNet Final Report p. 4.
See "Telecommunications Service" Definition NARUC II :: Statutory :: Basic Service. See Telecommunications Carriers.
47 U.S.C. 153 "Common carrier The term “common carrier” or “carrier” means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy, except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this chapter; but a person engaged in radio broadcasting shall not, insofar as such person is so engaged, be deemed a common carrier."
United States Telecom Association v. Federal Communications Commission, 295 F.3d 1326 (D.C. Cir. 2002) "common carrier status turns on: (1) whether the carrier holds himself out to serve indifferently all potential users; and (2) whether the carrier allows customers to transmit intelligence of their own design and choosing."
Common carriage was applied to freight or carriage companies and inland and ocean water carriers. By common law, common carriers were 1) required to serve upon reasonable demand, any and all who sought out their services; 2) held to a high standard of care for the property entrusted to them; and 3) limited to incidental damages for breach of duty. -- Eli M. Noam, Beyond Liberalization II: The Impending Doom of Common Carriage, 18 Telecom. Pol'y 435. Sec. II (1994).
Generally, to qualify as common carriage, carriage must be offered, on demand, to the public at large or to a group of people generally, and the carrier "must hold itself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for hire as a business, not as a casual occupation pro hac vice." J Story, Law of Bailments, section 495 (1832).
T. CHITTY & L. TEMPLE, A PRACTICAL TREATISE ON THE LAW OF CARRIERS OF GOODS AND PASSENGERS BY LAND, INLAND NAVIGATION, AND IN SHIPS *2, 14-15 (1857) "To render a person liable as a common carrier, he must exercise the business of carrying as a "public employment," and must undertake to carry goods for all persons indiscriminately; and hold himself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for hire as a business, and not as a casual occupation pro hac vice. "
Gisbourn v. Hurst, I Salk. 249, 250, 91 Eng. Rep. 220, 220 (1710) ("[Alny man undertaking for hire to carry the goods of all persons indifferently ... is ... a common carrier.").
Gordon v. Hutchinson, 1Watts & Serg. 285, 286 (Pa. 1841).
1844: Morse opens telegraph line with message "What hath God Wrought?"
1872: Bell produces initial drawings of "harmonic telegraph"
1737: Benjamin Franklin appointed Post Master of Philadelphia.
1775: Continental Congress establishes a Post Office. Benjamin Franklin was the first Post Master. The Continental Congress was concerned to establish a postal service that was secure and free from search and seizure by British authorities - and anyone else for that matter. Postal riders "had to swear to secure his mail under lock and key"
1861-65: Electronic telegraph used during Civil War. First war where leader receives real time reports from front. Western Union given 15,000 miles of telegraph line from North.
1908: AT&T Pres. Theodore Vail unveils his PR campaign, "One System, One Policy, Universal Service."
1894: Primrose v Western Union, 154 US 1 (1894) Telegraph companies resemble railroad companies and other common carriers, in that they are instruments of commerce, and in that they exercise a public employment, and are therefore bound to serve all customers alike, without discrimination. They have, doubtless, a duty to the public to receive, to the extent of their capacity, all messages clearly and intelligibly written, and to transmit them upon reasonable terms. But they are not common carriers. Their duties are different, and are performed in different ways; and they are not subject to the same liabilities. Express Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall. 264, 269, 270; Telegraph Co. v. Texas, 105 U.S. 460 , 464.
A network becomes a "public" or "common carrier" network when it becomes engrained into public life. When a network has moved from innovation to critical infrastructure upon which rely for daily life, it has become the "public network." In 1993, when defining the term "public switched network," the FCC stated "The purpose of the public switched network is to allow the public to send or receive messages to or from anywhere in the nation" In re Implementation of Section (3)(n) and 332 of the Communications Act; Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, Dkt 93-252, Second Report and Order, para 59 (1993). This is a functional definition of the network - it looks to end user expectations and usage. When the network has become so engrained in life to become the publics way of communicating with each other, it has become "the public network."
"In Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix Railway Company v. Grant Brothers Construction Company, 228 U.S. 177 (1913), for example, the Court noted “the established doctrine . . . that common carriers cannot secure immunity from liability for their negligence by any sort of stipulation,” but explained that “this rule has no application when a railroad company is acting outside the performance of its duty as a common carrier.” Id. at 184, 185."
Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Goodrich Transit Co., 224 U.S. 194, 211 (1912) (noting that non-common carrier activities are not within the Interstate Commerce Commission’s jurisdiction).
The first factor is the existence of externalities. Externalities are large benefits that accrue to nonusers and nonconsumers of a service, or heavy costs that are borne by nonproducers, so that the actual prices and costs fail to accurately reflect marginal social gains and marginal social costs. Under these circumstances, private profit maximization will yield suboptimal results.
Fifth, common carrier service derives its value from the universe that can be reached by any given subscriber. Under these circumstances, artificial restraints (whether imposed by interconnection restrictions or discriminatory pricing) which limit this market are contrary to the public interest. Lack of compatibility between subscriber units, with a consequent loss of system integrity, is equally detrimental. A potential conflict between public and private objectives therefore arises. Profit maximization may dictate that the carrier strive for product differentiation. The consumer, on the other hand, will be interested in the greatest freedom of choice in terms of access to the system.
Infrastructure services can greatly contribute to the economic growth of individuals, regions and the nation. In consequence, in most countries they are provided by government. When historically they were provided in the past by private firms, English common law courts often imposed some quasi-public obligations, one of which one was common carriage. It mandated the provision of service to willing customers, bringing common carriage close to a service obligation to all once it was offered to some.
-- Eli M. Noam, Beyond Liberalization II: The Impending Doom of Common Carriage, 18 Telecom. Pol'y 435. Sec. III.3. (1994).
One must distinguish the notion of common carriage from several other intertwined concepts that are frequently but inaccurately used as synonyms. A common carrier need not be a "public utility" or a "regulated monopoly," and vice versa; for example, public buses operating as common carriers are usually neither utilities nor monopolies; conversely, public utilities in electricity provision are not usually common carriers. Another concept, the "universal service obligation", is the requirement of a carrier to reach every willing user and desired destination, wherever located, while common carriage refers to service obligations toward users given a physical plant. Finally, "affordable rates," though often tied to common carriage, are a monopoly and utility issue; where common carriage is concerned with prices it is not with their absolute levels but rather with relative ones, to prevent price-discrimination as a way to unduly differentiate among users or uses.... In 1901, following many state courts, the U.S. Supreme Court held that at common law-- i.e., even without a specific statute-- a telegraph company is a common carrier and owes a duty of non-discrimination.8 Thus the concept of common carriage does not depend on public utility regulation, and a user's rights of service from a common carrier do not rely solely on statute. Statutory public service regulation augmented common law common carriage rather than supplanted it.9, 10 -- Eli M. Noam, Beyond Liberalization II: The Impending Doom of Common Carriage, 18 Telecom. Pol'y 435. Sec. II (1994).
One must distinguish the notion of common carriage from several other intertwined concepts that are frequently but inaccurately used as synonyms. A common carrier need not be a "public utility" or a "regulated monopoly," and vice versa; for example, public buses operating as common carriers are usually neither utilities nor monopolies; conversely, public utilities in electricity provision are not usually common carriers. Another concept, the "universal service obligation", is the requirement of a carrier to reach every willing user and desired destination, wherever located, while common carriage refers to service obligations toward users given a physical plant. Finally, "affordable rates," though often tied to common carriage, are a monopoly and utility issue; where common carriage is concerned with prices it is not with their absolute levels but rather with relative ones, to prevent price-discrimination as a way to unduly differentiate among users or uses... In 1901, following many state courts, the U.S. Supreme Court held that at common law-- i.e., even without a specific statute-- a telegraph company is a common carrier and owes a duty of non-discrimination.8 Thus the concept of common carriage does not depend on public utility regulation, and a user's rights of service from a common carrier do not rely solely on statute. Statutory public service regulation augmented common law common carriage rather than supplanted it.9, 10 -- Eli M. Noam,Beyond Liberalization II: The Impending Doom of Common Carriage, 18 Telecom. Pol'y 435, Sec. II (1994).
One must distinguish the notion of common carriage from several other intertwined concepts that are frequently but inaccurately used as synonyms. A common carrier need not be a "public utility" or a "regulated monopoly," and vice versa; for example, public buses operating as common carriers are usually neither utilities nor monopolies; conversely, public utilities in electricity provision are not usually common carriers. Another concept, the "universal service obligation", is the requirement of a carrier to reach every willing user and desired destination, wherever located, while common carriage refers to service obligations toward users given a physical plant. Finally, "affordable rates," though often tied to common carriage, are a monopoly and utility issue; where common carriage is concerned with prices it is not with their absolute levels but rather with relative ones, to prevent price-discrimination as a way to unduly differentiate among users or uses. -- Eli M. Noam, Beyond Liberalization II: The Impending Doom of Common Carriage, 18 Telecom. Pol'y 435, Sec. II (1994).
Under common law, common carriers bear the tort obligations: to serve upon reasonable request; without unreasonable discrimination; at just and reasonable rates; and with adequate care. - Barbara Cherry, The Rise of Shadow Common Carriers (Dec. 2012).
"The common carrier designation carries significant importance because operators are held to a heightened duty of utmost care and diligence rather than the ordinary negligence duty of reasonable care under the circumstances.... The rationale behind imposing a heightened duty of care on common carriers involves several factors. First, those who travel on common carriers essentially surrender themselves to the carriers care and custody. Secondly, these patrons waive their freedom of movement and actions while in the custody of a common carrier. As these carriers have the exclusive control of their devices, courts have held common carriers to a higher standard than a mere duty of ordinary care under the circumstances." --Chad A. Gerardi, A Tale Involving the Magic Kingdom, Pirates, and a Court's Broad Interpretation of Common Carrier Liability, 1 Chap. L. Rev. 171, 171 (1998).
Verizon v. FCC, D.C. Cir. 2014 (overturning FCC's Open Internet rules on the grounds that the Open Internet rules constituted common carrier obligations and the FCC had concluded that broadband Internet services were not common carriers).
Any contract, rule, regulation, or device whatsoever, the purpose or intent of which shall be to enable any common carrier to exempt itself from any liability created by this chapter, shall to that extent be void: Provided, That in any action brought against any such common carrier under or by virtue of any of the provisions of this chapter, such common carrier may set off therein any sum it has contributed or paid to any insurance, relief benefit, or indemnity that may have been paid to the injured employee or the person entitled thereto on account of the injury or death for which said action was brought. 45 U.S.C. §55 (2000).
For centuries, common carriage principles have played an important role in the infrastructure services of transportation and communications. They intended to guarantee that no customer seeking service upon reasonable demand, willing and able to pay the established price, however set, would be denied lawful use of the service or would otherwise be discriminated against... The prohibition on unreasonable discrimination is the most important component of the common carrier obligation.15 However, this is not absolute. Courts have recognized that some categorization of users is possible. "[A] specialized carrier whose service is of possible use to only a fraction of the population may nonetheless be a common carrier if he holds himself out to serve indifferently all potential users." -- Eli M. Noam, Beyond Liberalization II: The Impending Doom of Common Carriage, 18 Telecom. Pol'y 435, Sec. II (1994).
Am. Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 387 U.S. 397 (1967) (rejecting contention that competition between the freight forwarder and the railroad justified the latter’s discrimination against the former).
The duty to carry does not mean that a carrier is never justified in refusing to provide service. It is well established that "if goods are not of the character that the carrier transports he may refuse carriage." Gorton, Supra at 109. Yet, the reasons for refusal are very limited and related to potential damage to other's goods, or to unreasonably high risks for the carrier in its capacity as insurer, or are belong the reasonable capacity restraints of the carrier.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibits wiretapping of customers service, except where incident to the rendition of service or in order to protect the service provider's network or property. Similarly, the FCC's 2010 Open Internet Rules prohibited discrimination except for reasonable network management.
Common carriers have an obligation to provide service to any and all comers, except where service is clearly being used for illegal purposes. Movietime Inc v. NY Telephone Co., 277 App Div 1057, 101 NY Supp.2d 71 (2d Dept 1950). However, these grounds are very limited. In Nadel v NY Tel., 170 NYS2d 95 (1957) petitioner's phone service was disconnected because of the carrier's suspicion that the telephone would be used for illegal gambling transactions. The court directed that service be reinstated, finding that the telephone company "is not at all qualified, in the absence of evidence of illegal use, to withhold from the petitioner, at will an essential and public utility." 170 NYS2d at 98.
In return for reduced discretion, a carrier obtained certain benefits, including limited liability for the consequences of its own actions. Some types of common carriers have been given, by statute, powers of eminent domain, use of public rights-of-way, and protection against competition. -- Eli M. Noam, Beyond Liberalization II: The Impending Doom of Common Carriage, 18 Telecom. Pol'y 435, Sec. II (1994).
The Shipping Act of 1916 was enacted, in large measure, to provide the liner shipping industry operating in the foreign commerce of the United States with a measure of immunity from antitrust laws. -- Daniel Eldredge, Classifying Cruise Ships as Common Carriers under the Shipping Act, a Jurisdictional Struggle: American Association of Cruse Passengers v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 15 Tul Mar. L.J. 397, 399 (1991).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §55
 v. 
 v. 
 v.