jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (06/13/87)
I believe this only applies to public data networks, such as Telenet
and Tymnet, not ordinary voice-line modems, which use long-distance
common carriers that already pay the surcharge.
It's still terrible, though. It will add the $5/hour or so to MCI,
Bix, CompuServe, Delphi, etc... It will also eliminate PC Pursuit.
--
Joel West
{ucbvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww or jww@sdcsvax.ucsd.edukeithd@cadovax.UUCP (06/15/87)
In article <2288@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: > A terrible piece of news I just read about in the New York Times >this morning. The FCC just voted 4-0 to impose a $4.50 - $5.50 an HOUR >tax on people who are using the phone system to transmit information >across state lines. How do they propose to meter it? Force the phone company to attach metering equipment to lines and charge it to our phone bills? And what's the definition of 'information'. Isn't voice communication, and video also 'information'? If not, then wouldn't it be legitimate for speech synthesizer/recognizer 'modems' to communicate automatically over these lines without tariff? Does it cover microwave, radio, and satellite transmissions as well? Or just 'phone' lines. Then what exactly *is* the definition of 'phone' lines? Just 'public' phone lines, or private lines as well? Sounds like an opportunity for someone to make money providing some 'new' mechanism for inter-state communications traffic at a rate that is cost- effective when compared with the new 'taxed' phone lines. So who makes the money? Sprint? MCI? Cable Video companies? Some new company? Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd # cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170
gary@eddie.MIT.EDU (Gary Samad) (06/15/87)
In article <3313@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> jww@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Joel West) writes: }I believe this only applies to public data networks, such as Telenet }and Tymnet, not ordinary voice-line modems, which use long-distance }common carriers that already pay the surcharge. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^?? Huh? The long-distance companies are certainly not paying a surcharge of $5 per hour! Cmon folks, stand up against this regulatory farce! Think about it, this could bring down the USENET. Write your congressman!
apc@cblpe.ATT.COM (Alan Curtis) (06/16/87)
>> A terrible piece of news I just read about in the New York Times >>this morning. The FCC just voted 4-0 to impose a $4.50 - $5.50 an HOUR >>tax on people who are using the phone system to transmit information >>across state lines. This is specifically aimed at the "new" type of long distance company that is not paying it's share of "access charges" or "line charge" or whatever. It does NOT affect direct calls, nor BBS, nor USENET. It only goes after the packet switch like critters like tymnet pc pursuit, etc. That is the way I heard it. -- "Are you sure you won't change your mind?" | Alan P. Curtis "Is there something wrong with the one I have?" | AT&T,BTL,CB -----------------------------------------------------| apc@cblpe.ATT.COM Copyright (c) 1987. Use for profit not allowed. | !cbosgd!cblpe!apc
leonard@percival.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (06/17/87)
In article <1593@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
<Does it cover microwave, radio, and satellite transmissions as well? Or
<just 'phone' lines. Then what exactly *is* the definition of 'phone'
<lines? Just 'public' phone lines, or private lines as well?
<
<Sounds like an opportunity for someone to make money providing some 'new'
<mechanism for inter-state communications traffic at a rate that is cost-
<effective when compared with the new 'taxed' phone lines. So who makes
<the money? Sprint? MCI? Cable Video companies? Some new company?
Sorry, but unless this new company provides links from your house/business
to mine _without using the local phone companies_ you are out of luck.
They're gonna be charging _anybody_ who hooks a "for-profit" network up
to the local phone co. Rates they're talking about are > $.09/minute.
The FCC is getting out of hand again...
<Keith Doyle
<# {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
<# cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!leonard
CIS: [70465,203] ...!tektronix!reed!percival!!bucket!leonard
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."mayerk@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Kenneth Mayer) (06/18/87)
When last we saw our hero, keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) ... >In article <2288@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: >> A terrible piece of news I just read about in the New York Times >>this morning. The FCC just voted 4-0 to impose a $4.50 - $5.50 an HOUR >>tax on people who are using the phone system to transmit information >>across state lines. After seeing all of the various versions of this, I decided to contact the FCC myself and get the facts straight: In 1983, the FCC adopted an access charge plan where every secondary user of local telephone services would be charged a tariff based on the costs of the local exchange. Two groups were exempted from this tariff -- resellers (those who buy telephone service in bulk and resell it at reduced prices) and enhanced service providers (data retrieval, manipulation, and transmission). This year, the resellers were removed from exemption. In a couple of weeks, the FCC will announce a *notice*of*inquiry*. Not a tariff, but a request for comments on a proposed rule change. The proposal is to add enhanced service providers back into the access charge plan. Although the local rates will vary, the national average should be about $0.09/minute. If you would like a copy of the notice of inquiry and instructions on how to submit comments, contact International Transcription Services, (202)857-3800. There will probably be a summary in the Federal Register. If you would like to make a comment, you may also mail a letter directly to the FCC, but I am unsure whether they will be received or acknowledged. Send your letters to The Hon. Dennis Patrick, Chairman, FCC 1919 M Street NW Washington, D.C. 20554 In your letter, state that this is in reference to docket number 87-215. Also, send a copy to your elected representatives. If you have further queries, you may contact the FCC at (202)632-4047. Tell them that you have a query about docket number 87-215. Kenneth Mayer mayerk@eniac.seas.upenn.edu Teacher: "Two plus two equals..." Student: "Four, but what's a two?"
curry@nsc.UUCP (06/19/87)
Its my understanding that the proposal is not a tax but a connect fee. If Sprint connects to Pacific Bell, they pay a connect fee. The information services like Timnet, Compuserve, etc. have been exempt by FCC regulations because it was a new and formative industry. The FCC sets such fee's. Anyway they feel the information industry is no longer in birth but is established (their opinion) and want them to pay the fee. The impact would likely be that Genie's $5 /hr would go to $10.
sunny@hoptoad.uucp (Sunny David Kirsten) (06/19/87)
ANY Taxation of ANY communications is a violation of your
constitutional right to FREEdom of speech. Refuse to have
your constitutional rights violated. We legally live in
a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Don't let those
clones in Washington get away with their continued attempts
to invalidate and obsolete the constitution. BTW... I've
heard The Phone Company will honor your refusals to pay
taxes on your phone bill. Just send in the correct amount
less any taxes they charged you with the statement that they
are in violation of your right to free speech.
--
David Kirsten
Astral Consultants
(415)457-7555
POB 459
Forest Knolls, CA 94933
USENET: {sun,ptsfa,well,lll-crg,ihnp4,ucsfcgl,nsc,frog}!hoptoad!sunnymichael@stb.UUCP (06/20/87)
In article <1361@super.upenn.edu.upenn.edu> mayerk@linc.cis.upenn.edu.UUCP (Kenneth Mayer) writes: >When last we saw our hero, keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) ... >>In article <2288@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: >>> A terrible piece of news I just read about in the New York Times >>>this morning. The FCC just voted 4-0 to impose a $4.50 - $5.50 an HOUR >>>tax on people who are using the phone system to transmit information >>>across state lines. > >After seeing all of the various versions of this, I decided to contact >the FCC myself and get the facts straight: > >In 1983, the FCC adopted an access charge plan where every secondary >user of local telephone services would be charged a tariff based on >the costs of the local exchange. Two groups were exempted from this >tariff -- resellers (those who buy telephone service in bulk and >resell it at reduced prices) and enhanced service providers (data >retrieval, manipulation, and transmission). This year, the resellers >were removed from exemption. Wait a sec...Doesn't this mean that ATnT, Sprint, MCI, etc, etc, should be paying the same fees??? I smell a big rat. Anyone care to comment? -- : Michael Gersten seismo!scgvaxd!stb!michael : Ground floor, comming up -- 1-3-7
6089031@pucc.Princeton.EDU (Shantanu Saha) (06/21/87)
FLAME WARNING!!! In article <2315@hoptoad.uucp>, sunny@hoptoad.uucp (Sunny David Kirsten) writes: >ANY Taxation of ANY communications is a violation of your >constitutional right to FREEdom of speech. Refuse to have >your constitutional rights violated. We legally live in >a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Don't let those >clones in Washington get away with their continued attempts >to invalidate and obsolete the constitution. Yo! People! THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGE IS NOT A TAX!!!!!!!!!!!! Anti-taxation garbage of this kind is bad enough when it refers to a real, honest-to-God tax. In reference to a proposal which allows a provider of service to CHARGE A FEE for the SERVICE which THEY ARE PROVIDING in order to make a PROFIT, it is more than I can take. It takes a warped mind indeed to see in the first amendment a restriction of the government's right to place reasonable excise taxes on the provision of a service, just because the service happens to involve the transfer of information. It takes a fanatic to attempt to apply this kind of reasoning in the instant case. > BTW... I've >heard The Phone Company will honor your refusals to pay >taxes on your phone bill. Just send in the correct amount >less any taxes they charged you with the statement that they >are in violation of your right to free speech. I doubt it. Have you done it? Has anyone on the net? Or is this another rumor like the one about the case which is supposed to prove the Income Tax unconstitutional, but which in reality either does not exist, or turns out to be a rehash of arguments so long discredited that they are considered frivolous? Robert A. West (Q4071@PUCC) US MAIL: 7 Lincoln Place / Suite A / North Brunswick, NJ 08902 VOICE : (201) 821-7055 ...!seismo!princeton!phoenix!pucc!q4071
woody@tybalt.caltech.edu (William Edward Woody) (06/22/87)
In article <2315@hoptoad.uucp> sunny@hoptoad.UUCP (David Kirsten) writes: >ANY Taxation of ANY communications is a violation of your >constitutional right to FREEdom of speech. HOWEVER, even though you are guarenteed freedom of speech by the first amendment of the United States constitution, this amendment DOES NOT provide for the free distribution of what you have to say. Back in the olden times they had to pay for the paper and the printing press time (and for the tax on the paper and the printing press); now, we pay communications tarriffs. You're still free to say what you wish, however. Not that I support the new proposed FCC tax ruling; just noting that "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch." - William Woody Mac! > ][n && /|\ woody@tybalt.caltech.edu woody@juliet.caltech.edu
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) (06/22/87)
In article <2315@hoptoad.uucp> sunny@hoptoad.UUCP (David Kirsten) writes: >ANY Taxation of ANY communications is a violation of your >constitutional right to FREEdom of speech. I believe the "free" in "the right to free speech" doesn't have anything to do with money, but with freedom. If your assertion is correct, I would expect to be able to broadcast my opinions on network television nationwide for free. Anyway, the term "information tax" is not literally correct, since the fee in question is a connect charge, collected by the local 'phone company, not a tax levied by the government.
zardoz@apple.UUCP (Phil Wayne) (06/22/87)
In article <2315@hoptoad.uucp> sunny@hoptoad.UUCP (David Kirsten) writes: >ANY Taxation of ANY communications is a violation of your >constitutional right to FREEdom of speech. Oh, piffle. Taxation of communications happens all the time. Radio, Televeision, newspapers all pay taxes, and (indirectly) you do also, unless you never use any of those commodities. >Refuse to have your constitutional rights violated. We legally live in >a constitutional republic, not a democracy. There is a non sequitur if ever etc. A constitutional republic means that if your *ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES* deceide to tax you, you are taxed. In a democracy you could (theoretically) have a right (moral or otherwise) not to pay taxes, but not in a republic. >Don't let those clones in Washington get away with their continued attempts >to invalidate and obsolete the constitution. Excuse me? I got out my constitution and couldn't find the place it says they can't tax what happens on a telephone line. Could you quote the passage for the rest of us? >BTW... I've heard The Phone Company will honor your refusals to pay >taxes on your phone bill. Just send in the correct amount >less any taxes they charged you with the statement that they >are in violation of your right to free speech. Errrr, not quite. You can refuse to pay the excise tax, and they (probably , but not certainly) won't bother you. The excise tax goes to pay for the war machine, and has *NOTHING* to do with communication at all. I have a good many Quaker friends who would set you very straight very quickly on that one. Do not let the above comments make you think I like the idea for forking over to uncle to talk on the phone (that's what the end result would come to, not very far down the road) but let us fight with logic and good sense, and not fight with ourself. Information is power, but GIGO, OK? BTW, on a $40.00 phone bill, the excise tax would be about a quarter (that is 25 cents), so non payment is more of a moral stand than putting any crimp in the pentagon war machine. ... Any opions you find annoying or wrong-headed in the above were obviously ... line glitches. I never said any of this, any my employer doesn't even ... know I have opinions.
mayerk@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Kenneth Mayer) (06/23/87)
When last we saw our hero, michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) ... >Wait a sec...Doesn't this mean that ATnT, Sprint, MCI, etc, etc, should >be paying the same fees??? [the Devil's advocate, a dashingly handsome gentlemen, saunters in] Yes, they should be, and they do. The resellers and enhanced service providers have been exempt since '81 when the access fees were put in place. They are the only ones that aren't paying the fees now. (And resellers were phased in last year, so only esp's are left.) The question is, if access fees threaten the survival of these esp companies, what other alternatives are there that will add them back into the "rolls" while still maintaining low fees. Maybe the access fees could be scaled against the load on the network -- sort of reduced rates during off peak hours. Most home users (most of us) don't dial in until after six o'clock anyway. If the corporate community thinks it can absorb the added costs, they won't bitch (UNLIKELY!), but my interests are of my home/one-man-office use. [tennis racket in hand, the D's A deftly sends the ball over the net into the far corner... ...to be continued] Kenneth Mayer mayerk@eniac.seas.upenn.edu Teacher: "Two plus two equals..." Student: "Four, but what's a two?"
osmigo@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ron Morgan) (06/23/87)
I can't help but wonder if baud rates should figure into this. It just seems
a little warped that some guy downloading a file at 1200 should pay 4 times
the tax of somebody obtaining the *exact* same information at 9600. The answer
depends on exactly what it is that's being taxed.
Ron Morgan
--
osmigo, UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas 78712
ARPA: osmigo@ngp.UTEXAS.EDU
UUCP: ihnp4!ut-ngp!osmigo allegra!ut-ngp!osmigo gatech!ut-ngp!osmigo
seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigo harvard!ut-sally!ut-ngp!osmigobriand@tekig4.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) (06/24/87)
>I can't help but wonder if baud rates should figure into this. It just seems >a little warped that some guy downloading a file at 1200 should pay 4 times >the tax of somebody obtaining the *exact* same information at 9600. The answer >depends on exactly what it is that's being taxed. Access is access. If you choose to use your access in an inefficient manner, then that's your business, but tying up resources and/or buying a service is unaffected by content. If you make a long distance call, you're charged the same whether you actually talk or if you sleep. -- -Brian Diehm (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply) Tektronix, Inc. briand@tekig4.TEK.COM or {decvax,cae780,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekig4!briand
mph@rover.UUCP (Mark Huth) (06/26/87)
I know people who have refused to pay the excise tax on their telephone bills. The phone company does not disconnect their phones, but does turn them over to the appropriate Treasury types, who then proceed to make life miserable for the individual claiming First Amendment protections. After all, that's their job. Do not engage in this activity unless you really want a war. Many people I know have been fighting for years, losing everything in the battle. Some feel that it is worth it. Fortunately for us, some similar type crazies dedicated their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors to a similar cause about 211 years ago. Of course, they were patriots, while current day defenders of liberty are just crazy (right, left, pick a direction) wing loonies who desire to destroy our fine current situation of perpetual debt and impending slavery. The payment for transportation of information is not necessarily a tax, and even if it was a tax, would not be a violation of the First Amendment, as your rights to free speech are not being infringed. You may speak freely, publish (at your own expense), etc., but as soon as you use regulated services, your freedom meets a conflicting interest. This does not mean that you shouldn't let the FCC and Congress know how you feel about the issue, just that the enterprise in question is not off limits to the tax and spend crowd. As for what is frivolous and what is not, consider that the Supreme Court has repeadedly failed to hear arguments on our Constitutional monetary provisions. They do so, not out of lack of opportunity, but because the current economic system is founded upon an un-Constitutional power granted to the Federal Reserve. Article One, Section 8 gave the power to COIN MONEY to Congress, but withheld the power to print money (emit bills of credit). The power to emit bills of credit was originally part of the draft of the Constitution, but in the debate was removed - see Madison's Journal and other records of the Constitutional debates. Moreover, Article One, Section 10 forbade the states from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making anything other than gold or silver coin a tender in payment of debt. Again, the power to emit bills of credit was debated in the convention, originally proposing that the power could only be execised with the consent of the US Congress, but amended (during the debate in convention) to be an absolute prohibition with the stated intention of "crushing paper money". Such facts are a matter of record, but the courts consider them frivolous - read inconvenient - at this point in time. Many Americans have been conditioned to believe that their courts work well, and that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution says. This is not a conclusion drawn from the Constitution, but rather by John Marshall, an early Chief Justice, who, BTW was fond of the Alien and Sedition Laws. Rather, "He who has the Gold, makes the rules," or more correctly, he who has the gold, has the power to print money (usurped) to buy the politicians and judges who make the rules. Admittedly, some arguments are frivolous, many others are incorrect, but many arguments labeled frivolous by the government have not been discredited, but rather the courts have simply chosen to ignore them. If one does not believe another, or refuses to listen to another, does not mean that one has discredited another. Arguments should be judged on their own merits, rather than by the opinions of others, or of the press (or even by whether I can spell or not).
apc@cblpe.UUCP (07/08/87)
In <1599@stb.UUCP> michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes: >> >>In 1983, the FCC adopted an access charge plan where every secondary >>user of local telephone services would be charged a tariff based on >>the costs of the local exchange. Two groups were exempted from this >>tariff -- resellers (those who buy telephone service in bulk and >>resell it at reduced prices) and enhanced service providers (data >>retrieval, manipulation, and transmission). This year, the resellers >>were removed from exemption. > >Wait a sec...Doesn't this mean that ATnT, Sprint, MCI, etc, etc, should >be paying the same fees??? > >I smell a big rat. Anyone care to comment? >-- >: Michael Gersten seismo!scgvaxd!stb!michael >: Ground floor, comming up -- 1-3-7 Uhm, I don't know how to break this to you, but AT&T DOES pay these access charges. Just look at the annual reports: revenues: 3,000,000,000 (or so) acc chrg: 2,000,000,000 (or so) -=----=- net rev: 1,000,000,000 (or so) MCI, sprint, (ie - resellers of AT&T lines...) etc, etc also pay, but I think they still get a "discount" at many offices/exchanges. It's about time that other companies pick up their "fair share" of this stuff. -- This space intentionally left | Alan P. Curtis blank | AT&T,BTL,CB | +1 614 860 4749 -----------------------------------------------| apc@cblpe.ATT.COM Kudos to stargate for redistribution rights | !cbosgd!cblpe!apc