Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme
Message-ID: <16425@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 91 17:35:41 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA
Lines: 30
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 67, Message 8 of 11


In article <16377@accuvax.nwu.edu>, halcyon!peterm@sumax.seattleu.edu
(Peter Marshall) writes:

> To what extent are states moving in a similar direction? What issues
> or problems have been observed? What is the magnitude of "going
> statewide" at present? What might account for common patterns on a
> national level?

In New Jersey, for reasons never explained to me, the 7% state sales
tax did not apply to telephones.  As of three years ago, it suddenly
did.  The state justified taxing telephones by stating that the
revenue derived from this tax would finance the state-wide
implementation of E911 service.

Like the Massachusetts directory assistance charge, this causes all
telephone users (really, all telephone owners) to subsidize the
emergency service.  Is this fair?  A visitor from out of state who
never bought a telephone in New Jersey may still call 911 from a
public telephone in the state.  But somehow, I prefer not to have to
worry about payment (finding coins, etc) in a time of emergency.

Directory assistance is (and was already) charged for, so that's
going somewhere else.


Dave Levenson		Internet: dave@westmark.com
Westmark, Inc.		UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA		AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
Voice: 908 647 0900	Fax: 908 647 6857