Ward, I agree with everything that you said, but regulating speech and information is not the same as setting telephone rates. That's what this tread was about. Yes, the Feds do tax telephone service, bu they do not set or limit the rates. That is still controlled by the governing agencies in the individual state governments. And FWIW I'm also into guns and pyro (Fireworks) so I know *VERY* well how the Feds watch and control (notice I didn't say regulate) communictions in there areas. Actually they drop them in acid. It's a lot more thorough than a chainsaw. Did you see the message that I posted a few weeks ago trying to find a new home for a mint IBM XT minus the hard drive? THAT's what became of it's hard drive. But even that is preferrable to the previous approach. They used to drop the entire computer into acid! That's what happened the first twelve computers in the world. They were built during WW II and used to decode German codes. After the war they were completely destroyed. Most people are completely unaware that they ever existed. Hi performance cars also. The Feds are determined to save us from ourselves. Joe At 10:35 PM 1/9/98 -0500, you wrote: >Joe wrote: >> >> At 10:28 PM 1/8/98 -0600, you wrote: >> > >> >Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...two words...'topic' is one. 'off' is the other. >> > >> >=-) >> > >> >Anthony Clifton - Wirehead >> >> One more word ---- HOAX! Since when did the FCC start regulating the >> telephone industry? Phone rates are set by the individual state public >> service commisions not by the FCC. > >Sorry to say, it _does_ affect us (though yes, it's off-topic, but most >of us communicate through Internet links). The FedGov has a couple of >taxes on local phone bills for many years. And unless you've forgotten >the CDA, they want control over the Net, with special tools to decode >any messages someone wants private. Classic computers will not work >with those standards, of course. Yes, even if you aren't libertarian. >(I know damned well that there are one or two socialists on this list), >we can be affected -- we can be forbidden to communicate. And there >are at _least_ two attempts in progress to "reword" the CDA so that it >takes away just as much freedom but doesn't hit the federal judicial >hot buttons. > >Seems outrageous? The First Amendment covers everything. Presently. >transmitting Nobel's (the guy who funded the Prize) formula for >explosives is being watched by our "masters". Some of us collect >computers that may have been in government hands before the general >policy of "rip out the hard disk and hit it with the chainsaw" came >remember guns (my next love after computers as computers are my next >love after science fiction)? Oh, it's platonic. >-- >Ward Griffiths >Dylan: How many years must some people exist, > before they're allowed to be free? >WDG3rd: If they "must" exist until they're "allowed", > they'll never be free. >