Common carrier

Last updated

A common carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in some civil law systems, [1] usually called simply a carrier) [2] is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport. [3] [4] A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it. The regulatory body may create, interpret, and enforce its regulations upon the common carrier (subject to judicial review) with independence and finality as long as it acts within the bounds of the enabling legislation.

Contents

A common carrier (also called a public carrier in British English) [3] is distinguished from a contract carrier, which is a carrier that transports goods for only a certain number of clients and that can refuse to transport goods for anyone else, and from a private carrier. A common carrier holds itself out to provide service to the general public without discrimination (to meet the needs of the regulator's quasi-judicial role of impartiality toward the public's interest) for the "public convenience and necessity." A common carrier must further demonstrate to the regulator that it is "fit, willing, and able" to provide those services for which it is granted authority. Common carriers typically transport persons or goods according to defined and published routes, time schedules, and rate tables upon the approval of regulators. Public airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxicab companies, phone companies, internet service providers, [5] cruise ships, motor carriers (i.e., canal operating companies, trucking companies), and other freight companies generally operate as common carriers. Under US law, an ocean freight forwarder cannot act as a common carrier. [3]

The term common carrier is a common law term and is seldom used in Continental Europe because it has no exact equivalent in civil-law systems. In Continental Europe, the functional equivalent of a common carrier is referred to as a public carrier [1] or simply as a carrier. However, public carrier in Continental Europe is different from public carrier in British English in which it is a synonym for contract carrier.

General

Although common carriers generally transport people [6] or goods, in the United States the term may also refer to telecommunications service providers and public utilities. [7] In certain U.S. states, amusement parks that operate roller coasters and comparable rides have been found to be common carriers; a famous example is Disneyland. [8]

Regulatory bodies may also grant carriers the authority to operate under contract with their customers instead of under common carrier authority, rates, schedules and rules. These regulated carriers, known as contract carriers, must demonstrate that they are "fit, willing and able" to provide service, according to standards enforced by the regulator. However, contract carriers are specifically not required to demonstrate that they will operate for the "public convenience and necessity." A contract carrier may be authorized to provide service over either fixed routes and schedules, i.e., as regular route carrier or on an ad hoc basis as an irregular route carrier.

It should be mentioned that the carrier refers only to the person (legal or physical) that enters into a contract of carriage with the shipper. The carrier does not necessarily have to own or even be in the possession of a means of transport. Unless otherwise agreed upon in the contract, the carrier may use whatever means of transport approved in its operating authority, as long as it is the most favorable from the cargo interests' point of view. The carriers' duty is to get the goods to the agreed destination within the agreed time or within reasonable time. [1]

The person that is physically transporting the goods on a means of transport is referred to as the "actual carrier". When a carrier subcontracts with another provider, such as an independent contractor or a third-party carrier, the common carrier is said to be providing "substituted service". The same person may hold both common carrier and contract carrier authority. In the case of a rail line in the US, the owner of the property is said to retain a "residual common carrier obligation", unless otherwise transferred (such as in the case of a commuter rail system, where the authority operating passenger trains may acquire the property but not this obligation from the former owner), and must operate the line if service is terminated. [ citation needed ]

In contrast, private carriers are not licensed to offer a service to the public. Private carriers generally provide transport on an irregular or ad hoc basis for their owners.

Carriers were very common in rural areas prior to motorised transport. Regular services by horse-drawn vehicles would ply to local towns, taking goods to market or bringing back purchases for the village. If space permitted, passengers could also travel.

Cases have also established limitations to the common carrier designation. In a case concerning a hot air balloon, Grotheer v. Escape Adventures, Inc., the court affirmed a hot air balloon was not a common carrier, holding the key inquiry in determining whether or not a transporter can be classified as a common carrier is whether passengers expect the transportation to be safe because the operator is reasonably capable of controlling the risk of injury. [9]

Telecommunications

In the United States, telecommunications carriers are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission under title II of the Communications Act of 1934. [10]

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 made extensive revisions to the "Title II" provisions regarding common carriers and repealed the judicial 1982 AT&T consent decree (often referred to as the Modification of Final Judgment) that effectuated the breakup of AT&T's Bell System. Further, the Act gives telephone companies the option of providing video programming on a common carrier basis or as a conventional cable television operator. If it chooses the former, the telephone company will face less regulation but will also have to comply with FCC regulations requiring what the Act refers to as "open video systems". The Act generally bars, with certain exceptions including most rural areas, acquisitions by telephone companies of more than a 10 percent interest in cable operators (and vice versa) and joint ventures between telephone companies and cable systems serving the same areas.

Internet Service Providers

Using provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC classified Internet service providers as common carriers, effective June 12, 2015, for the purpose of enforcing net neutrality. [10] Led by the Trump administration's appointed commissioner Ajit Pai, on December 14, 2017 the FCC reversed its rules on net neutrality, effectively revoking common carrier status as a requirement for Internet service providers. [11] Following this, in 2018 the U.S. Senate narrowly passed a non-binding resolution aiming to reverse the FCC's decision and restore FCC's net neutrality rules. [12] On 25 April 2024, the FCC voted 3–2 to reinstate net neutrality in the United States by reclassifying the Internet under Title II. [13] However, legal challenges filed by ISPs resulted in an appeals court order that stays the net neutrality rules until the court makes a final ruling, with the court opining that the ISPs are likely to prevail over the FCC on the merits. [14]

Pipelines

In the United States, many oil, gas and CO2 pipelines are common carriers. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates rates charged and other tariff terms imposed by interstate common carrier pipelines. Intrastate common carrier pipeline tariffs are often regulated by state agencies. The US and many states have delegated the power of eminent domain to common carrier gas pipelines.

Common carriers are subject to special laws and regulations that differ depending on the means of transport used, e.g. sea carriers are often governed by quite different rules from road carriers or railway carriers. In common law jurisdictions as well as under international law, a common carrier is absolutely liable [15] for goods carried by it, with four exceptions: [16]

A sea carrier may also, according to the Hague-Visby Rules, escape liability on other grounds than the above-mentioned, e.g. a sea carrier is not liable for damages to the goods if the damage is the result of a fire on board the ship or the result of a navigational error committed by the ship's master or other crewmember.

Carriers typically incorporate further exceptions into a contract of carriage, often specifically claiming not to be a common carrier.

An important legal requirement for common carrier as public provider is that it cannot discriminate, that is refuse the service unless there is some compelling reason. As of 2007, the status of Internet service providers as common carriers and their rights and responsibilities is widely debated (network neutrality).

The term common carrier does not exist in continental Europe but is distinctive to common law systems, particularly law systems in the US. [17]

In Ludditt v Ginger Coote Airways [18] the Privy Council (Lord Macmillan, Lord Wright, Lord Porter and Lord Simonds) held the liability of a public or common carrier of passengers is only to carry with due care. This is more limited than that of a common carrier of goods. The complete freedom of a carrier of passengers at common law to make such contracts as he thinks fit was not curtailed by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854, and a specific contract that enlarges, diminishes or excludes his duty to take care (e.g., by a condition that the passenger travels "at his own risk against all casualties") cannot be pronounced to be unreasonable if the law authorises it. There was nothing in the provisions of the Canadian Transport Act 1938 section 25 that would invalidate a provision excluding liability. Grand Trunk Railway Co of Canada v Robinson [1915] A.C. 740 was followed and Peek v North Staffordshire Railway 11 E.R. 1109 was distinguished.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet service provider</span> Organization that provides access to the Internet

An Internet service provider (ISP) is an organization that provides myriad services related to accessing, using, managing, or participating in the Internet. ISPs can be organized in various forms, such as commercial, community-owned, non-profit, or otherwise privately owned.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telecommunications policy of the United States</span>

The telecommunications policy of the United States is a framework of law directed by government and the regulatory commissions, most notably the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Two landmark acts prevail today, the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The latter was intended to revise the first act and specifically to foster competition in the telecommunications industry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Net neutrality</span> Principle that Internet service providers should treat all data equally

Network neutrality, often referred to as net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, offering users and online content providers consistent transfer rates regardless of content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication. Net neutrality was advocated for in the 1990s by the presidential administration of Bill Clinton in the United States. Clinton's signing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934, set a worldwide example for net neutrality laws and the regulation of ISPs.

Bandwidth throttling consists in the limitation of the communication speed, of the ingoing (received) or outgoing (sent) data in a network node or in a network device such as computers and mobile phones.

National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that decisions by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on how to regulate Internet service providers are eligible for Chevron deference, in which the judiciary defers to an administrative agency's expertise under its governing statutes. While the case concerned routine regulatory processes at the FCC and applied to interpretations of the Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996, the ruling has become an important precedent on the matter of regulating network neutrality in the United States.

The Universal Service Fund (USF) is a system of telecommunications subsidies and fees managed by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promote universal access to telecommunications services in the United States. The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Originally designed to subsidize telephone service, since 2011 the fund has expanded its goals to supporting broadband universal service. The Universal Service Fund's budget ranges from $5–8 billion per year depending on the needs of the telecommunications providers. These needs include the cost to maintain the hardware needed for their services and the services themselves. In 2022 disbursements totaled $7.4 billion, split across the USF's four main programs: $2.1 billion for the E-rate program, $4.2 billion for the high-cost program, $0.6 billion for the Lifeline program, and $0.5 billion for the rural health care program.

In the United States, net neutrality—the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should make no distinctions between different kinds of content on the Internet, and to not discriminate based on such distinctions—has been an issue of contention between end-users and ISPs since the 1990s. With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge different rates for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block specific types of content, while charging consumers different rates for that content.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet in the United States</span>

The Internet in the United States grew out of the ARPANET, a network sponsored by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense during the 1960s. The Internet in the United States of America in turn provided the foundation for the worldwide Internet of today.

Tiered service structures allow users to select from a small set of tiers at progressively increasing price points to receive the product or products best suited to their needs. Such systems are frequently seen in the telecommunications field, specifically when it comes to wireless service, digital and cable television options, and broadband internet access.

The Federal Communications Commission Open Internet Order of 2010 is a set of regulations that move towards the establishment of the internet neutrality concept. Some opponents of net neutrality believe such internet regulation would inhibit innovation by preventing providers from capitalizing on their broadband investments and reinvesting that money into higher quality services for consumers. Supporters of net neutrality argue that the presence of content restrictions by network providers represents a threat to individual expression and the rights of the First Amendment. Open Internet strikes a balance between these two camps by creating a compromised set of regulations that treats all internet traffic in "roughly the same way". In Verizon v. FCC, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated portions of the order that the court determined could only be applied to common carriers.

Internet bottlenecks are places in telecommunication networks in which internet service providers (ISPs), or naturally occurring high use of the network, slow or alter the network speed of the users and/or content producers using that network. A bottleneck is a more general term for a system that has been reduced or slowed due to limited resources or components. The bottleneck occurs in a network when there are too many users attempting to access a specific resource. Internet bottlenecks provide artificial and natural network choke points to inhibit certain sets of users from overloading the entire network by consuming too much bandwidth. Theoretically, this will lead users and content producers through alternative paths to accomplish their goals while limiting the network load at any one time. Alternatively, internet bottlenecks have been seen as a way for ISPs to take advantage of their dominant market-power increasing rates for content providers to push past bottlenecks. The United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has created regulations stipulating that artificial bottlenecks are in direct opposition to a free and open Internet.

Net bias is the counter-principle to net neutrality, which indicates differentiation or discrimination of price and the quality of content or applications on the Internet by ISPs. Similar terms include data discrimination, digital redlining, and network management.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ajit Pai</span> American attorney and former FCC chairman (born 1973)

Ajit Varadaraj Pai is an American lawyer who served as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from 2017 to 2021. He has been a partner at the private-equity firm Searchlight Capital since April 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tom Wheeler</span> American businessman and politician (born 1946)

Thomas Edgar Wheeler is an American businessman and former government official. A member of the Democratic Party, he served as the 31st Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

<i>Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC</i> (2014)

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 740 F.3d 623, was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacating portions of the FCC Open Internet Order of 2010, which the court determined could only be applied to common carriers and not to Internet service providers. The case was initiated by Verizon, which would have been subjected to the proposed FCC rules, though they had not yet gone into effect. The case has been regarded as an important precedent on whether the FCC can regulate network neutrality.

Net neutrality law refers to laws and regulations which enforce the principle of net neutrality.

<i>United States Telecom Association v. FCC</i> (2016)

United States Telecom Association v. FCC, 825 F. 3d 674, was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upholding an action by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the previous year in which broadband Internet was reclassified as a "telecommunications service" under the Communications Act of 1934, after which Internet service providers (ISPs) were required to follow common carrier regulations.

"Net Neutrality" is the first segment devoted to net neutrality in the United States of the HBO news satire television series Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. It aired for 13 minutes on June 1, 2014, as part of the fifth episode of Last Week Tonight's first season.

Net neutrality is the principle that governments should mandate Internet service providers to treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

<i>Mozilla Corp. v. FCC</i> 2019 American court case

Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F. 3d 1 was a ruling the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2019 related to net neutrality in the United States. The case centered on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s decision in 2017 to rollback its prior 2015 Open Internet Order, reclassifying Internet services as an information service rather than as a common carrier, deregulating principles of net neutrality that had been put in place with the 2015 order. The proposed rollback had been publicly criticized during the open period of discussion, and following the FCC's issuing of the rollback, several states and Internet companies sued the FCC. These cases were consolidated into the one led by the Mozilla Corporation.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Encyclopædia Britannica CD 2000 "Civil-law public carrier" from "carriage of goods"
  2. ↑ Daniel Engber. "Louisiana's Napoleon Complex". Slate Group. Archived from the original on 28 August 2016. Retrieved 16 September 2018. : Note that Louisiana uses "common carrier" although its law is based on the Spanish and French civil law tradition, a version of the Napoleonic Code.
  3. 1 2 3 Longman Business English Dictionary
  4. ↑ "COMMON CARRIER Definition & Legal Meaning". Black's Law Dictionary (2nd ed.). 18 October 2012. Retrieved January 24, 2023.
  5. ↑ "Restoring Internet Freedom". fcc.gov. 12 June 2017. Archived from the original on 28 August 2016. Retrieved 27 March 2018.
  6. ↑ Stokes v. Saltonstall , 38 U.S. 181 (1839).
  7. ↑ "What is common carrier? | Definition from TechTarget". WhatIs.com. Retrieved 2023-07-21.
  8. ↑ Gomez v. Superior Court (Walt Disney Co.), 35 Cal. 4th 1125 (2005).
  9. ↑ "Grotheer v. Escape Adventures, Inc., 14 Cal.App.5th 1283 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved 2022-08-05.
  10. 1 2 Fung, Brian (12 June 2015). "Net neutrality takes effect today. Here's how it affects you" . Retrieved 27 March 2018– via www.washingtonpost.com.
  11. ↑ Fung, Brian (2017-12-14). "The FCC just voted to repeal its net neutrality rules, in a sweeping act of deregulation". Washington Post. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 2018-06-07.
  12. ↑ Fung, Brian (2018-05-16). "Senate approves bipartisan resolution to restore FCC net neutrality rules". Washington Post. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 2018-06-07.
  13. ↑ Fung, Brian (2024-04-25). "Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers | CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved 2024-10-23.
  14. ↑ Brodkin, Jon (2024-08-05). "Court blocks net neutrality, says ISPs are likely to win case against FCC". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2024-10-23.
  15. ↑ Lovett v. Hobbs (1680) 89 Eng. Rep. 836.
  16. ↑ Gregory v Commonwealth Railways Cmr (1941) 66 CLR 50 at 74
  17. ↑ De Witt: Multimodal Transport, LLP 1995, p. 23.
  18. ↑ [1947] A.C. 233; [1947] 1 All E.R. 328
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.