Thanks to stupid Democrat voters, Kookifornia proposes to tax texting.

Rob Woodward

unread,

Dec 12, 2018, 10:07:11 PM12/12/18

to

This is what happens when stupid people are empowered to vote - and
do.

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Soon, Californians may have to think twice
before texting. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is
set to vote next month on a proposal to add on a surcharge for text
messages.

Many tell ABC7 News that reviewing their current cellphone bill is
already a challenge. Wireless customers point to the fine print,
saying it's difficult to recognize exactly what you're being charged
for.

Carl Guardino, president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership
Group, calls the proposal "bad practice."

"When hardworking Californians are already feeling taxed and 'feed' to
death, not every new idea needs a new tax to fund it," Guardino told
ABC7 News. "Here's a great example, the CPUC is sitting on $1 billion
for this purpose."

He's referring to the Public Purpose Program. The Federal Government
and states put the program in place, which charges customers a fee for
telephone service. The money collected then helps fund programs for
the poor.

The new proposal would extend the existing tax to include text
messages.

"I don't actually use my text messages a lot unless I'm texting
someone on an Android or something like that," wireless customer
Braulio Gamino told ABC7 News. "So, not often am I using my phone for
text messaging."

This wouldn't be a tax for services like Apple iMessage or Facebook
Messenger, but for text messages sent on your cellphone.

"This is the Grinch that is stealing Christmas by stealing the tax for
texts on your phones," Guardino said. "We can do better than this."

In a statement to ABC7 News, a CPUC spokesperson wrote, "Some wireless
carriers assess surcharges for texting, other carriers don't. This
proceeding seeks to clarify the rules on whether texting revenues are
surchargeable or not."

The CPUC said the money needs to come from somewhere. If it doesn't
come in the form of a text tax, you may see higher voice service
charges.

In the statement, the CPUC acknowledged the impact to consumers. "The
charge may even out, because if more surcharge revenue comes from
texting services, less would need to come from voice services," the
statement read.

Additionally, the statement read, "If texting surcharge revenues are
not collected to support those programs more would need to come from
voice services. The surcharge rate is less than 7 percent currently,
so for every $10 of text revenues, it would cost about 70 cents."

The FCC is expected to meet Wednesday on the issue. The CPUC said the
proposal goes to vote January 10.

See the proposal by CPUC here.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M238/K227/238227359.PDF

https://abc7news.com/technology/california-wants-to-tax-your-text-messages/4885451/

nospam

unread,

Dec 12, 2018, 10:13:18 PM12/12/18

to

In article <sti31epop1ra3gh2b...@4ax.com>, Rob Woodward

<bwoo...@fakenews.cnn.com> wrote:

> This is what happens when stupid people are empowered to vote - and
> do.

no, it's what happens when the people making laws have little to no
understanding of technology.

> SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Soon, Californians may have to think twice
> before texting. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is
> set to vote next month on a proposal to add on a surcharge for text
> messages.

...

> This wouldn't be a tax for services like Apple iMessage or Facebook
> Messenger, but for text messages sent on your cellphone.

in other words, more people will use those and other messaging
alternatives.

Joerg Lorenz

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 2:13:55 AM12/13/18

to

Am 13.12.18 um 04:07 schrieb Rob Woodward:

> This is what happens when stupid people are empowered to vote - and
> do.
>
> SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Soon, Californians may have to think twice
> before texting. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is
> set to vote next month on a proposal to add on a surcharge for text
> messages.

What don't you understand in of the concept "Democracy"?
You are a stupid Troll!

In addition you are using an anonymous Troll server:

Injection-Info: adenine.netfront.net; posting-host="23.129.64.101";

Your posting is of absolutely no value.

sms

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 9:29:52 AM12/13/18

to

On 12/12/2018 7:07 PM, Rob Woodward wrote:

> Carl Guardino, president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership
> Group, calls the proposal "bad practice."
>
> "When hardworking Californians are already feeling taxed and 'feed' to
> death, not every new idea needs a new tax to fund it," Guardino told
> ABC7 News.

Wow, what chutzpah. But, I finally agree with Carl Guardino on something.

For those unfamiliar with SVLG, they continually advocates for extremely
regressive new taxes on Californians. For SVLG to oppose a tax is very
significant. They have successfully lobbied for greatly increased sales
taxes and for greatly increased bridge tolls.

In any case, the CPUC will end up funding the programs, that they are
legally mandated to fund, somehow. But a tax or fee on texting has
terrible optics.

Speaking only for myself.

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 11:53:28 AM12/13/18

to

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 06:29:50 -0800, sms wrote:

> In any case, the CPUC will end up funding the programs, that they are
> legally mandated to fund, somehow. But a tax or fee on texting has
> terrible optics.

First, some philosophical facts...
o All taxes directly hurt the thing they tax.
o Most taxes are not meant to destroy the thing they tax (some are though).
o Most taxes start low, and then ratchet up, over time, inexorably

Given those three truisms, it's time to start thinking how to avoid it.

QUESTION:
o Assuming I live in California, how do I *avoid* paying this SMS/MMS tax?

NOTE: I still need to communicate with people who are in both California
(mostly) and in the USA (mostly), and sometimes in Europe (rarely).

There is zero chance all these people will be on the same system.
The Europeans are (mostly) on WhatsApp - but the Americans are exclusively
using the built-in SMS/MMS capabilities of the phone (for logical reasons).

What is the technical solution that only I have to make, such that everyone
else can send and receive texts from me without ME paying that tax?

--
HINT: I repeat - the solution has to have THEM do nothing differently!

nospam

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 12:06:01 PM12/13/18

to

In article <puu2q6$ncr$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> QUESTION:
> o Assuming I live in California,

you do

> how do I *avoid* paying this SMS/MMS tax?

very simple. don't use sms/mms.

use a messaging app instead.

> NOTE: I still need to communicate with people who are in both California
> (mostly) and in the USA (mostly), and sometimes in Europe (rarely).
>
> There is zero chance all these people will be on the same system.
>
> The Europeans are (mostly) on WhatsApp - but the Americans are exclusively
> using the built-in SMS/MMS capabilities of the phone (for logical reasons).

wrong. they mainly use facebook messenger and/or apple messages.
whatsapp is also widespread in the usa, just not the most popular.

> What is the technical solution that only I have to make, such that everyone
> else can send and receive texts from me without ME paying that tax?

use a messaging app that everyone agrees upon.

sms

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 12:16:27 PM12/13/18

to

On 12/13/2018 8:53 AM, arlen holder wrote:

<snip>

> What is the technical solution that only I have to make, such that everyone
> else can send and receive texts from me without ME paying that tax?

In the unlikely event that this goes forward, it would not be a per text
fee, it would be some extra fee on your bill under "taxes and fees." For
prepaid providers that bundle in all taxes and fees (Cricket, Boost,
RedPocket, etc.) it would have to be absorbed by the carrier or they'd
have to raise prices on everyone to offset the extra cost for Californians.

Don't get me started on either the CPUC or the SVLG. As a local official
I could go on for a very long time.

Speaking only for myself.

nospam

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 12:19:51 PM12/13/18

to

In article <puu45a$h22$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> > What is the technical solution that only I have to make, such that everyone
> > else can send and receive texts from me without ME paying that tax?
>
> In the unlikely event that this goes forward, it would not be a per text
> fee, it would be some extra fee on your bill under "taxes and fees."

they can't assess any fees if the customer does not have any texting
plan (although they might still try).

> For
> prepaid providers that bundle in all taxes and fees (Cricket, Boost,
> RedPocket, etc.) it would have to be absorbed by the carrier or they'd
> have to raise prices on everyone to offset the extra cost for Californians.

they can assess taxes just for california customers.

the prepaid services i've used have different prices for different
states.

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 12:31:17 PM12/13/18

to

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:06:00 -0500, nospam wrote:

>> how do I *avoid* paying this SMS/MMS tax?
>
> very simple. don't use sms/mms.
> use a messaging app instead.

A viable alternative requires out-of-state recipients to change nothing.

You responded with only the "easy" part of the question.
(HINT: Everyone knows that Californians have to _change_ something.)

Even the California politicians KNOW that easy part of the question.
(That's why they feel confident in this double-taxation in the 1st place.)

The difficult part of the question is which "messaging app"?
(HINT: It has to have the out-of-state recipients do NOTHING differently.)

If it was an easy question to answer, your flippant answers would suffice.
But since it's a HARD question to answer - you can't answer it (yet).

I'm sure there _is_ a good answer - which requires technical acumen.
But your flippant response is worse than worthless.
Because it doesn't solve the problem.

If there is no viable alternative to a punitive tax, then you pay the tax.
I'm asking if there is a viable alternative to this proposed tax.

A viable alternative requires out-of-state recipients to change nothing.

>> The Europeans are (mostly) on WhatsApp - but the Americans are exclusively
>> using the built-in SMS/MMS capabilities of the phone (for logical reasons).
>
> wrong. they mainly use facebook messenger and/or apple messages.
> whatsapp is also widespread in the usa, just not the most popular.

You are correct that some of them use Facebook, I'm sure.
And you are correct that some use Apple "messages" also.
Some may even use WhatsApp in the USA (but not many).

All you can come up with is the (lousy) answer everyone knows.
I'm not seeking the (lousy) answer that everyone already knows.

I suspect, over time, we _can_ find a (good) answer to the question.
The good answer would require the out-of-state recipient to do nothing
differently.

What's a good answer (which requires recipients to change nothing)?
I don't (yet) know the answer to that question.

I doubt you know the answer to that question either, nospam.
But maybe someone out there on these half-dozen newsgroups knows.

>> What is the technical solution that only I have to make, such that everyone
>> else can send and receive texts from me without ME paying that tax?
>
> use a messaging app that everyone agrees upon.

All you can come up with is the (lousy) answer everyone knows.
Even the state taxaholic politicians know that answer.
That's how OBVIOUS the answer is to use a DIFFERENT (not taxed) app.

The politicians KNOW there are likely few viable alternatives.
So we have to submit to being taxed TWICE again!

This is one reason you don't want big states.
Big states have far too much power to abuse their residents.
(The used-car tax & smog fee are classic examples of that tax abuse.)

The question is a technical question:
Q: What app can I use which enables out-of-staters to NOT change apps?

The reason I ask is that I will avoid that tax (which is why taxes always
start the process of destroying the very thing that they tax).

Taxes always bleed (sometimes to death) the item they tax.
California has a history of bleeding (to death) many items they tax.

California also has a history of taxing TWICE many items!

California already taxes us to death with taxes hard to avoid!
o CA TWICE taxes any vehicle registered in the state, for example
o CA TWICE taxes my Ooma service, for example.
o CA TWICE taxes a phone you get for free under a service plan!
o CA even taxes TWICE every tire I ever bought & recycled
o CA even taxes TWICE the billion dollars of recycling monies
etc.

Notice that California twice taxes MANY things which aren't taxed in other
states even once (this double tax is something most people don't know).

California ALREADY taxes (to death) the cellular service.
Those taxes alone are why I killed my landline service (for example).
(NOTE: Taxes always destroy that which they bleed - sometimes forever.)

Assuming nobody will want to pay this double taxation (again)...

The question becomes merely a hard-to-answer technical question:
Q: What app can I use which enables out-of-staters to NOT change apps?

nospam

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 12:43:18 PM12/13/18

to

In article <puu504$q1j$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> > use a messaging app instead.
>
> A viable alternative requires out-of-state recipients to change nothing.

they're almost certainly using one or more messaging apps already, with
you being the holdout.

it's unlikely the tax will be approved, but in the event it is and you
use sms, you're going to have to pay the associated taxes. it's that
simple.

either delete sms service from your account, which may not be an
option, or register your phone out of state, which might not avoid the
tax either, plus you'll have to deal with changing your number.

tl;dr use a messaging app, which works *without* a cellular account. no
taxes can be assessed if there's no active account.

sms

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 2:13:38 PM12/13/18

to

On 12/13/2018 9:31 AM, arlen holder wrote:

<snip>

> The question becomes merely a hard-to-answer technical question:
> Q: What app can I use which enables out-of-staters to NOT change apps?

It's an immaterial question. If your plan is text capable, and most are,
you'd be charged a flat fee. But this proposal is unlikely to go anywhere.

If you were in China, everyone would be using WeChat.
If you were in India, everyone would be using WhatsApp.

In the U.S. there is no de-facto messaging app that everyone uses. Some
people use Facebook messenger, some use WeChat, some use WhatsApp, some
use iMessage, but everyone also uses SMS/MMS.

Speaking only for myself.

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 2:17:40 PM12/13/18

to

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:43:17 -0500, nospam wrote:

> they're almost certainly using one or more messaging apps already, with
> you being the holdout.

Hi nospam,

I'm not going in that direction, where ... as you're very well aware...

There is a recent astoundingly *huuuuuge* thread on that very topic, where
you have already spouted your "wisdom" on that 169-post SMS/MMS thread.
8MB sms pic
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/5ef4vH6p/8mb-sms-pic>
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/3lrFIdmXffw/r8B2OdTlBQAJ>

Given that thread has thrashed that topic to death, let's avoid it here.

> it's unlikely the tax will be approved, but in the event it is and you
> use sms, you're going to have to pay the associated taxes. it's that
> simple.

It's never that simple, nospam.
Big states like California abuse their big-state power.
But that doesn't mean the little people have to be abused.

I consider it our duty to circumvent blatantly abusive taxes, where, as you
may recall, our country was FOUNDED, partly on that principle (depending on
how much you needed stamps, paper, and tea at the time).

Since California already taxes your cellphone and your service, and since
this would amount so yet another of California's "Double Tax" shenanigans,
it's our duty to circumvent it, legally, and technically.

As you know I've been learning how to write Android apps, but I'm not yet
anywhere near the level needed to circumvent MMS/SMS, but I can already see
a flowchart for how to get around it legally and technically (using a
server outside the long arms of abuse of the big state of California).
Report: My first "hello world" using Android Studio freeware on Windows worked just fine (in about an hour)
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/aW64zYeBtF0/I5gz-1s5BwAJ>
<https://comp.mobile.android.narkive.com/0dR8Lodl/report-my-first-hello-world-using-android-studio-freeware-on-windows-worked-just-fine-in-about-an>

Clearly I don't have the skills to create such an app - but others do.
Hence the question remains unanswered (by you for sure):
*Q: What app exists that requires recipients to change nothing?*

> either delete sms service from your account, which may not be an
> option, or register your phone out of state, which might not avoid the
> tax either, plus you'll have to deal with changing your number.

I believe there is a ready-made techical solution, which, I can already
envision how to create (flow chart wise).

Even you, nospam, "probably" have the intelligence to envision a solution.
Yet, I prefer a ready made solution, as would everyone.

The technical question remains unanswered:
*Q: What app exists that requires recipients to change nothing?*

> tl;dr use a messaging app, which works *without* a cellular account. no
> taxes can be assessed if there's no active account.

The unfortunate part of _all_ your answers, nospam, is that the only way
you can solve a problem is to force all the recipients on the same
proprietary structure - which just isn't going to happen. Period.

Since I can easily envision (flowchart wise) how to legally circumvent this
proposed Big-State SMS/MMS tax, I'm sure others can too.

I don't have the skills to write that app - but others do.

Hence, the technical question remains unanswered (so far):
*Q: What app exists that requires recipients to change nothing?*

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 2:17:42 PM12/13/18

to

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:19:50 -0500, nospam wrote:

> they can't assess any fees if the customer does not have any texting
> plan (although they might still try).

I readily admit I did not (yet) read the new-tax proposal (I saw yesterday
what I had considered clickbait, which I dismissed out of hand), where my
valid "assumptions" are that California is a big state who has a long
sordid history of abusing its citizens with double taxes which are hard to
avoid.

One example, which was declared unconstitutional a decade after California
reaped the benefits from it, was the "smog" impact fee. Another example is
the out-of-state restriction on purchasing new cars. Yet more examples are
the tax for the full MSRPP of "free" items (which, of course, along with
taxes, are already paid for in service plans) and they tax every year in
California some crazy things like "home-fuel propane tanks" (which most
people don't even know about, which is only assessed in two states, NY &
CA).

Let's not even talk about the horrendously high sales tax in CA, since,
except on tire & bottle recycling tax on top of tax, isn't a "double" tax.

I called T-Mobile, my carrier, and asked if they do any breakdown of my
texting and SMS (I have many phone lines, as I give them out as gifts).

I'm on a T-Mobile "Simple Choice Family Unlimited Talk & Text + Data Plan".
$80 for two phones + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 ($10 for each phone)
$10 for each iPad free-for-life 200MB/month "mobile Internet line"
-$10 for each iPad (just so that the iPad 200MB/month is actually free)
$3.18 per voice line "regulatory program fee" (gov compliance costs)
$0.30 per voice line for "estimated taxes"
$2.70 for an "account level tax charge" (WTF?)
$24 each month for each iPhone (two of which were bought from T-Mobile)
(The horrendously high California sales tax on those two iPhones bought
from the carrier was paid at the time of the initial purchase, and then the
rest of each iPhone was amortized at approximately $24/month/phone for two
years, AFAICT).

*As for separate "data" & "sms/mms" charges, there are none.*

The "Data Plan" is 2.5GB/phone/month where it's currently 4GB/phone/month.
Technically it's a 2.5GB plan, but it's currently (temporarily) a 4GB plan.

Note that T-Mobile runs these automatic specials all the time, where this
2.5GB+1.5GB "freebie" expires in February of 2019, but they keep running
that "special", where, as you know, T-Mobile never charges for data (if
you go over the 2.5GB+1.5GB freebie, they simply slow you down after that).

In summary, the T-Mobile first, second, and third level of support wasn't
aware of the new proposed tax, so I asked them to google it, which the
second supervisor I spoke to did to confirm. Since every phone call should
benefit everyone, I asked her to send a message to her higher-ups to inform
the support people that Californians will be asking detailed questions like
I just did (it took about 35 minutes, in toto, on the phone to get them to
comprehend what I wanted from them).

> they can assess taxes just for california customers.

Yes. Big states like California & New York tend to abuse Big-State power.

The question is simply, technically, how to avoid that tax, which is what
people are *supposed* to do when a state abuses them. (It's how this
country was founded, let's never forget.)

Is there a viable technical answer to this basic technical question?
Q: What app exists today that requires all recipients to change nothing?

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 2:17:43 PM12/13/18

to

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 09:16:25 -0800, sms wrote:

> In the unlikely event that this goes forward, it would not be a per text
> fee, it would be some extra fee on your bill under "taxes and fees." For
> prepaid providers that bundle in all taxes and fees (Cricket, Boost,
> RedPocket, etc.) it would have to be absorbed by the carrier or they'd
> have to raise prices on everyone to offset the extra cost for Californians.

Bearing in mind that all taxes bleed (sometimes to death) that which they
tax, and also bearing in mind that big states have an innate inordinate
power to abuse its citizens, and bearing in mind that California is one big
state that has a sordidly looooooong history of double taxation in abusing
its citizens, I instantly comprehend that this proposed SMS/MMS tax is yet
another classic case of a big abusive state proposing yet another unseemly
abuse of its citizens.

Politics aside, the only way citizens of big abusive states can avoid such
punitive (double) taxes, is to stop using the item in the abusive state.

*In most cases, an alternative item will spring up to meet the demand.*

That alternative item will almost always (by necessity) have a "presence"
wholly outside the big abusive double-taxation state.

I can _already_ figure out a way around this double-taxation by a big
abusive state, but I'd have to write that app which I envision.
(HINT: It requires a server outside the big double-tax abusive state.)

However, I don't (yet) have those technical skills to write that app.
Plus, I'm hoping the technology already exists that I seek.
(HINT: It requires the recipient to change nothing.)

While I'm sure that "a" method will be found to avoid this double tax by a
big abusive state, the technical question at hand is what exists now that
can send/receive SMS/MMS to/from both in-state and out-of-state recipients,
that does not require those recipients to change anything?

In short, mine is a purely technical question of existing functionality:
Q: What existing app can I use which requires recipients to change nothing?

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 2:50:41 PM12/13/18

to

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 11:13:36 -0800, sms wrote:

> It's an immaterial question. If your plan is text capable, and most are,
> you'd be charged a flat fee.

Hi sms,

Both you and I are in the abusive Big State where it behooves us to
comprehend what new abusive shenanigans the greedy Sacramento politicians
are cooking up to make even more money in a state that already has higher
taxes overall than any state in the nation - and yet - this Big State
(which rakes in more money than God) still can't even bother with yellow
public free school buses for K-12 children (for heaven's sake).

Looking at the Mercury News (which is a Silicon Valley staple), we find:
OMG! Now California wants to tax text-messaging?
<https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/11/omg-now-california-wants-to-tax-text-messaging/>

Which *supports* your statement that it will likely be a flat charge
(per "customer" or per phone line .... I'll bet you it's per phone line)
"But it likely would be billed as a flat surcharge per customer...
not a fee per text"

What's onerous about Big State tax shenanigans is this statement!
"Under the [current] proposal the charge
*could be applied _retroactively for five years_*"
which is another Big State trick that California loves to abuse.

That's hundreds of millions of "instant dollars" to the Big State!
This proposal is coming from a commission that has a BILLION DOLLAR budget!
<http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M238/K227/238227359.PDF>

Even the Feds are (apparently) against this Big State shenanigan.
<https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/12/fcc-decision-deals-blow-to-california-text-tax-plan/>
"California can¢t tax text messages unless federal regulators allow
state regulators to treat text messaging as a telecommunications
service"
...
"The Federal Communications Commission ... declared that wireless
Short Message Service (SMS) & Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS)
are 'information services' ([which are] similar to email under the
Communications Act, and not a telecommunications service)"

Likewise,
"AT&T Mobility, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon, said in legal filings to
the commission that texting is an information service like email,
not a telecommunications service subject to the commission¢s authority"

*The _only_ commissioner who voted against the people was Rosenworcel!*

Given that Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel opposed that statement, I posit
that all but she deserve our approbation! (It would be interesting to see
what Jessica Rosenworcel's financial ties are to the Big State
politicians.)

Does anyone know Jessica Rosenworcel's ties to Sacramento politicians?

That articles ago on to say that no USA state, Big or Small, taxes texts.
It's only the Big States that have the abusive power to tax such things.

The CTIA clearly stated that people will naturally move their "text
messaging traffic" to apps that can't be taxed by the Big State, such as
"Facebook¢s Messenger and WhatsApp, Apple¢s iMessage and
Microsoft¢s Skype".

The CITA went on to say:
"Those kinds of services account for 'almost triple the volume'
of wireless carriers¢ share of the more than 3 trillion text
messages sent in 2018 alone"

Basically, the CPUC, which has a billion-dollar budget already (which, you
have to realize, is astoundingly huge, even for a Big State), is greedy for
more. More. More. More. More. More.

If this Big State proposed tax is allowed to go through, it will spell the
death knell for basic SMS/MMS messages, as there is no doubt in my mind
that legal technical solutions exist to avoid paying this punitive tax.

nospam

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 2:59:32 PM12/13/18

to

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 7:04:05 PM12/13/18

to

In message <puu45a$h22$1...@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
writes:
[]

>Don't get me started on either the CPUC or the SVLG. As a local
>official I could go on for a very long time.

[]
Please don't - Arlen can go on long enough for all of us [with nospam
filling in the gaps] (-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I have never liked children, even when I was one.
- Miriam Margolyes (RT 2014/11/1-7)

Rod Speed

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 7:06:40 PM12/13/18

to

"John McGaw" <Nob...@Nowh.ere> wrote in message
news:XpzQD.3225$gU6....@fx33.iad...

> On 12/12/2018 10:07 PM, Rob Woodward wrote:
>> This is what happens when stupid people are empowered to vote - and
>> do.
>>
>> SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Soon, Californians may have to think twice
> snip...
>
> No this is what happens when biased trolls post. If California Democrats
> are so "stupid" how could they be so bloody successful? They are, after
> all, living in and have created the fifth wealthiest economy on the
> planet.

No they did not create that. They just happen
to be what the voters there choose to elect.

> https://www.businessinsider.com/california-economy-ranks-5th-in-the-world-beating-the-uk-2018-5

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 7:10:42 PM12/13/18

to

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:04:00 -0500, nospam wrote:

> the population of the usa is ~329 million, so california would be about
> 12%, which is not a huge percentage.

Name another Big State that has more than 10% of the USA population?
(Name just one.)

BTW, you can view recent CPUC complaints as a spreadsheet:
<http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Web_Forms/PublicComments2018.xlsx>

And, you can file a complaint over here:
<http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/publiccomments/>

I think I'll file a complaint once I figure out the motive of Jessica
Rosenworcel who voted for mass spamming of texts to be allowed by marketing
organizations in addition to allowing California to tax texting.

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 7:15:50 PM12/13/18

to

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:59:31 -0500, nospam wrote:

> however, it's not likely to pass so don't worry about it. if it does,
> *then* you can decide what to do.

It it passes, I think it will be difficult to avoid, since they've
structured it as a retroactive tax on the bill, apparently.

Even if you dropped cellphone service entirely, the greedy CPUC (which
already has a BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET), would *retroactively* get the past
five years.

What kind of immense greed seeks *retroactive* taxes of five years where
you can't even make an intelligent decision to avoid a retroactive tax?

nospam

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 7:22:45 PM12/13/18

to

In article <puuse1$u3t$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> > the population of the usa is ~329 million, so california would be about
> > 12%, which is not a huge percentage.
>
> Name another Big State that has more than 10% of the USA population?
> (Name just one.)

irrelevant.

once again, you snipped to alter context.

your original claim was that california had a 'huge percentage of
american people'.

12% is not 'a huge percentage'.

88% of americans do *not* live in california.

88% is 'a huge percentage'. 12% is not.

In article <131220181604009974%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam

<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <puugll$b36$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder
> <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
> > California is a "Big State".
> >
> > It has 40 million people.
> > That's a huge percentage of American people.
>

> the population of the usa is ~329 million, so california would be about
> 12%, which is not a huge percentage.
>

> <https://www.census.gov/popclock/>
> <https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ca/PST045217#>

nospam

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 7:22:46 PM12/13/18

to

In article <puusnl$uig$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> > however, it's not likely to pass so don't worry about it. if it does,
> > *then* you can decide what to do.
>
> It it passes, I think it will be difficult to avoid, since they've
> structured it as a retroactive tax on the bill, apparently.

that's far less likely.

however, if you're *that* worried, then close your account. it's not
like they're going to re-open your account just to charge you a couple
of bucks or whatever the tax will supposedly be.

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 8:02:48 PM12/13/18

to

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:41:12 -0500, John McGaw wrote:

> You really have a great ability to fantasize. I've brought out-of-state and
> out-of-country cars into California and registered them with no problem and
> the process hasn't changed much, if at all, since I moved away. I know that
> you will ignore actual evidence but anyone else following this thread might
> find this useful:
>
> https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/checklists/outofstate

Hi John McGaw,

I don't know you so I don't know how you handle cold hard facts:
<https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr29>

HINT: *A vehicle is considered "new" if it has fewer than 7,500 miles.*

DOUBLEHINT: All that wording about "California certified" is BS, which is
the same wording they used on the so-called "smog impact fee" (which was
declared a decade later to be an unconstitutional tax on interstate
commerce since it applied to *every* out of state vehicle - as this one
does - even if they *meet* and *exceed* California emissions!).

You have to understand what I just said.
The actual emissions are not the issue (all new vehicles pass the test).

*They have to have a STICKER from California!*
(Which they just won't have.)

Facts are facts where I'm not sure how well you handle facts.
HINT: Read the section tiled "What is considered a new vehicle".

If the out of state vehicle has fewer than 7,500 miles on it, then it is
considered "new" and can not be registered in the state of California.

If that vehicle does not have a *California* sticker on it, then it can't
ever be registered by you (forever) if you bought it with under 7,500 miles
on it.

You know how I know this?

I've been in the DMV when people in front of me are told they have to tow
their new vehicle OUT of the state from the parking lot of the DMV (it was
a motorcycle, but it's covered under the same rules as cages are).

The guy was close to crying.

He can _never_ register that vehicle in California, once he told them that
he bought it with fewer than 7,500 miles on it. He just can't. If he hadn't
told them, he could have driven it (illegally, of course) for those 7,500
miles, and then, when it reached 7,501 miles, he could have "said" he
bought it with 7,501 miles on the odometer - and then - he could have
registered it.

As it was, they told him that he'd be ticketed if he drove that vehicle on
any California road, and they told him to call a pickup truck to tow it out
of state.

I don't know you so I don't know how well you handle facts.
(A lot of Usenet posters can't handle it when they're proven wrong.)

You don't have to like facts - but they're still facts.

These are the facts:
o If the vehicle doesn't have a *specific sticker* on it, then...
o If it has fewer than 7,500 miles on it when you bought it, then...
o It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to register that vehicle in California!
(There are minor exceptions, e.g., divorce, stolen vehicle, moped, etc.)

Note what I just said, which is that you can *never* register that "new"
vehicle in California, once they know you bought it with fewer than 7,500
miles.

How do you get around this "new vehicle" restriction?
There is only one way I know, which is to drive it for 7,501 miles, and
_then_ say you bought it. Then you're fine as it will pass all the
California emissions.

They make believe it's about California emissions, but the fact is that
it's not about emissions since the car still has to pass all applicable
California smog tests roughly every two years to be registered each year.

It's all about taxes.

California taxes are astronomical.
For example, let's say you buy a $40K vehicle.
The sales tax alone is roughly around $4k (plus other fees).

If you buy it out of state, you may pay from 0 to something less than $4K,
and then, when you register it in California, they'll *ask* you how much
you paid, which is up to you to say what you paid (it may say it on the
bill of sale though - but it might not since everyone who buys a vehicle in
California knows about the rapacious greed of the California politicians).

But if it has fewer than 7,500 miles then it's considered new, and if that
"new vehicle" doesn't have a sticker from California, then it absolutely
cannot be registered if they know you bought it with fewer than 7,500
miles.

Again, I don't know you so I don't know how well you handle facts.
But those are the facts nonetheless.

Ask me how I know.
HINT: I've seen it drive grown men to almost cry.

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 9:13:07 PM12/13/18

to

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 19:22:45 -0500, nospam wrote:

> that's far less likely.
>
> however, if you're *that* worried, then close your account. it's not
> like they're going to re-open your account just to charge you a couple
> of bucks or whatever the tax will supposedly be.

Hi nospam,

It's likely going to be infeasible to close a cellphone account unless
there is some other viable option for cellphone service, particularly an
account that has more than a half-dozen lines attached to it.

I don't know if it's possible, but perhaps one way around the proposed
5-year retroactive tax "might" be to get an out-of-state plan, where, I
guess, you'll have to tell them you live at a post-office box somewhere in
Nevada, and you can then go "paperless", where you can "port your old
number" to the new Nevada plan.

All the cell pings will, of course, be to the California address of your
old account, but hey, maybe they won't notice since they'll be raking in
the dough from the other tens of millions of people who didn't change their
plan.

Dunno. Let's hope the FCC sticks with the definition that cellular service
is communications for the phone, but information for the email & text so
that Big States can't tax the email and text now, or in the future.

The vote at the FCC was 3 to 1, where the vote against the people was made
by Jessica Rosenworcel whose voting record appears to be all for mass spam
to be allowed in SMS/MMS and for this greedy California taxation scheme.

It would be interesting to hear from her as to why Jessica Rosenworcel has
consistently voted against the people, and to that end, I've sent her an
email to ask why she recently voted the way she did.
<Jessica.R...@fcc.gov>
https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership/jessica-rosenworcel

I also filed an informal FCC complaint (1-877-382-4357):
<https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/filing-informal-complaint>

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 9:13:08 PM12/13/18

to

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 19:22:44 -0500, nospam wrote:

> once again, you snipped to alter context.

Hi nospam,

Your memory is selective (which means you're simply playing your silly
games, again), since I use the same normal Usenet etiquette rules for
quoting on all my posts for decades on end...

"Quote as little as possible from others' messages. "
<https://www.lsu.edu/internet/usenet/usenet-etiquette.html>

"Snip out everything you are not commenting on"
<http://www.html-faq.com/etiquette/?quoting>

> 12% is not 'a huge percentage'.

Hi nospam,

You think I don't know the population when I call it CA a "Big State?
Really?

HINT: No other state comes close (and yes, I'm well aware of the
percentages of every state, where 8% isn't even close, and, in fact, is a
whoppingly huge 1/3rd less for the next-largest state).

Fact is, California is a "Big State" (which gives them big-state power).
You may not like facts, nospam, but that doesn't change that they're facts.

It would be interesting to see what other states are big enough, for
example, to essentially disallow vehicles to be bought from out of state
that have fewer than 7,500 miles on them, for example.

> 88% is 'a huge percentage'. 12% is not.

Hi nospam,
What's you're point?
Or are you just playing silly games?

Are you trying to imply that California is _not_ a big state?
The fact you don't like facts, nospam, doesn't change that they're facts.

Fact is, California is a big state - which - give them big state powers,
which, in this case, is an attempt to force a retroactive tax that goes
back 5 years, on essentially almost every California-based cellphone plan,
and which, if passed, will *instantly* results in gains to the CPUC of
hundreds of millions of dollars to their already huge BILLION DOLLAR
budget.

Do you know of any other USA public utilities commission with a billion
dollar budget, nospam?

nospam

unread,

Dec 13, 2018, 9:14:43 PM12/13/18

> District of Columbia have adopted California's stricter emissions
> standards, many of which also participate in the zero-emission
> vehicle mandate.

OK, sms may have been wrong with "California standards ]which[ are now
the U.S. standard". But his main statement, "all vehicles currently
manufactured for sale in the U.S. meet the California standards", makes
the matter moot: in other words, wherever they're _sold_, they're all
_manufactured_ to meet the California standards. And thus avoid the
2yr/7500 mile thing.
[]
(I know nothing of the accuracy or otherwise of these claims; I was just
pointing out that, regardless of which states have or haven't adopted
these standards, if as sms says they're all _manufactured_ to meet them
anyway, it doesn't matter.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.

The Real Bev

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 12:17:39 PM12/14/18

to

On 12/13/2018 09:16 AM, sms wrote:

> On 12/13/2018 8:53 AM, arlen holder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>

>> What is the technical solution that only I have to make, such that everyone
>> else can send and receive texts from me without ME paying that tax?
>
> In the unlikely event that this goes forward, it would not be a per text
> fee, it would be some extra fee on your bill under "taxes and fees." For
> prepaid providers that bundle in all taxes and fees (Cricket, Boost,
> RedPocket, etc.) it would have to be absorbed by the carrier or they'd
> have to raise prices on everyone to offset the extra cost for Californians.

With my prepaid plan I already pay 10 cents per text message (or maybe
it's 25 cents, I can't remember). Since I almost never send/receive
them I don't have a dog in this fight except that it's absolutely wrong.

I don't see how Californians can be so stupid and I'm ONE of them :-( I
read somewhere that the plan was yanked, so maybe some of us aren't
totally stupid.

> Don't get me started on either the CPUC or the SVLG. As a local official

> I could go on for a very long time.
>
> Speaking only for myself.

--
Cheers, Bev
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

nospam

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 12:27:20 PM12/14/18

to

In article <pv0oji$h0i$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> With my prepaid plan I already pay 10 cents per text message (or maybe
> it's 25 cents, I can't remember). Since I almost never send/receive
> them I don't have a dog in this fight except that it's absolutely wrong.
>
> I don't see how Californians can be so stupid and I'm ONE of them :-( I
> read somewhere that the plan was yanked, so maybe some of us aren't
> totally stupid.

paying 10 cents and certainly 25 cents for a single text message is
well beyond stupid.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 1:15:57 PM12/14/18

to

In message <141220181227198596%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam

That's very rude, and also makes _you_ look stupid: you don't know what
the other conditions are of Bev's contract or usage pattern. If she
sends, say, four - or even ten - texts a year, but gets a very good deal
on voice, and/or data, or ..., then what seems daft to you may make
excellent sense to Bev.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Now, don't worry. We'll be right behind you. Hiding. (First series, fit the
sixth.)

nospam

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 1:41:15 PM12/14/18

to

In article <jxU4riH3L$EcF...@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)

<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >>
> >> With my prepaid plan I already pay 10 cents per text message (or maybe
> >> it's 25 cents, I can't remember). Since I almost never send/receive
> >> them I don't have a dog in this fight except that it's absolutely wrong.
> >>
> >> I don't see how Californians can be so stupid and I'm ONE of them :-( I
> >> read somewhere that the plan was yanked, so maybe some of us aren't
> >> totally stupid.
> >
> >paying 10 cents and certainly 25 cents for a single text message is
> >well beyond stupid.
>
> That's very rude, and also makes _you_ look stupid: you don't know what
> the other conditions are of Bev's contract or usage pattern. If she
> sends, say, four - or even ten - texts a year, but gets a very good deal
> on voice, and/or data, or ..., then what seems daft to you may make
> excellent sense to Bev.

it's never rude to inform someone that they're paying *way* more than
necessary.

use a messaging app and all messages are *free*, regardless of how many
are sent or received.

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 4:21:29 PM12/14/18

to

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:59:22 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> But his main statement, "all vehicles currently
> manufactured for sale in the U.S. meet the California standards", makes
> the matter moot: in other words, wherever they're _sold_, they're all
> _manufactured_ to meet the California standards. And thus avoid the
> 2yr/7500 mile thing.

Hi John Gilliver,

I only care about facts.
If any fact I state is shown to be wrong, I'm perfectly happy.

In this case, I'd especially LOVE to be proven wrong. I really would.
You know why?
Because I _hate_ the facts that I know.

IMHO, you have to be careful about assuming "emissions" simply because...
o Every on-road vehicle in California MUST meet yearly smog emissions!
o That means any vehicle you buy in state, or out of state
o It means any vehicle you buy out of the country, or build yourself

We're only talking about that very first registration of a "new" vehicle
that you purchased outside of the "Big State".
o It MUST say "California" on the sticker
o It MUST have fewer than 7,500 miles
o It MUST be older than two years

Notice there is _nothing_ in those requirements about emissions.
You can't yearly register a car that doesn't meet (periodic) smog.
Period.

This isn't about emissions.

The only way it _can_ be about emissions, is under one circumstance:
o Is the smog limit DIFFERENT for "California" versus "Federal" vehicles?

To get an answer to _that_ critical question, I called CARB:
o California Air Resource Board, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/contact-us
o 800-242-4450 Vicky
She confirmed that the sticker MUST SAY "California".
That's all CARB cares about. The word "California" must be on the sticker!

I asked Vicky how a manufacturer gets that sticker.
She pointed me to this web site (which I will read later).
On-Road New Vehicle & Engine Certification Program
<https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/cert-temp2021.php>

Vicky told me to call the BAR
o 800-952-5210x1x3 Greg told me to "seek your answer elsewhere"
o https://www.dca.ca.gov/about_us/contactus.shtml

Livid at being hung up on by "Greg", I immediately called back & pressed 0.
o I got "Glen" whom I spoke to for at least an hour
o He's a fellow engineer, who answered all my questions

It's a loooooong story (very long) ... some of which is that the
word "California" on the label costs the consumer more than the word
"Federal", for a variety of reasons unrelated to the smog test.

According to Glen, at BAR, many vehicles, nowadays, are 50-state certified
(he gave the example of Honda 2008 and up), which may or may not be the
case, where it COST Honda a lot of money to get that 50-state sticker.

An example is that they have to *pay* California to get that
California-specific certification and they have to warrant the emissions
for 8 years 80K miles versus the federal 5 year 50K miles.

And that means that only "some" emissions components (e.g., cats) can be
put on California cars, that requirement is one of the "benefits" of the
California sticker that is not directly related to "emissions".

Speaking only about emissions smog testing requirements
o Emissions are done differentially for 2000 & below versus 2000 & up
o 2000 and below - they sniff the tailpipe (and other things)
o 2000 and up they use the readings from the engine control modules

For 2000 and up, the periodic smog test looks at
o Smoke out of the tailpipe (these are "particles")
o Any set code (e.g., those that set the CEL, aka MIL)
o Critical unset monitors
o Visual things (like unapproved modifications & stickers)

Glen said the smog check tech scans the vehicle identification information
which phones the BAR to find out the specific pass/fail points for that
specific vehicle (he called it a VLT, vehicle lookup table).

While I told Glen that it's hard to believe given that a Denso lamba sensor
or a Delco EGR check valve is the same whether it gets put on a California
car or a Federal car, Glen said that the pass/fail cutoff "could" be
different for that lambda sensor or that EGR valve for the California car
versus the Federal car.

So, there you have it:
o If you believe that the actual pass/fail is DIFFERENT for a sensor
o Versus if you believe that the pass/fail is the same
makes all the difference.

If you believe what Glen said, then the "emissions" pass/fail point "can
be" different for a California certified vehicle versus a Federally
certified vehicle.

Personally, and I told Glen this, I find it hard to believe, since a lamba
sensor would degrade the same in a California vehicle as a Federal vehicle,
but, since I stick to the facts, I'm relaying the facts to you as I hear
them from people who are supposed to know those facts.

As always, I've love to be proven wrong - as I learn from facts.

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 4:21:30 PM12/14/18

to

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 08:11:53 -0800, sms wrote:

> which is less than 2 years old and has less than 7,500 miles

Hi sms,
Thanks for bringing up that cite, as I was unaware of the 2-year caveat.

That makes it even harder to register a "new" car in a "big state".
Even if you spin the odometer on a drill, you still have 2 years to wait

Notice only Big States can have this kind of abusive economic power.)

> But all vehicles currently manufactured for sale in the U.S. meet the
> California standards which are now the U.S. standard.

Hi sms,
Sadly, but seriously: It's not about emissions - it's about money.
Really. You have to realize that (or prove me wrong).

I personally went through this in the "smog impact fee" days.
It doesn't matter whether or not the vehicle meets California emissions.

*The only thing that matters is that the sticker _says_ California!*
(Almost zero new cars will fail California's smog inspection anyway.)

It's all about that sticker.
That sticker MUST literally have the word "California" on it.

They don't care about emissions.
They care only about that word on that sticker.

Nothing else matters.
(Note: The car will almost certainly pass smog anyway.)

How do you get that word California on your emissions sticker?
o I don't know - but I'll bet you PAY California a _lot_ of money.
o And I'll bet you go through LOTS of regulatory bullshit.
o And you likely have to agree to a lot of California laws.
etc.

Basically, making _every_ car sold in the USA say the word "California" on
the emissions sticker is "big business" for the California air resource
board. Really big business.

Think of the wonderful revenue!

Essentially _all_ new cars sold in the USA _meet_ the emission standards.
Let's just accept that as a fact.

The problem isn't meeting the emission standards, even though California
would have you _think_ that is the issue - but it's not.

The problem is that the sticker _MUST_ say "California" on that sticker!

Are there any people on this ng in the USA but OUTSIDE of Califonia?
o Does your out-of-state vehicle say the word "California" on the sticker?

Again, I went through this with the "smog impact fee" so I know it well.
The emissions aren't the point (you'll pass emissions).

It's all about money.
That sticker _must_ literally have the word "California" on it.

Otherwise, that vehicle can't be registered as "new" in California.
o New is defined, as sms noted, by having fewer than 7,500 miles
o Or being newer than two years at the time you purchased it.

> If you wanted to
> bring in a vehicle from another country then it could be an issue. There
> used to be "49 state vehicles" that did not meet the California standards.

Again, you make the mistake of saying "meeting California standards".
It's not about meeting the standards (all new cars will pass smog).

It's about, literally, having the word "California" on that sticker.
That's _all_ they care about (ask me how I know).

They literally look at your car, physically, and

> In short, you can bring in vehicles from other states as long as they
> meet California emissions standards.

Wrong.
Dead wrong.

Those are the "words" that California uses.
But the *actions* speak louder than words.

I personally had a car that didn't have that sticker when I moved here.
I kept it for 20 years. It passed smog almost every time.
(I had to replace the oxygen sensors at about 10 or 15 years.)

It didn't matter one bit that the car met California emissions standards.
All that mattered was that California "certified" the car.
(Which they didn't.)

So if the sticker doesn't literally say "California" on it, then you pay.
In my case, I paid the $300 Smog Impact Fee.
(Don't even get me started on that, since it had NOTHING to do with smog
other than the name - where the money went into the California General Fund
and NONE of it went to "smog impact"). Zero.

It was only called "smog impact" to get the proposition to pass.
And it only taxed out of state cars, so everyone in CA voted for it.
(The law was declared unconstitutional a decade or so later.)

> What you can't do, is to buy a car
> in Oregon, where there is no sales tax, and register it in California
> without paying the sales tax.

Unfortunately, that only works with "small states".
I don't know if, in Oregon, they make you pay the sales tax every year.
But in California, you pay a value-based tax every year.

In year 1, that tax is based on the sales price.
In year 2+, that property tax is based on the value.

So, you cannot get around paying the full sales tax on the full price you
say you paid for the car.

Notice I said you "say you paid" because they don't ask you to prove it.
You have to sign that you're not telling a lie though.
And, I'm sure, if you say you paid $20K for a $40K car, they'd check.

I'd love to be proved wrong as I hate these facts below:
o California charges "property tax" on every vehicle at yearly registration
o They use the "sales price" as the value at the very first registration

For out-of-state vehicles... California won't register that vehicle (ever!)
o If they found out it had fewer than 7,500 miles at the time of purchase
o Or, if they found out it was less than 2 years old at purchase time

The only way an out-of-state "new" vehicle can be registered is if
o That vehicle meets smog limits (they all will pass, realistically)
o And, that vehicle was certified BY CALIFORNIA
(That is, the sticker must literally say the word "California" on it.)

Ask me how I know.

Please (please!) prove me wrong on any of those unpleasant facts!

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 4:21:33 PM12/14/18

to

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:17:36 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> With my prepaid plan I already pay 10 cents per text message (or maybe
> it's 25 cents, I can't remember). Since I almost never send/receive
> them I don't have a dog in this fight except that it's absolutely wrong.

Remember the "Modernize the Lottery" scheme in the California propositions?

What happens is that every section of government inexorably bloats.
Then, inevitably what happens is that they lose a portion of their revenue.

In this case, the CPUC taxed the landlines to death.
(Remember, every tax partially destroys that which they tax.)

What happens is that a section of government loses some of their revenue.
What every reasonable company would do is tighten their belts.
Particularly since they inexorably bloated while the times were good.

But not the government.
The government simply taxes more.

> I don't see how Californians can be so stupid and I'm ONE of them :-( I
> read somewhere that the plan was yanked, so maybe some of us aren't
> totally stupid.

The only reason, AFAICT, this isn't going to fly, is that the FCC has only
Jessica Rosenworcel who voted for marketeers to spam text messages and for
governments to tax them.

I sent her an email yesterday asking why, but haven't seen any response.
<Jessica.R...@fcc.gov>

sms

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 4:25:24 PM12/14/18

to

On 12/14/2018 8:59 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <141220181146110525%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>> In article <pv0koa$lod$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
>> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But all vehicles currently manufactured for sale in the U.S. meet the
>>> California standards which are now the U.S. standard. If you wanted to
>>> bring in a vehicle from another country then it could be an issue. There
>>> used to be "49 state vehicles" that did not meet the California
>>> standards.
>>
>> nope.
>
> Yep. (See below.) At least partly.
>>
>> <https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1109217_which-states-follow-califo
>> rnias-emission-and-zero-emission-vehicle-rules>
>> Thirteen states‹mostly in the Northeast and Northwest‹and the
>> District of Columbia have adopted California's stricter emissions
>> standards, many of which also participate in the zero-emission
>> vehicle mandate.
>
> OK, sms may have been wrong with "California standards ]which[ are now
> the U.S. standard". But his main statement, "all vehicles currently
> manufactured for sale in the U.S. meet the California standards", makes
> the matter moot: in other words, wherever they're _sold_, they're all
> _manufactured_ to meet the California standards. And thus avoid the
> 2yr/7500 mile thing.

"The states that have adopted the California standards are: Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico (2011
model year and later), New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia. Such
states are frequently referred to as "CARB states" in automotive
discussions because the regulations are defined by the California Air
Resources Board.

The EPA has adopted the California emissions standards as a national
standard by the 2016 model year and is collaborating with California
regulators on stricter national emissions standards for model years
2017–2025."

This article is old though, since then other states have adopted the
California standards.

In short, you can't even buy a new car in the United States that doesn't
meet the California standards because no manufacturer wants to build
different models for different states in order to save a fee dollars in
manufacturing cost.

There is no problem with bringing in a new vehicle purchased in another
state. But you'd have to pay the sales tax based on where the address
the car is registered at.

sms

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 4:29:13 PM12/14/18

to

On 12/14/2018 9:17 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 12/13/2018 09:16 AM, sms wrote:
>> On 12/13/2018 8:53 AM, arlen holder wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> What is the technical solution that only I have to make, such that
>>> everyone
>>> else can send and receive texts from me without ME paying that tax?
>>
>> In the unlikely event that this goes forward, it would not be a per text
>> fee, it would be some extra fee on your bill under "taxes and fees." For
>> prepaid providers that bundle in all taxes and fees (Cricket, Boost,
>> RedPocket, etc.) it would have to be absorbed by the carrier or they'd
>> have to raise prices on everyone to offset the extra cost for
>> Californians.
>
> With my prepaid plan I already pay 10 cents per text message (or maybe
> it's 25 cents, I can't remember). Since I almost never send/receive
> them I don't have a dog in this fight except that it's absolutely wrong.

Sure you do. Nothing stops a carrier from modifying or dropping their
prepaid plans.

And don't worry, the CPUC will still find a way to fund the program, it
just won't have such terrible optics. There's often the issue of a) do
we fund a required program from the general fund or do we fund it from
taxes and fees directly related to the program.

sms

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 4:45:30 PM12/14/18

to

On 12/14/2018 10:14 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

<snip>

> That's very rude, and also makes _you_ look stupid: you don't know what
> the other conditions are of Bev's contract or usage pattern. If she
> sends, say, four - or even ten - texts a year, but gets a very good deal
> on voice, and/or data, or ..., then what seems daft to you may make
> excellent sense to Bev.

I believe that the plan that Bev is referring to is the old
grandfathered T-Mobile prepaid plan with Gold Rewards. It costs as
little as 83¢ per month ($10 per year), and you get 15% credit added on
so $10 buys $11.50 worth of credit. Voice minutes and texts are 10¢
each. There is no data.

For a low usage phone it's probably the cheapest plan that was ever
available and you don't have to add funds every 30, 90, or 120 days,
only once per year. I have a ZTE LTE flip phone with this plan. I don't
really need it, but I have so much credit on the account I just keep it.

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 5:14:57 PM12/14/18

to

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:25:23 -0800, sms wrote:

> "The states that have adopted the California standards are: Connecticut,
> Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico (2011
> model year and later), New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
> Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia. Such
> states are frequently referred to as "CARB states" in automotive
> discussions because the regulations are defined by the California Air
> Resources Board.

With respect to the topic of "Big State" abuse, I wouldn't call all those
states "Big States", so the next logical question is how many of those
states have the economic power to refuse to register a "new" car under the
type of terms that the California Big State does?

Do _any_ of those "carb states" refuse to register a vehicle if
o They know you bought it with fewer than 7,500 miles on it,
o Or they know you bought it with less than 2 years on it,
o If it has a "federal" sticker, and not a "California" sticker?

Without that answer, we know nothing about the topic.

> The EPA has adopted the California emissions standards as a national
> standard by the 2016 model year and is collaborating with California
> regulators on stricter national emissions standards for model years

> 2017ĄV2025."

Does any state other than California refuse to allow a non-carb vehicle to
be registered if it's considered 'new' (i.e., younger than 2 years and with
fewer than 7,500 miles)?

If we don't know the answer to _that_ question, we know nothing.

> This article is old though, since then other states have adopted the
> California standards.

The question is the same for _any_ state that "adopts" the CA standards!

> In short, you can't even buy a new car in the United States that doesn't
> meet the California standards because no manufacturer wants to build
> different models for different states in order to save a fee dollars in
> manufacturing cost.

Hi sms,
You have to comprehend the facts here where we both agree that EVERY car
bought in the USA will PASS the California emissions (if it's working
right).

Every single one.

That isn't the question because the issue has nothing to do with emissions.

The question is about Big State abuse of power.
What _other_ state will refuse to register an out-of-state vehicle if
o That vehicle is younger than 2 years old, and if
o That vehicle has fewer than 7,500 miles, and if
o That vehicle doesn't have the "California" on the sticker?

How many?
Is there a _single_ other state that does what California does?

> There is no problem with bringing in a new vehicle purchased in another
> state. But you'd have to pay the sales tax based on where the address
> the car is registered at.

Hi sms,
The sales tax is a red herring, as is the emissions.

It's not about sales tax or emissions since, in California, the sales tax
on vehicles is based on the purchase price, and then, you pay a pro-rated
property tax every single year based on the value of the vehicle as it
depreciates.

The question is whether any other state refuses to register an out-of-state
new vehicle or not.

*Q: What other state refuses to register an out of state new vehicle?*
(where that determination is solely made based on a single sticker)

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 5:15:08 PM12/14/18

to

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:29:10 -0800, sms wrote:

> And don't worry, the CPUC will still find a way to fund the program, it
> just won't have such terrible optics. There's often the issue of a) do
> we fund a required program from the general fund or do we fund it from
> taxes and fees directly related to the program.

I generally speak only facts, but I'm going to step into conjecture.

I prophesize that the CPUC is knowingly throwing the dice.
I presume they are making waves, on purpose.
I presume they _know_ that they have a miniscule chance at this tax.

I think they want to "raise awareness" of their predicament.
I hope it backfires on them (like a Brexit vote) but it may work for them.

Now EVERYONE KNOWS the CPUC "needs money".
(Let's forget they already have a BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET!)
(And, let's forget that landlines were taxed to death.)

Since everyone knows the CPUC "needs money", it may make it "easier" for
them to *ask* for more money by other means.

Again, I am hypothesizing based on
o Clever people come up with very clever schemes
o And the CPUC appears to be playing one of those schemes right now

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 5:15:11 PM12/14/18

to

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 08:12:44 -0800, sms wrote:

>> What other state restricts new cars to only being bought in state?
>> (HINT: Only a Big State can get away with such abusive laws.)
>
> No state does such a thing, including California.

Hi sms,
Are you serious?

Name just one other state that refuses to allow you to register
o A "new" vehicle that doesn't have a sticker saying the state name
o Where the vehicle is newer than two years old
o And where that vehicle has fewer than 7,500 miles on it.

Name just one.

Note: The question isn't about California since the facts above are valid.
The question is about those 13 states which "follow" California emissions.

Do _those_ 13 states refuse registration of a "new" out-of-state car?

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 5:15:13 PM12/14/18

to

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 07:36:28 -0800, sms wrote:

> It is up to each school district to decide whether or not they want to
> pay for school buses.

Hi sms,
You have to be careful when you make such statements because there are
dumbshits on this newsgroup who only see that one sentence who don't see
the next level of detail.

You and I know this to the lower level of detail, which is that essentially
zero school districts in California actually provide free yellow school
buses to the K-12 students living more than a mile from the school.

It could even be zero - but it's close to zero.

As you know, I live in one of the richest school districts in the country.
So do you.
Ours does not pay a single cent for transportation of "normal" kids.
(Disabled kids are covered under Federal grants so they're different.)

I'll bet you your school district doesn't pay either.
We covered this in the past, where the "truth" is that:
o Yes, while it's "up to the district",
o Almost zero (maybe even zero) provide free transit

Extremely few school districts (essentially none) in California
pay for transit.

I have to tell you sms, since I like you, and I feel you're one of the very
few people on the Apple newsgroups I respect, that you can't just say
things like that without going to the next level of detail.

If it's "up to the school district", then people who don't understand will
assume whatever they assume, but in general, they're not going to assume
essentially zero school districts pay for free yellow public school buses.

When you go to the _next_ level of detail, you find out that, essentially
zero school districts pay for it, so the more accurate answer is that
California school districts don't pay for that free yellow school bus.

They can - but they don't.
The more accurate answer is that they don't.

>> If this Big State proposed tax is allowed to go through, it will spell the
>> death knell for basic SMS/MMS messages, as there is no doubt in my mind
>> that legal technical solutions exist to avoid paying this punitive tax.
>
> Yes of course. Carriers could simply drop SMS/MMS service completely.
> But that's highly unlikely.

I agree.
Adults tend to agree on facts.
Facts are funny that way.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,

Dec 14, 2018, 7:52:37 PM12/14/18

to

In message <pv189o$rho$1...@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
writes:
[]

>I believe that the plan that Bev is referring to is the old
>grandfathered T-Mobile prepaid plan with Gold Rewards. It costs as
>little as 83¢ per month ($10 per year), and you get 15% credit added on
>so $10 buys $11.50 worth of credit. Voice minutes and texts are 10¢
>each. There is no data.
>
>For a low usage phone it's probably the cheapest plan that was ever
>available and you don't have to add funds every 30, 90, or 120 days,
>only once per year. I have a ZTE LTE flip phone with this plan. I don't
>really need it, but I have so much credit on the account I just keep it.

As you say, for low usage. I have a 3-2-1 SIM from the "3" network here
- it's 3p a minute, 2p a text, and 1p a megabyte, or some permutation of
those - quite high in themselves, but there's _no_ minimum charge: I put
ten pounds on it when I bought it, and when I checked it last year -
after some years - it still had over 7 pounds left. I think I have to
_use_ it every 3 or 6 months to keep the number active, but that's all.

I don't know whether those SIMs are still available.
JPG
===

[UK only:]
Think petitions unfair? Visit 255soft.uk (YOUR VOTE COUNTS)! [Pass it on.]

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

G B Shaw said: "Few people think more than two or three times a year; I have
made an international reputation for myself by thinking once or twice a week."
(quoted by "Dont Bother" [sic], 2015-8-24.)

nospam

unread,

> Yesterday I was at an event with my local state assembly person, Evan
> Low, and I should have asked him about the text tax, but the event was
> very crowded and I didn't have time to talk to him, plus I was being
> besieged with people congratulating me. But I meet with him regularly,
> so next time I see him I'll mention it.
>
> > Looking at the Mercury News (which is a Silicon Valley staple), we find:
> > OMG! Now California wants to tax text-messaging?
> > <https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/12/11/omg-now-california-wants-to-tax-text-messaging/>

>
> Read anything in the Murky News with many grains of salt. It is owned by
> a private equity firm and its stories are frequently incorrect, written
> to promote a particular agenda.
>

> > The CTIA clearly stated that people will naturally move their "text
> > messaging traffic" to apps that can't be taxed by the Big State, such as

> > "Facebook¢s Messenger and WhatsApp, Apple¢s iMessage and
> > Microsoft¢s Skype".

>
> The carriers would have to eliminate SMS/MMS completely. That's unlikely
> in the U.S. where most mobile phone users still use SMS/MMS extensively,

> including public safety agencies. The U.S. isn't like China where there

> is one messaging app used by virtually everyone (WeChat). I was using it
> too, the last time I was in China, and it's also popular in the U.S.
> among Chinese.
>

> > If this Big State proposed tax is allowed to go through, it will spell the
> > death knell for basic SMS/MMS messages, as there is no doubt in my mind
> > that legal technical solutions exist to avoid paying this punitive tax.
>
> Yes of course. Carriers could simply drop SMS/MMS service completely.
> But that's highly unlikely.
>

> Speaking only for myself.

I would like to see a secure messging protocol that encrypts
messages during transit and storage so someone could not be
doxed by a chat admin with a political agenda.

nospam

unread,

Dec 15, 2018, 12:44:09 AM12/15/18

to

In article <b7a52718f3e4f916...@dizum.com>, An Metet

<anm...@liberty.gmsociety.org> wrote:

>
> I would like to see a secure messging protocol that encrypts
> messages during transit and storage so someone could not be
> doxed by a chat admin with a political agenda.

several exist already.

Frank Slootweg

unread,

Dec 15, 2018, 6:43:49 AM12/15/18

to

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> In message <141220181227198596%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:
> >In article <pv0oji$h0i$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
> ><bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> With my prepaid plan I already pay 10 cents per text message (or maybe
> >> it's 25 cents, I can't remember). Since I almost never send/receive
> >> them I don't have a dog in this fight except that it's absolutely wrong.
> >>
> >> I don't see how Californians can be so stupid and I'm ONE of them :-( I
> >> read somewhere that the plan was yanked, so maybe some of us aren't
> >> totally stupid.
> >
> >paying 10 cents and certainly 25 cents for a single text message is
> >well beyond stupid.
>
> That's very rude, and also makes _you_ look stupid: you don't know what
> the other conditions are of Bev's contract or usage pattern. If she
> sends, say, four - or even ten - texts a year, but gets a very good deal
> on voice, and/or data, or ..., then what seems daft to you may make
> excellent sense to Bev.

Yes, rude and stupid, that's nospam for you. And in response to your
post, he continues his rudeness and stupidity with

"it's never rude to inform someone that they're paying *way* more than
necessary."

dodging and diverting from his "well beyond stupid" qualification and
continues with

"use a messaging app and all messages are *free*, regardless of how many
are sent or received."

as if mobile data costs nothing.

As you say, people can have very good reasons to pay 'high' rates per
SMS/minute/MB, because for *them*, such 'high' rates per item, mean
that the *total* cost per year is way *less* than is possible with any
other alternative.

So I guess that also the rates I pay are "well beyond stupid", but my
total usage/cost is most of the time less than 10 Euro per year. nospam
is free to come up with an alternative at (average) less than 83
cents/month, so I don't have to pay these "well beyond stupid" rates.

N.B. As this is not the first time this (non-)discussion came up -
AFAIR with the same 'victim' - we can indeed conclude that nospam's
comment is stupid, as in unable to learn.

nospam

unread,

Dec 15, 2018, 9:03:09 AM12/15/18

to

In article <pv2stp...@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> > >> With my prepaid plan I already pay 10 cents per text message (or maybe
> > >> it's 25 cents, I can't remember). Since I almost never send/receive
> > >> them I don't have a dog in this fight except that it's absolutely wrong.
> > >>
> > >> I don't see how Californians can be so stupid and I'm ONE of them :-( I
> > >> read somewhere that the plan was yanked, so maybe some of us aren't
> > >> totally stupid.
> > >
> > >paying 10 cents and certainly 25 cents for a single text message is
> > >well beyond stupid.
> >
> > That's very rude, and also makes _you_ look stupid: you don't know what
> > the other conditions are of Bev's contract or usage pattern. If she
> > sends, say, four - or even ten - texts a year, but gets a very good deal
> > on voice, and/or data, or ..., then what seems daft to you may make
> > excellent sense to Bev.
>
> Yes, rude and stupid, that's nospam for you. And in response to your
> post, he continues his rudeness and stupidity with
>
> "it's never rude to inform someone that they're paying *way* more than
> necessary."
>
> dodging and diverting from his "well beyond stupid" qualification and
> continues with

there is no dodging and diverting. yet another attack of yours.

> "use a messaging app and all messages are *free*, regardless of how many
> are sent or received."
>
> as if mobile data costs nothing.

text messages are tiny (~100 bytes each, often less). paygo data is
usually around 2c/megabyte, enough for several thousand messages.

or just use wifi, which is free.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,

Dec 15, 2018, 10:18:04 AM12/15/18

to

In message <pv1qbp$jkl$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
<Your...@YourISP.com> writes:
[]

>There are pre-paid mobile plans in New Zealand that you only have to
>add credit to once per year to keep the SIM active and your balance
>usable.

Here, certainly for voice-only ones as well as my 3-2-1 one, you don't
have to add credit - only _use_ it (I think 3 or 6 months) to keep the
SIM active.

>
>There are also some 'rollover' plans, where any unused data, text, and
>minutes from the month is added to the following month's allocation.
>These all have some sort of limit - some plans have the
>data/text/minutes expire after 12 months, other plans have a limit to
>how much you can have (you can't keep rolling over for years and then
>use 13TB of data).

We have those here too, much-advertised when one of them introduced
rollover of more than one month; however, they're a con really, in that
I strongly suspect (I haven't even bothered to ask) that you can't use
_any_ of your unused data if you stop paying, i. e. they're monthly
plans.

>
>It's all a con really. If you've paid for X minutes, then you should be
>allowed to use X number of minutes. This idiocy of them "expiring" at
>the end of the month or year is simply the telecom company stealing
>your money and not giving you the service you have already paid them
>for ... OR you post-pay only for what you did use.

I do actually have one of those too - a post-pay; it's something
exorbitant, like thirtysomething or fiftysomething pence a minute. Not
sure why I keep it - mainly inertia, though I could say coverage (the
network it's on has somewhat better coverage than the other one, or at
least there are places - such as my home here! - where that is the
case). I have a dual-SIM 'phone, so there's no difficulty in keeping
both.

>
>The same should be true for everything you buy. When you pay $40 for
>petrol, the petrol station doesn't come around a steal back the unused
>pterol from your tank at the end of the month! Why should a telecom
>company or store be allowed to do that? You've paid for it, so you
>should be allowed to use it when you want to.

There is the slight matter of them having to keep the network going even
if nobody makes calls, though that's a lot more spurious an argument
than is the case for e. g. gas and electricity supplies, since - except
for very rural areas - they _will_ be being used anyway.

>
>It's similar to the expiry date on gift cards/voucher. There was a big
>fuss about this a little while ago and many companies changed they gift
>cards to no longer expire (the JB Hi-Fi stores gift cards now have an
>expiry date of 100 years after activation, but that's probably due to
>them being too lazy/cheap to updated their software to cope with
>no-expiry).

I have an amazon "card" that expires 10 years after issue. I don't think
I'll have any trouble using it before then.

>
>There's similar cons in various other companies. Telecom New Zealand
>(again) steals any remaining money if you don't use the amount stored
>on a public phone card within a certain timeframe. The Auckland
>Transport card also steals any remaining money if you haven't used the
>bus/train/ferry for more than a certain period of time.

Phonecards! I haven't seen one of those - or, I think, one of the
'phones you can use them in - for years.

>
>Add these typs of con tricks to their over-bloated prices, and it's no
>wonder these big companies continue to make obscenely massive profits
>every year. X-(
>

(-:

>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Who is Art, and why does life imitate him?

Frank Slootweg

unread,

Dec 15, 2018, 10:48:51 AM12/15/18

to

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:

[...]

> >There's similar cons in various other companies. Telecom New Zealand
> >(again) steals any remaining money if you don't use the amount stored
> >on a public phone card within a certain timeframe. The Auckland
> >Transport card also steals any remaining money if you haven't used the
> >bus/train/ferry for more than a certain period of time.
>
> Phonecards! I haven't seen one of those - or, I think, one of the
> 'phones you can use them in - for years.

We still occasionally - have to - use public phone booths when we're
in Australia in areas where there's no mobile coverage, but there is the
odd phone booth. Telstra - the main Australian telco - had phone cards
which you could top up, even had voice mail and had a very long expiry
time, but sadly these are gone [1] and now you've only cards which can
not be topped up, so you still need coins, so you might as well not use
a card.

[1] Yes, other - third-party - providers still have more flexible cards,
but they're not worth the trouble for our infrequent occasional use.

The Real Bev

unread,

Dec 15, 2018, 4:44:31 PM12/15/18

to

On 12/15/2018 03:43 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> In message <141220181227198596%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>> >In article <pv0oji$h0i$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
>> ><bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> With my prepaid plan I already pay 10 cents per text message (or maybe
>> >> it's 25 cents, I can't remember). Since I almost never send/receive
>> >> them I don't have a dog in this fight except that it's absolutely wrong.
>> >>
>> >> I don't see how Californians can be so stupid and I'm ONE of them :-( I
>> >> read somewhere that the plan was yanked, so maybe some of us aren't
>> >> totally stupid.
>> >
>> >paying 10 cents and certainly 25 cents for a single text message is
>> >well beyond stupid.
>>
>> That's very rude, and also makes _you_ look stupid: you don't know what
>> the other conditions are of Bev's contract or usage pattern. If she
>> sends, say, four - or even ten - texts a year, but gets a very good deal
>> on voice, and/or data, or ..., then what seems daft to you may make
>> excellent sense to Bev.

If he's been paying attention, he DOES know that my prepaid plan costs
$10/year, which adds something like 30 minutes to the 6 hours of time I
have banked. I fully intend to use them up calling from my grave in a
really spooky voice.

> Yes, rude and stupid, that's nospam for you. And in response to your
> post, he continues his rudeness and stupidity with
>
> "it's never rude to inform someone that they're paying *way* more than
> necessary."
>
> dodging and diverting from his "well beyond stupid" qualification and
> continues with
>
> "use a messaging app and all messages are *free*, regardless of how many
> are sent or received."
>
> as if mobile data costs nothing.

Actually, if you only need a little bit of it (2 MB/month), it IS free
with a Myfreedompop hotspot. I wish that rolled over, but it doesn't.
I used it last August.

> As you say, people can have very good reasons to pay 'high' rates per
> SMS/minute/MB, because for *them*, such 'high' rates per item, mean
> that the *total* cost per year is way *less* than is possible with any
> other alternative.
>
> So I guess that also the rates I pay are "well beyond stupid", but my
> total usage/cost is most of the time less than 10 Euro per year. nospam
> is free to come up with an alternative at (average) less than 83
> cents/month, so I don't have to pay these "well beyond stupid" rates.

Given the frequency with which I consume caviar, I wouldn't balk at a
price of $1K/gram. Maybe even more if it came in a pretty container.

> N.B. As this is not the first time this (non-)discussion came up -
> AFAIR with the same 'victim' - we can indeed conclude that nospam's
> comment is stupid, as in unable to learn.

Some people regard arguments as recreational. Unfortunately, those
people generally aren't very entertaining.

--
Cheers, Bev
He's your god. They're your rules. *You* burn in hell!

nospam

unread,

Dec 15, 2018, 7:19:13 PM12/15/18

to

In article <pv3sjt$itv$1...@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev

<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> With my prepaid plan I already pay 10 cents per text message (or maybe
> >> >> it's 25 cents, I can't remember). Since I almost never send/receive
> >> >> them I don't have a dog in this fight except that it's absolutely wrong.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't see how Californians can be so stupid and I'm ONE of them :-( I
> >> >> read somewhere that the plan was yanked, so maybe some of us aren't
> >> >> totally stupid.
> >> >
> >> >paying 10 cents and certainly 25 cents for a single text message is
> >> >well beyond stupid.
> >>
> >> That's very rude, and also makes _you_ look stupid: you don't know what
> >> the other conditions are of Bev's contract or usage pattern. If she
> >> sends, say, four - or even ten - texts a year, but gets a very good deal
> >> on voice, and/or data, or ..., then what seems daft to you may make
> >> excellent sense to Bev.
>
> If he's been paying attention, he DOES know that my prepaid plan costs
> $10/year, which adds something like 30 minutes to the 6 hours of time I
> have banked. I fully intend to use them up calling from my grave in a
> really spooky voice.

paying $10 year for texts and minutes you don't use makes the net cost
even higher. if you send five texts a year, that's $2 *each*. the
banked minutes/texts aren't going to be of much use from your grave.

> Actually, if you only need a little bit of it (2 MB/month), it IS free
> with a Myfreedompop hotspot. I wish that rolled over, but it doesn't.
> I used it last August.

yet another thing to carry and not as flexible.

sms

unread,

Dec 16, 2018, 2:55:15 AM12/16/18

to

On 12/14/2018 4:51 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <pv189o$rho$1...@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> writes:
> []
>> I believe that the plan that Bev is referring to is the old
>> grandfathered T-Mobile prepaid plan with Gold Rewards. It costs as
>> little as 83¢ per month ($10 per year), and you get 15% credit added
>> on so $10 buys $11.50 worth of credit. Voice minutes and texts are 10¢
>> each. There is no data.
>>
>> For a low usage phone it's probably the cheapest plan that was ever
>> available and you don't have to add funds every 30, 90, or 120 days,
>> only once per year. I have a ZTE LTE flip phone with this plan. I
>> don't really need it, but I have so much credit on the account I just
>> keep it.
>
> As you say, for low usage. I have a 3-2-1 SIM from the "3" network here
> - it's 3p a minute, 2p a text, and 1p a megabyte, or some permutation of
> those - quite high in themselves, but there's _no_ minimum charge: I put
> ten pounds on it when I bought it, and when I checked it last year -
> after some years - it still had over 7 pounds left. I think I have to
> _use_ it every 3 or 6 months to keep the number active, but that's all.
>
> I don't know whether those SIMs are still available.

In the U.S., the cheap plan is now the FreedomPop free plan. A bit of a
pain to set up because they try to sell you all sorts of stuff, but once
you pay the initial $10 it's completely free for 200 minutes, 500 texts,
and 500MB of data on AT&T. The voice and texts are over the data network
and you have to use the FreedomPop app, but once it's all set up it
works well.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

unread,

Dec 16, 2018, 4:59:12 AM12/16/18

to

In message <pv50d1$hg0$1...@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
writes:
[]

>In the U.S., the cheap plan is now the FreedomPop free plan. A bit of a
>pain to set up because they try to sell you all sorts of stuff, but
>once you pay the initial $10 it's completely free for 200 minutes, 500
>texts, and 500MB of data on AT&T. The voice and texts are over the data
>network and you have to use the FreedomPop app, but once it's all set
>up it works well.

Would I be right in guessing you mean "per [time unit]"? If not, then it
isn't free.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Diplomacy is the art of letting someone have your way.

sms

unread,

Dec 16, 2018, 9:58:37 AM12/16/18

to

On 12/14/2018 2:15 PM, arlen holder wrote:

> As you know, I live in one of the richest school districts in the country.
> So do you.

I am not sure where you live, but the two school districts servicing my
area are among the lowest funded in the state and country. The income
levels and property values don't necessarily translate to a "rich" district.

For example, the K-8 school district serving me, Cupertino Union (not
Basic Aid), receives $9,695 per student per year. A few miles away, K-8
Saratoga Union (Basic Aid) gets $14,709 per student, 52% more.

The 9-12 district serving me, Fremont Union (Basic Aid), gets $14,082
per student. Los Gatos-Saratoga Union (Basic Aid) gets $16,647.

If you look at school districts in some of the less affluent communities
they get much more money per student. Alum Rock Union (non-Basic Aid)
gets $13,479 per student.

There are large inequities in funding. The districts with the highest
test scores often get the least funding. When a district is "Basic Aid"
they don't get funding from the state, property tax revenue is high
enough that they get all their funding from their own property taxes,
and the district is called a "Basic-Aid" district. Cupertino Union is
not a Basic Aid district, while Saratoga Union is. Cupertino Union has
high home values in Cupertino but it serves a lot of other cities, not
of all of which have property tax revenue, so is not "Basic Aid."

In short, in many districts, there is no money to pay for
transportation. In fact in many districts, parcel taxes and voluntary
donations make up the gap between what a district spends and the revenue
they get.

And we have not even seen all the impact of Prop 13 yet. One big
"unintended consequence" of Prop 13, is adult children, of homeowners in
districts with good schools, living in their parent's houses, sending
their children to local public schools, with the property generating a
pittance in property taxes. Other homeowners in districts with good
schools simply rent their houses out, at very high rent, to families
with children, while paying a pittance in property taxes. I see that in
my neighborhood:

House A: Market Value: $2.9 million, assessed value $2.9 million, 2
school children, property tax: $36,250.

House B: Market Value: $2.9 million, assessed value $575,000, 2 school
children, property tax: $7187.

House B doesn't generate enough property tax for even one student, and
of course only a portion of property tax goes to schools.

Prop 13 should apply only to owner-occupied residential property.
Besides the revenue issue, it's also preventing older residents from
downsizing and selling single-family homes in good school districts to
young families. So school enrollment is falling in many of the good
districts. Ironically, this is good news for Basic Aid districts which
don't rely on per-student state funding, but bad news for non-Basic Aid
districts. Basic Aid districts have extremely strict address
verification procedures because they don't get additional funding for
each additional student. They will even send out people to verify that a
student really lives where they say they do.

Speaking only for myself.

sms

unread,

Dec 16, 2018, 10:04:17 AM12/16/18

to

On 12/14/2018 2:15 PM, arlen holder wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 08:12:44 -0800, sms wrote:
>
>>> What other state restricts new cars to only being bought in state?
>>> (HINT: Only a Big State can get away with such abusive laws.)
>>
>> No state does such a thing, including California.
>
> Hi sms,
> Are you serious?
>
> Name just one other state that refuses to allow you to register
> o A "new" vehicle that doesn't have a sticker saying the state name
> o Where the vehicle is newer than two years old
> o And where that vehicle has fewer than 7,500 miles on it.

Back when you could actually buy a non-CARB certified new vehicle in the
United States there was some applicability of the 2 years/7500 mile rule.

Now the rule is moot. You cannot purchase a new vehicle that doesn't
meet CARB standards. It's not illegal for a vehicle manufacturer to
build non-CARB compliant vehicles, they just are restricted from selling
them in many states, including many of the most populous states. And the
other states that have adopted the California standards almost certainly
have similar rules that don't matter because there are no cars that meet
those criteria being sold in the U.S. anymore.

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 16, 2018, 3:46:22 PM12/16/18

to

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 07:04:14 -0800, sms wrote:

> Back when you could actually buy a non-CARB certified new vehicle in the
> United States there was some applicability of the 2 years/7500 mile rule.

What's shockingly difficult is that most people don't even understand the
question, where, what you wrote above may or may not be fact, as the answer
depends on what out-of-state underhood emissions stickers currently say.

The statement is true for Honda (as I explained earlier that Glen at BAR
told me all Honda's since 2008 have "California" on the emissions sticker),
it may or may not be true for other brands.

I haven't purchased a new vehicle in almost a decade so the question must
be asked of the non-California owners who have purchased a new car (less
than 2 years old, with fewer than 7,500 miles on it) outside of California.

It's shockingly difficult to get a Usenet answer to this simple question.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.home.repair/K-2t8Xm_TU4/2EtIC4oBAQAJ>

Most people who respond don't even comprehend the question.

And yet, the question is extremely simple...

Does _your_ non-California-bought vehicle literally have the word
"California" on your underhood emissions sticker?

> Now the rule is moot. You cannot purchase a new vehicle that doesn't
> meet CARB standards. It's not illegal for a vehicle manufacturer to
> build non-CARB compliant vehicles, they just are restricted from selling
> them in many states, including many of the most populous states. And the
> other states that have adopted the California standards almost certainly
> have similar rules that don't matter because there are no cars that meet
> those criteria being sold in the U.S. anymore.

All that matters is what the sticker says.
At least in California that's all that matters.

It's NOT about emissions (e.g., warranties are different).
It's about whether or not California has personally "certified" the vehicle
and the warrantee (and other things that California gets money for).

All that matters is whether the word "California" is on the sticker.

And, it's surprisingly hard (almost impossible) to get anyone outside of
California to even understand what that sticker is, let alone what it says.

Mine, for example, clearly say "California" on them, but what matters are
the vehicles bought and sold OUTSIDE of California.

Doesn't anyone on this thread have two things?
a. Adequate comprehension of the simple question I'm asking, and,
b. A reasonably new vehicle bought outside the state of California?

Does _your_ underhood sticker literally say the word "California" on it?

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 16, 2018, 4:03:53 PM12/16/18

to

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:57:58 +0000, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

>>once you pay the initial $10 it's completely free for 200 minutes, 500
>>texts, and 500MB of data on AT&T. The voice and texts are over the data
>>network and you have to use the FreedomPop app, but once it's all set
>>up it works well.

*I'm also curious about this "FreedomPop" plan details.*
Particularly on the "gotchas"...

What's the expiry date, for example, of the $10?
Is it 1 month? 3 months? 1 year? Forever?

And, if you need a "freedompop app", am I to presume that this FreedomPop
plan works on an "existing" phone (that already has, say, T-Mobile
service)?

Or is this FreedomPop plan meant to be the primary service on a throwaway
phone such as what we'd term a burner phone (to get a second line)?

If FreedomPop is meant to be a second phone line on a phone that _already_
has a phone number, then, how does FreedomPop differ from the other free
second-line apps such as "SecondLine" or "Talkatone" or "2nd-Line", or
"SideLine", or "TextNow", etc.
<https://www.sideline.com/>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.talkatone.android>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.enflick.android.TextNow>
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.enflick.android.tn2ndLine>
etc.

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 16, 2018, 9:50:23 PM12/16/18

to

*California public utilities commission abandons plan to tax text messages*
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/16/tech/california-text-tax-vote-canceled/index.html>
"The California Public Utilities Commission said a new
FCC ruling prevented the state from levying a tax on text plans. "

Only Jessica RosenWorcel on the FCC voted against the people & for spammers
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Rosenworcel>

The industry group said the CPUC proposal would have created inequity
"between wireless carriers and other providers of messaging services," such
as WhatsApp, iMessage and Skype. In a legal filing, CTIA called the text
tax plan "illogical, anticompetitive, and harmful to consumers."
<https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/16/tech/california-text-tax-vote-canceled/index.html>

arlen holder

unread,

Dec 16, 2018, 10:22:25 PM12/16/18

to

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018 02:50:23 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Only Jessica RosenWorcel on the FCC voted against the people & for spammers
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Rosenworcel>

Holy Shit.
I _thought_ the budge for the CPUC was a billion, but it's tremendously
larger than a billion!

The billion dollars was just the one program the proposed text tax was
supposed to fund!

They rake in ten times that for other programs, according to this USA Today
article
<https://usareally.com/2289-california-hopes-to-tax-text-messages-what-who-why>

"As mobile phone users shifted from making phone calls to using messaging
services to communicate, voice call revenue for these state programs has
dropped by roughly a third, from $16.5 billion in 2011 to $11.3 billion in
2017, according to filings from the commission. "

Holy shit. They already taxed landlines to death (it's the single reason I
killed my landline for example, since taxes were more than 50% of my
landline charges!)

Even on the Ooma, taxes are about 1200% of my charges (100% per month),
since I already paid the sales tax on the equipment long ago. The entire
bill is taxes on something that I don't pay for - which is proof that taxes
can and will always climb until they finally kill the product that they
tax.

California has more money than God, and yet, they're still greedy for more!