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."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!sunnyhull@hao.UCAR.EDU (Howard Hull) (06/20/87)
In article <2315@hoptoad.uucp>, sunny@hoptoad.uucp (Sunny David Kirsten) writes: > 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. Oh yeah. So you think that only in the CCCP is there anything like the KGB. I recommend to everyone that they NOT follow your suggestion unless they want to find out what is a T-Man in the UUCP. If you want to assure the continued health of the Constitution, find some other way than refusing to support the government which has the responsibility of operating under it. Please heed John Hays' suggestions as posted in article <358ddfd2.3903@apollo.uucp>. If you wish not to heed my warning, I recommend the following as a procedure that may provide enough left of you to allow your friends to accompany you to a mental health clinic after the T is through with you (if they ever finish, that is). 1. Mortgage your house and any other acceptable property to a large and prestigious commercial bank. Try to pick one that has ability to prevent _its_ property from being siezed. 2. Take the money from the mortgage loan, and put enough of it for the first 18 payments on the loan into a 5-gallon Jerry gas can with a well-sealing lid. Put the lid on real tight. Use a tire iron, if necessary. 3. Remove the lid from your septic tank, and using a nylon rope tied to the Jerry can and some long bamboo poles, push the Jerry can down into the guck so that it is evidencibly submerged. Tie the rope to a chunk of rebar at the top. Replace the lid. If possible, cover with large irregular pieces of sod cut from some other part of your yard or garden. Whatever you do, don't try to hide the money in anything you own, such as your house or your automobile, snowmobile, airplane, or yacht. Don't even consider laminating it inside your skateboard, if you own one. 4. Call the ACLU and tell them you want to hire an ACLU lawyer to help you with a Constitutional issue. If you include the offer of enough pre-paid funds, they have a number of very good lawyers that love to engage the courts on Constitutional issues. Drop by their office with the money, give it to them, and tell them to set up an operating account under their Corporate auspicies. 5. Tell your employer that you may soon need to take extended leave of absense without pay, and that if there is any vacation due you that you don't want cash compensation, but would prefer leave with effective medical plan in place. 6. NOW you can proceed to inform your telephone company that you wish not to pay the taxes on your communication services because you think the Constitution provides FREEdom of speech. That way you can find out in a more comfortable fashion if the Department of the Treasury and the office of the Attorney General have perhaps a different interpretation of the Constitution than the one you cited in your net article. FINIS For those of you who wouldn't have been tempted to withold taxes on your communication services as a method of asserting your personal determination to stand up for what you view as your Constitutional rights, I apologize. Please do not send me hate mail for posting in this group (at least I didn't post this to ALL the groups the referenced article was posted to, just Amigans (who I want to preserve) - I'm sure it'll get around, one way or another... No offense intended. Just advice, plain simple advice. :-| Best Regards, Howard Hull [If yet unproven concepts are outlawed in the range of discussion... ...Then only the deranged will discuss yet unproven concepts] {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!hull for domain mailers: hull@hao.ucar.edu
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.
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).
fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) (07/02/87)
In article <747@hao.UCAR.EDU>, hull@hao.UCAR.EDU (Howard Hull) writes: > In article <2315@hoptoad.uucp>, sunny@hoptoad.uucp (Sunny David Kirsten) writes: > > 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. > > Oh yeah. So you think that only in the CCCP is there anything like the KGB. > I recommend to everyone that they NOT follow your suggestion unless they want > to find out what is a T-Man in the UUCP. If you want to assure the continued > health of the Constitution, find some other way than refusing to support the > government which has the responsibility of operating under it. Please heed > John Hays' suggestions as posted in article <358ddfd2.3903@apollo.uucp>. > > If you wish not to heed my warning, I recommend the following as a procedure > that may provide enough left of you to allow your friends to accompany you to > a mental health clinic after the T is through with you (if they ever finish, > that is). > [a list of elaborate preparations for a protracted court battle follows.] The Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service deal with people who refuse to pay taxes for reasons of conscience in a more reasonable way than Howard Hull's warning would lead you to believe. A very close friend of mine refuses to pay her federal telephone tax. She has refused to pay that tax since the Vietnam War. The government has not made any effort to collect it. In addition, she has refused to pay part of her income tax for several years. The IRS audited her return, determined that she was not attempting to conceal any assets, and eventually withheld the amount owed from a refund due her in a subsequent year. Her reason for refusing the telephone tax is that it is a war tax. It was instituted, she tells me, to help pay for the Second World War. After the war it was repealed until the Vietnam War. She refuses part of her income tax to protest the absence of any provision allowing people conscientiously opposed to war to refuse to pay for it. She hopes her action will cause members of Congress to think about the problem and enact a provision in the tax law similar to the conscientious objector status provided for those opposed to military service. So, from my observation, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service deal reasonably with people who refuse to pay taxes as a matter of conscience. I don't know whether they would look so kindly on a tax refuser who protested the chilling effect on free speech of a tax. Nevertheless, Howard Hull's advice is probably excessive. The tax collectors would like people to believe failure to pay their taxes will have catastrophic consequences. But it just doesn't work out that way in the real world. --Fabbian Dufoe 350 Ling-A-Mor Terrace South St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 813-823-2350 UUCP: ...akgua!usfvax2!jc3b21!fgd3
hull@hao.UCAR.EDU (Howard Hull) (07/03/87)
In article <120@jc3b21.UUCP>, fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) writes: > > So, from my observation, the Treasury Department and the Internal > Revenue Service deal reasonably with people who refuse to pay taxes as a > matter of conscience. I don't know whether they would look so kindly on a > tax refuser who protested the chilling effect on free speech of a tax. > Nevertheless, Howard Hull's advice is probably excessive. > > The tax collectors would like people to believe failure to pay their > taxes will have catastrophic consequences. But it just doesn't work out > that way in the real world. > You're right, of course, and I am excessive, of course, but it's my style :-) But just because the T and the IRS are committed to dealing reasonably with people, a reasonable result to their dealing may not be what really happens. My net article was submitted as a result of a real experience. What happend was this: A friend of my daughter was looking somewhat dejected one day, so I asked him what was up. He related that the previous Friday, after a long day at his business (he operated a small magazine shop) he had gone to the bank to draw some cash for the weekend. When the teller received his counter draft and went to the terminal, the teller developed a puzzled expression and then came back to him and stated that there was no record of his account. He protested. The teller went back to the terminal and looked again, returning to say that his signature card had been "withdrawn", and that he would need to get an appointment between 9AM and 3PM Monday with an officer of the bank to discuss the matter. But also he stated that as a teller, he could not respond either to the request of the counter draft or to further questions about the account. My daughter's friend decided to leave the bank rather than wait until he could be escorted from the premises. On the following Monday, he went early to the bank, asked for and promptly was granted the address of one of the bank's officers. The officer explained that the IRS had pulled his signature card, and that there was nothing the bank could do about it. So he asked the officer why he had not been notified of this. The bank officer said that they had *mailed* him a notice right away, just as the law requires. My daughter's friend said that he received the bank notice the very next day [Tuesday]. He went on to relate as to how he had previously exchanged three or four letters with the IRS concerning some matters he had disputed with respect to an audit of his income taxes. IRS had not replied to his latest mailing, which had been some three weeks previous to all this. However, [and this is important] he had not asked his attorney to file a protest in an appropriate court of law, as he felt the discussion was ongoing. So I said, "Well, ya dummy, when they start to pick on ya, ya gotta defend yerself." He said "Yeah. at my investment, too. Perhaps, if I won, I could be reimbursed... if the case ever closed, that is. However, for the time being, I am financially paralyzed, and I will have to borrow money from my family to stay in business." So, my daughter's friend went his way, and I went mine. The following Friday, after work I drove to my bank's new drive-in remote facility on the way home, and submitted a check for cash through their plastic box conveyor belt thingy. The teller, visible through the one-inch thick glass enclosure, typed something into her terminal, and subsequently developed a puzzeled expression. She then left the booth, and could be seen discussing something with a man in an ante- room behind the booth complex. She returned and announced to me that she could not find any information on my account. "It's not in the database" she said, and "we have no record of your signature card." My mind began to reel. What had I done? My taxes were up to date. I file the world's simplest tax return. At this bank I have a no-interest checking account that provides "free" service. Was I a victim of TANSTAAFL? On the other hand, I had also recently done some things for my father on the basis of a limited period power of attorney that he had granted to me, an his taxes *were* complicated. Had they zapped me as a result of the association? I didn't know. But as soon as they returned my check (and driver's license) through the conveyor belt thingy, I set out at warp 100 for the main branch. I got there two minutes before they closed. I submitted the same check there and got prompt courteous service. AFTER I had the money in my pocket, I asked what the problem might have been. The teller did not know, but recommended that I come in and visit with one of the bank's officers the following Monday. The following Monday, as early as the bank's hours would allow, I went there and was immediately addressed by one of the bank's officers. He informed me that, having overheard my conversation with the teller, he had investigated the matter, and had found that it was due to an error on the part of a bank staff member which had resulted in an incomplete update of the branch's data base. He extended both his personal and the bank's apology for the incident. End Story. So no Federal agency had (evidently) done any meddling with my account. But I often wonder - how would I know? And particularly, how would I know before it was too late? Sorry for the length of this posting, and sorry for having to post it here. But I felt it was necessary to clarify the situation, and to make the taste of the experience available to the cognitive among you. Reasonable behavior under the law is a very complicated issue. There can be damage, injury, and even fatalities associated with legitimate operations of the various Federal institutions. The employees who carry out the actions are people like yourself and they are reasonable and careful. However, you should not depend on their being reasonable and careful, as the end result may not be what was reasonably envisioned. The best thing to do is to avoid antagonizing the system. Direct your efforts toward correcting potentially bad situations through appropriate channels - as far ahead in time as you can anticipate. All followups BY MAIL if you please - this is the wrong news group for this, and it is absolutely certain that I do not read the appropriate one. Best Regards, Howard Hull [If yet unproven concepts are outlawed in the range of discussion... ...Then only the deranged will discuss yet unproven concepts] {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!hull for domain mailers: hull@hao.ucar.edu