🚀 go-pugleaf

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?