Final answer:
In the law, common carriers are presumed to be at fault or negligent when accidents occur, putting the onus on them to prove otherwise. The debate continues on whether Internet service providers should be considered common carriers, as regulatory burdens could impact profitability and thus, expansion and improvement of services.
Step-by-step explanation:
Common carriers are typically presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently when an accident or injury occurs during their operation. In law, this is known as a 'presumption of negligence,' and it places the burden of proof onto the common carrier to show that they were not negligent.
This principle is in place because common carriers, such as public transportation operators, are responsible for the safety of the individuals they serve. Regulatory Burdens and Profitability: There is an argument against designating Internet service providers as common carriers due to potential regulatory burdens that might limit telecommunication companies' ability to operate profitably.
A functional perspective theorist would suggest that profits are necessary for companies to invest in service improvement and expansion. Ultimately, the Federal Communications Commission and the federal government must strike a balance in regulating broadband providers to prevent a digital divide without imposing excessive burdens on providers.