|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 56 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Time for a muzzle /
Re: Time for a muzzle / ...
Hisotry: Teletype Model 28, WU microwave
Taxes and surcharges over 36% of bill, is this normal?
Re: Taxes and surcharges over 36% of bill, is this normal?
Re: Taxes and surcharges over 36% of bill, is this normal?
====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:48:20 -0500
From: MC <for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Time for a muzzle /
Message-ID: <LtVol.7870$i9.4308@bignews8.bellsouth.net>
Dave Garland wrote:
> MC wrote:
>> I think the essence of the problem is too much anonymity.
>
> I know. We keep seeing news stories sourced to "a high government
> official" or "a police spokesman" or "an industry source" that don't
> identify the source by name. Let's start with them. After all,
> what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, eh?
>
> Dave
But the journalist who chose to quote the anonymous source *is*
identifiable.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:55:55 -0500
From: MC <for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Time for a muzzle / ...
Message-ID: <TAVol.7876$i9.4721@bignews8.bellsouth.net>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Feb 23, 1:29 am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote:
>
> The first thing we must remember there is no such thing as totally
> free speech. We can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. We can't give
> away defense secrets. We can't harass, libel, or slander another
> person. We can't make accusations with malice and reckless disregard
> of the truth. We must respect the privacy of private citizens. This
> laws have been around for many years and the Internet did not
> eliminate any of them, although some people seem to think those issues
> do not exist.
>
>> Time for a muzzle
>> The online world of lies and rumor grows ever more vicious. Is it
>> time to rethink free speech?
>
> The existing laws on free speech, harassment, and libel/slander are
> generally adequate.
>
> The problem is that enforcing such laws in the online world is very
> difficult.
>
> If I were to personally print up and circulate a leaflet falsely
> accusing a neighbor of heinous crimes, that neighbor could fairly
> easily find me and successfully sue me, and perhaps take other legal
> action as well.
Precisely. And in the absence of legal action, decent people could
ostracize them.
When I was doing computer security policy for the University of Georgia,
I often heard people whine loudly when I told them that the laws of
slander and libel *do* apply on the Internet. They wanted the Internet
to be 'free,' by which they meant *they* wanted to be 'free' to harm
*others* but not the other way around.
As I said, the problem is too much anonymity. I don't think anonymity
should be done away with, *but* anonymous communication should not be
mixed freely with identified communication. As in society as a whole,
anonymous comments should be a little harder to disseminate, and should
be filtered through identifiable third parties who feel they are prima
facie worth disseminating. That doesn't mean agreeing with them, but it
does mean having some ability to filter out purely malicious messages
and obvious falsehoods.
Another point: Maximum freedom does not result from the total absence of
regulation. If you have no regulation, the bullies are free, and nobody
else is.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:57:35 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Hisotry: Teletype Model 28, WU microwave
Message-ID: <19fe51a4-554a-4977-af73-5b09dbdd9cf8@m16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
The WUTR has an article on the Teletype Model 28, a very popular
machine recently discussed here. See:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/technical/western-union-tech-review/09-3/p110.htm
Following that is an article on WU power supplies (UPS).
On Nov 17, 1964, WU announced the completion of its 7,500 mile
transcontinental microwave system. The system intentionally avoided
cities by 30 miles by request of the Dept. of Defense for reliability
in case of attack on a city. WU intended for the system to be used
for AUTODIN (a Dept of Defense message communication system), and
private line voice and broadband services.
WU touted a "push button" telephone to switch to different circuits.
However, these were not Touch Tone phones. Rather, the push buttons
activated various electrical characterists; to me, it sounded to the
coding arrangement of Panel switch signals to the indicator lamps of a
manual switchboard.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:49:57 -0800 (PST)
From: muzician21 <muzician21@yahoo.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Taxes and surcharges over 36% of bill, is this normal?
Message-ID: <9cb79e52-3425-42ee-aa43-99f1b5143e7e@f24g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
I'm with Embarq since they're the only game in town for DSL in my
area.
Taxes and surcharges of 16.51 on total charges of 44.80 - the DSL
internet which is an additional 19.95 isn't taxed according to the
bill.
The taxes have names like Telecommunications relay surcharge,
Interstate access surcharge, etc. etc.
So that works out to almost 37% of the taxed portion of the bill.
That's over 5x the tax rate on consumer items in many counties. Is
this typical?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:08:49 +1100
From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Taxes and surcharges over 36% of bill, is this normal?
Message-ID: <pan.2009.02.25.01.08.48.799764@myrealbox.com>
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:19:13 -0500, muzician21 wrote:
> I'm with Embarq since they're the only game in town for DSL in my area.
>
> Taxes and surcharges of 16.51 on total charges of 44.80 - the DSL
> internet which is an additional 19.95 isn't taxed according to the bill.
>
> The taxes have names like Telecommunications relay surcharge, Interstate
> access surcharge, etc. etc.
>
> So that works out to almost 37% of the taxed portion of the bill. That's
> over 5x the tax rate on consumer items in many counties. Is this
> typical?
In Australia there is a 10% GST (on all goods and service), and the telcos
have to contribute to a pooled fund to subsidise services in remote areas,
but that is built into their charges and is not a separate tax.
--
Regards, David.
David Clayton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have, intelligence is a
measure of how many questions you have.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:39:48 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Taxes and surcharges over 36% of bill, is this normal?
Message-ID: <c8f78d8b-b397-46d1-bfd2-6b04d716b03d@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 24, 4:19 pm, muzician21 <muzicia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So that works out to almost 37% of the taxed portion of the bill.
> That's over 5x the tax rate on consumer items in many counties. Is
> this typical?
Yes, it is typical.
Some of the taxes are for social purposes, such as deaf people
communication, low-income people communications, and public safety.
Other fees are actually merely part of the rates you pay for service,
falsely disguised as a special fee rather than a part of the service
cost.
IMHO, this is all an unfortunate, but predicted result of Bell System
divesture 25 years ago. Basically, the biggest users of
communications got a price break at the expense of small users.
------------------------------
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom-
munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while
Pat Townson recovers from a stroke.
Contact information: Bill Horne
Telecom Digest
43 Deerfield Road
Sharon MA 02067-2301
781-784-7287
bill at horne dot net
Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom
Unsubscribe: mailto:telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest
Copyright (C) 2008 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list.
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.
End of The Telecom digest (6 messages)
******************************
|
or 