reeses@milton.u.washington.edu (KGB Assassinate CIA NSA FBI secret George Bush Child Pornography Military Heroin Terrorism) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun6.061521.25657@sbcs.sunysb.edu> hyhuang@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Hsin-yuan Huang) writes: >The following article is posted in news group misc.forsale. I think is >important to act now, so I'm posting it here! For any information please >contact the originator. > >========================================================================= [FCC stuff deleted] > > >************************************************************************** > > Every few months, this crops up like a bad case of herpes. The FCC has publicly admitted that at one time they considered this, but have also stated that there will be nothing like this in the future. There is no need to swamp them with letters, depleting their expensive resources(for which we pay). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- reeses@milton.u.washington.edu University of Washington, Seattle "Reality is a cop-out for people who can't handle drugs"
w8sdz@rigel.acs.oakland.edu (Keith Petersen) (06/06/91)
I wish you guys would check before posting things like this modem tax
story. The story is a fraud. This issue was settled in 1988.
---Forwarded article:
From Pg. 6 of the Wall Street Journal for 17 March 1988.
FCC SCRAPS PLAN TO CHARGE FOR COMPUTER
ACCESS TO PHONE SYSTEMS, SOURCES SAY
WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission
has quietly decided to scrap its plan to sharply in-
crease telephone rates for computer users, agency and
congressional sources said.
Last week, the agency informed importamt lawmakers
that it wouldn't go ahead with its plan to assess so-
called access charges of as much as $5.50 per hour per
user to hook up computer-communication networks to lo-
cal telephone systems. An FCC official described the
decision as a tactical move to placate opposition from
Congress and computer users.
"They got the message loud and clear from Congress
that this plan was a political and policy loser", said
a House staffer who was informed of the FCC decision.
The FCC's about-face is a big victory for informa-
tion service companies, who have contended that steep
access charges would have drivem them out of business
by making their services too expensive. Currently,
computer-communications networks are exempt from those
access charges. Computer users around the country
deluged the FCC with about 10,000 letters opposing ac-
cess fees, the most letters the agency has ever gotten
on a telephone issue.
The decision to drop the proposal was made by FCC
Chairman Dennis Patrick and the common-carrier bureau
of the agency, the sources said. Mr. Patrick, whose
office wouldn't comment on the decision formally needs
the vote of at least one of the agency's other two
members to terminate a proposal. But in practice, he
can act unilaterally because, as chairman, he controls
which proposals can come to a vote.
In any event, FCC Commissioner Patricia Diaz Dennis
said she supported the decision to end the access-
charge plan. "We've got a lot of things on our plate,"
she said. That's one that would overcrowd it."
Several agency officials described the FCC's action
as a way of patching up its tattered relations with
Congress which is still fuming over the FCC's decision
to abolish the fairness doctrine.
Last Thursday, [March 10] Rep. Edward Markey (D.,
Mass.), chairman of the House telecommunications sub-
committee, said he would introduce legislation to
kill the access charge - even though agency officials
said they had assured the congressman's staff that the
FCC itself would kill the plan. A Markey aide said he
was only notified an hour before Rep. Markey was to
give a previously scheduled speech on access charges.
"We'll closely monitor the commission's future actions
to insure that this onerous charge doesn't re-emerge
in a new form", Rep. Markey said in a statement yes-
terday.
Rep. Markey and other lawmakers also still oppose
Mr. Patrick's pet plan to radically alter regulation
of American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
FCC and congressional sources said the agency would
proceed, but slowly, with a separate plan to assess
charges of about $4.50 per hour per user to hook up
private telephone networks to local telephone systems.
The FCC believes that both computer-communications
networks and private telephone networks aren't paying
their fair share of the cost of local telephone ser-
vice. But exempting computer-communications networks
has more appeal politically, because the users are
often consumers with limited ability to pay increased
charges.
(end of article)
---Forwarded message (note the date):
Date: 03-18-88 (11:23) Number: 2266
To : All Refer#: NONE
From: Joe Hyland Read : (N/A)
Subj: Letter writing does work! Status: public message
Letter writing DOES work, folks, especially in an election year. Our
thanks go out to Matthew March for uploading this tidbit to us. Anyone
using (or thinking about using) PC-Pursuit should be particularly
interested and happy to read this story:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Article that appeared in the Orlando Sentinel, Thursday, March 17, 1988
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Associated Press
TELEPHONE INCREASE MAY BE SPIKED
--------------------------------
Computer user's protests made an apparent impact on the FCC proposal
that would substantially increase telephone charges for business and
home computer users, sources said Wednesday.
FCC chairman Dennis R. Patrick has concluded that, based on strong
and nearly unanimous opposition to the proposal, the plan should be
dropped, according to sources at the commission and on Capitol Hill.
Commissioner Patricia Diaz Dennis said Patrick had not spoken with
her about a recommendation to drop the plan, but she said she agrees
with the idea.
"There's a lot on our plate right now, and I don't think I'd miss not
seeing that on it," she said.
The third commissioner James Quello could not be reached for comment.
Patrick's office had no comment on the reports.
The commission was expected to vote in two to three months to drop
the proposal.
A decision to scrap the plan would be a victory for the hundreds of
thousands of computer users who dial into data bases such as CompuServe
and QuantumLink for a variety of information services, like news stories
and financial reports, and electronic communication with other users.
Users of those services flooded the FCC and Capitol Hill with
thousands of letters opposing the plan, which would add about $4.50 an
hour to the cost of hooking up to information services.
They said the increased charges, which would double the hourly hookup
price for some information services, would drive many of them off the
computer networks and crush a fledgling industry.
Rep. Edward J. Markey, D., Mass., chairman of the House Energy and
Commerce telecommunications subcommittee, said he would delay indefinit-
ely the introduction of a bill aimed at blocking the FCC from imposing
the access charges.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank-You, cards and politi-grams to the above mentioned people might
help in insuring that the present course is followed from now on. If
you think these folks are doing this out of the goodness of their heart,
think again. These people are motivated by one thing - POPULAR
OPINION! Let your feelings be known. Write your congressman and the
FCC. Keep the pressure on. Our hobby is worth it!
- Joe Hyland
--------------------------------- end ----------------------------------joltes@husc9.harvard.edu (Richard Joltes) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun6.061521.25657@sbcs.sunysb.edu> hyhuang@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Hsin-yuan Huang) writes: >The following article is posted in news group misc.forsale. I think is >important to act now, so I'm posting it here! For any information please >contact the originator. > >************************************************************************** [message about "proposed modem tax" deleted...] Folks, this is an URBAN MYTH and has been going around the boards and whatnot for years now. Several people have investigated it, and have called the FCC and other groups involved, and there is, to my knowledge, no such legislation in the works or under discussion. Don't write to anyone, and please don't pass the information around to anyone else. We're trying to kill it, if possible. This is more-or-less in the same league as the "dying boy wants postcards" posting, although that one was at one time true. BTW, if you ever see another letter stating that a "7 year old English boy named Craig Shergold" is in the hospital with [pick a disease]" ignore it. It's old news, and the cards are no longer being accepted. In fact, the Guinness people (publishers of the Book of World Records) have removed the "most postcards received" category from their book. Remember, there's no known current effort to enact a modem tax. Thanks, Dick Joltes joltes@husc9.harvard.edu Hardware & Networking Manager, Computer Services joltes@husc9.bitnet Harvard University Science Center
gavron@alpha.sunquest.com (Ehud Gavron) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun6.061521.25657@sbcs.sunysb.edu>,
hyhuang@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Hsin-yuan Huang) writes...
*CRAP ABOUT MODEM TAX DELETED*
You know, this surfaces 2-3 times a year just like mail
to that dying boy (who is many years cured).
It's not real. You can't verify it. Quit posting, reposting,
and copying it.
Ehud
--
Ehud Gavron (EG76)
gavron@vesta.sunquest.compoffen@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun6.061521.25657@sbcs.sunysb.edu> hyhuang@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Hsin-yuan Huang) writes: >The following article is posted in news group misc.forsale. I think is >important to act now, so I'm posting it here! For any information please >contact the originator. > >========================================================================= > > >From sbcs!cmcl2!hsdndev!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!psuvax1!news Thu Jun 06 02:04:46 EDT 1991 >Article: 34511 of misc.forsale >Path: sbcs!cmcl2!hsdndev!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!psuvax1!news >From: colin@math.psu.edu (colin haase) >Newsgroups: psu.general,psu.forsale,misc.forsale >Subject: believe it or not MODEM TAX !!!!! >Message-ID: <#n7H1n*l@cs.psu.edu> >Date: 3 Jun 91 16:28:52 GMT >Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) >Distribution: usa >Organization: corporate climbers anonymous >Lines: 72 >Nntp-Posting-Host: newton.math.psu.edu > > > >Dear Friends, > >I received the following message at a recent conference organized by >the Southern California Regional HP Users' Group (SCRUG). Everyone at >the conference agreed to pass on the information verbatim. > >FROM: MATT DOMSCH >SUBJECT: MODEM TAX > >A new regulation that the FCC is quietly working on will directly >affect you as the user of a computer and modem. The FCC proposes that >users of modems should pay extra charges for use of the public >telephone networks which carry their data. In addition, computer >network services such as Compuserve, Tymnet, & Telenet would also be >charged as much as $6.00 per hour for use of the public telephone >network. These charges would very likely be passed on to the >subscribers. The money is to be collected and given to the telephone >company in an effort to raise funds lost to deregulation. Jim Eason of >KGO newstalk radio (San Francisco, CA) commented on the proposal during >his afternoon radio program during which he said he learned of the new >regulation in an article in the New York Times. Jim took the time to >gather the addresses which are given below. > >What you should do: First, take the time to download this message and >the letter which follows. Next, find three or more other BBS systems >which are not carrying this message and upload this text. Finally, >print three copies of the letter which follows (or write your own) and >send a signed copy to the three addresses. It is important that you >act now. The bureaucrats already have it in their mind that modem >users should subsidize the phone company and are now listening for >public comment. Please stand up and make it clear that we will not >stand for government restriction on the free exchange of information. > >The three addresses to write to: (a letter to send follows) > >Chairman >Federal Communications Commission >1919 M Street NW >Washington, DC 20554 > >Chairman >Senate Communication Subcommittee >SH-227 Hart Building >Washington, DC 20510 > >Chairman >House Telecommunication Subcommittee >B-331 Rayburn Building >Washington, DC 20515 > >Dear Sir: > >Please allow me to express my displeasure with the FCC proposal which >would authorize a surcharge for the use of modems on the public >telephone network. This regulation is nothing less than an attempt to >restrict the free exchange of information among the growing number of >computer users. Calls placed using modems require no special telephone >company equipment, and users of modems pay the phone company for use of >the network in the form of a monthly bill. >In short, a modem call is the same as a voice call and therefore should >not be subject to any additional regulation. > > >Yours truly, >... > ><end of message> > > >************************************************************************** NOT AGAIN!!! This is the umpteenth time this s**t has been posted. This is a false rumor that is literally YEARS old. Please stop posting this crap!!
MXL4@psuvm.psu.edu (06/10/91)
This is also a favorite periodic chestnut on alt.folklore.urban--right up there
with the real, but no-longer-dying-or-in-need-of-postcards Craig Shergold.
Mostly THE BEAR
aka MXL4@PSUVM <Mark Lafer> () ()
o . o
Not a By-product of Any Technology! xxxkabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun6.061521.25657@sbcs.sunysb.edu> hyhuang@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Hsin-yuan Huang) writes: >The following article is posted in news group misc.forsale. I think is >important to act now, so I'm posting it here! For any information please >contact the originator. > >========================================================================= > > >From sbcs!cmcl2!hsdndev!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!psuvax1!news Thu Jun 06 02:04:46 EDT 1991 >Article: 34511 of misc.forsale >Path: sbcs!cmcl2!hsdndev!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!psuvax1!news >From: colin@math.psu.edu (colin haase) >Newsgroups: psu.general,psu.forsale,misc.forsale >Subject: believe it or not MODEM TAX !!!!! >Message-ID: <#n7H1n*l@cs.psu.edu> >Date: 3 Jun 91 16:28:52 GMT >Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) >Distribution: usa >Organization: corporate climbers anonymous >Lines: 72 >Nntp-Posting-Host: newton.math.psu.edu > > > >Dear Friends, > >I received the following message at a recent conference organized by >the Southern California Regional HP Users' Group (SCRUG). Everyone at >the conference agreed to pass on the information verbatim. > >FROM: MATT DOMSCH >SUBJECT: MODEM TAX > >A new regulation that the FCC is quietly working on will directly >affect you as the user of a computer and modem. The FCC proposes that >users of modems should pay extra charges for use of the public >telephone networks which carry their data. In addition, computer >network services such as Compuserve, Tymnet, & Telenet would also be >charged as much as $6.00 per hour for use of the public telephone My God, why is SO MUCH old news being recirculated lately? We need to come up with a new term to cover this; urban legand or urban myth just doesn't do justice to the situation. One of my favorite quotes of late is " The beginning of evil is goodness in excess." and it certainly applies here. Enough well meaning people are circulating this proposal that died about 5 years ago that it certainly should qualify as EVIL by now. I will send mail to the author here but it is important enough to repeat on the net over and over again. THIS INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE QUOTED MESSAGE IS JUST NOT TRUE. This proposal died in the FCC YEARS ago and anyone who now circulates it as though it was current is acting irresponsibly, in my opinion. Please, if you really want to do a good deed, stamp out this message wherever you find it. If you are in doubt as to what I am saying, please feel free to call the FCC to verify. Be advised, however, that they might be a little steamed since they are very tired of getting letters and phone calls about this. -- ======================================================== Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965
goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) (06/20/91)
In article <285ad3fc-23cc.10ibmpc-1@oldcolo.UUCP>, burger@oldcolo.UUCP (Keith Hamburger) writes... >I'm not sure how evil these people really are. If this results in more people >contacting the government and telling them that we do not want any interference >in our lives and that the market should suffice then I think that it just may >do some good. We should all remember that taxes are seldom (never) passed for >the benefit of the taxed and laws are seldom (never) passed for the benefit of >hose being restricted. You miss the point. In your effort to apply anti-tax ideology, you forget that THERE NEVER WAS A PROPOSAL FOR A MODEM TAX. PERIOD. What there was, ca. 1987 (and very, very dead now) was a proposal to change the way telephone companies define end-users vs. service providers. AT&T Communications, MCI and Sprint are service providers, and pay a different rate to Mountain Bell et al than you and I do; this gets reflected in toll bills which are higher as a result. Ma Bell, a government-regulated entity, wanted to charge information providers a higher rate than end users, and their definitions would have made many modem users (not all) subject to the higher rate. Uncle Sam wouldn't have seen a penny. Mountain Bell would have seen most of it, going to subsidize ranch telephones in Wyoming and Montana. You have to understand the way the phone industry works for the details to make sense; it's very confusing. The network rumor mill got out of control, and the undead story just doesn't like to stay dead, where it belongs. --- Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 952 3274 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?