|
|
Message Digest
Volume 28 : Issue 60 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle)
Re: Taxes and surcharges over 36% of bill, is this normal?
Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle)
Re: Time for a muzzle / The online world of lies and rumor grows ever more vicious. Is it time to rethink free speech?
====== 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: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 06:52:31 -0800
From: Sam Spade <sam@coldmail.com>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle)
Message-ID: <Pccql.61266$6r1.19155@newsfe19.iad>
Kenneth P. Stox wrote:
> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> In contrast, FDR was a expert at handling the press and at "spin".
>> His fireside chats gave the people the sense that someone cared
>> about them and was working on their behalf. That was a critical
>> contribution, giving the people hope for the future. But FDR's
>> programs did not end the Depression, spark a business recovery and
>> for many people did nothing to alleviate the suffering. People
>> forget that FDR didn't like deficit spending either and in the late
>> 1930s cut back on social programs, FDR's cutback brought a fresh
>> business slowdown.
>
>
> Whether or not the New Deal ended the depression is arguable, but
> without the New Deal we would have lost Europe and the Pacific in
> WWII. We would not have been able to mobilize at nearly the speed
> we did. Had the TVA not been constructed, we would not have been
> able to develop the atomic bomb as quickly as we did.
Whether a person likes FDR or not, history has proven he did his best
to prepare this country for the inevitable world war with Hitler. In
fact, there is a fair amount of evidence he baited Japan to attack us
somewhere in the Pacific so we could declare war on them, thus forcing
Hitler's hand before England fell.
I generally vote Republican but both FDR and Harry Truman were heros
so far as I am concerned.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:27:12 -0500
From: T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Taxes and surcharges over 36% of bill, is this normal?
Message-ID: <MPG.24135a1c8a8ec0ee98991e@reader.motzarella.org>
In article <3nhbq4d9ku7eaap68d30e72okhrbjphvp3@4ax.com>,
rng@richbonnie.com says...
>
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:19:13 -0500 (EST), muzician21
> <muzician21@yahoo.com> 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?
>
> I use AT&T for my wire-line telephone service in Nevada.
> My surcharges and other fees are:
>
> Federal Subscriber Line Charge 5.14
> Federal Universal Service Fee 1.59
> Carrier Cost recovery Fee (Long Dist) 1.99
> Total 8.72
>
> My bill for local and unlimited long distance is 51.00 (which includes
> many custom calling features) before the above fees. So the tax+fee
> rate is 8.72/51.00 = 17%.
> There is no tax listed, so apparently communiations services are not
> taxed in Nevada. (That's good, because our sales tax rate is about
> 7%).
>
> I get Internet (but not cable TV) from the local cable TV company. The
> bill lists CALEA fee of 0.42, but no other fees or taxes. I believe
> that CALEA stands for "Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement
> Act", so the fee is to reimburse the cable company for complying with
> this law. Hmm, this means that I'm paying a fee for the government to
> spy on me.
My Vonage $24.99 becomes $31.99 due to the following:
Regulatory Recovery Fee $0.99
Emergency 911 Cost Recovery $0.99
Sales Tax $2.01
Federal Program Fee $1.75
State 911 Fee $1.00
State Telecom Education Access Fund $0.26
Only $7 in taxes and fees. Of that, the Regulatory Recovery Fee,
Emergency 911 Cost Recovery Fee, and Federal Program Fee are all money
grabs by Vonage. $3.73 or more than half that $7.
Don't even ask about my $39.99 T-Mobile plan. It ends up at $50 a month
with the same baloney.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:01:55 -0800 (PST)
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Technical Demo turns political 2/26/1909 (was Re: Time for a muzzle)
Message-ID: <e5ba0958-13d6-4c63-b08f-75379bb2a6f2@v38g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
On Feb 28, 1:35 am, "Kenneth P. Stox" <s...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Whether or not the New Deal ended the depression is arguable, but
> without the New Deal we would have lost Europe and the Pacific in WWII.
> We would not have been able to mobilize at nearly the speed we did. Had
> the TVA not been constructed, we would not have been able to develop
> the atomic bomb as quickly as we did.
I don't quite agree with that, but I think we're getting beyond the
scope of this newsgroup.
In terms of communications: I don't believe the New Deal contributed
in any way toward improved telephone technology. I don't believe the
New Deal funded any significant scientific research.
Did the Rural Electrification Act also cover telephone service to
rural homes?
In contrast, WW II spurred laboratories to make significant advances
in technology for the war effort--paid for by the govt--which allowed
faster and more intensive research and experimentation. For example,
the RCA history points out the improvements in radio communications of
AM and particularly FM. At Bell, during the war I think they began
semiconductor research that eventually led to the transistor. Work in
radar greatly helped microwave communications after the war which was
a major contribution to telephone service. The explosion in traffic
got Bell to develop new systems which were helpful after the war.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Good questoin about Rural Electrification. Even if there was no direct
subsidy, there was a large indirect one: the poles and rights-of-way
were put in by the REA, so Ma Bell got to clamp on for free.
And this _has_ gotten a bit far afield, so let's dial it back, OK?
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:19:09 -0800
From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Time for a muzzle / The online world of lies and rumor grows ever more vicious. Is it time to rethink free speech?
Message-ID: <gocka1$n7l$1@blue.rahul.net>
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.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.
It seems to me that this tired, so-called example is so irrelevant in
nearly all situations that Godwin's Law ought to extend to him who
invokes it.
> We can't give away defense secrets.
This law is needed, but is too broad already, allowing abuse by officials
as in the case of Khalen Masi -
(details here: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/radleybalko/~3/fkO6-cB2TgE/).
Revealing classified information should only be a crime if the agency
involved can prove to a judge that revealing that piece of information
really could endanger the country -- and even then, if revealing it is
necessary to right a wrong, that should take precedence.
> We can't harass, libel, or slander another person.
> We can't make accusations with malice and reckless disregard
> of the truth.
These laws are ridiculously badly written, and much too expensive to
litigate for both the accused and victims.
I believe it would be better all 'round to simply legalize slander, and
tell victims to seek redress by arguing back, except in cases where the
victim suffers real loss -- such as losing a job because his boss
believed the lie, or being convicted of a falsely-accused crime. Oddly
enough, in that last case the law now protects the slanderer because a
statement of accusation made to police or officials is legally privileged.
As for harassment -- real harassment of a person ought to be strictly
banned, and publication against someone's will of his home or work
location, or any info similarly capable of misuse to facilitate attacks
or other crime, should cause the law to assume it was done for that
purpose. But there are lots of things branded by the law as "harassment"
that simply aren't.
> We must respect the privacy of private citizens.
US law currently exempts the media from this. I agree with Bill O'Reilly
that it should not.
> This [sic] 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.
The Internet, especially when it can be used anonymously, makes all forms
of speech both easier to do and harder to punish. For most kinds of
speech this is a good thing -- enough so that banning anonymity (assuming
the ban can be enforced) would do much more harm than good.
> 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.
>
> But if I were to utilize a website to make such an attack and make use
> cloaking mechanisms, it would be rather hard for that neighbor to find
> out who I was and take action.
It's fairly easy for the law to find the owner of a web site in such a
case; if the host ISP won't cooperate, the law can compel them. The
exception is where the host ISP is in a foreign country that won't help
your country's law enforcement. But again, I'd be wary of creating an
international mechanism that can penetrate such sites, or chartering
some kind of government cyber-attack team that can crack them. The
international mechanism would be used much more by the likes of China,
Burma, and Iran against dissidents than by anyone in legitimate ways,
and the cracking team would set a precedent we wouldn't like at all
when someone does it to us.
A better way to protect your kids is to monitor their use of the net,
and to teach them not to trust, or care too strongly, what anonymous
strangers say.
------------------------------
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 (4 messages)
******************************
|
or 