From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Rules
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:12:20 GMT
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology


     max@megatek.com (Max Elliot)writes:

    From article <1992Nov5.182932.2317@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, by
    rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu:
    > In article <1992Nov4.162413.25560@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>,
    whs70@dancer.uucp
    >  (22501-sohl) writes:
    >>In article <3NOV199209470542@utrcv1> wjm@utrcv1 (Bill) writes:
    >>>I have a question regarding cable TV rules.
       ***much deleted-save space***

    Dear Max,
    First, I am sorry to have disgruntled you and caused any discomfort to
    yourself or others on the net.  My response to the original posts was
    perhaps a bit hurried and lacking in the careful thoughtful construction
    that would have avoided mis-understandings.  Hopefully, I can now be more
    clear and careful and define the issues in the detail they deserve.

    There were two key points I was attempting to make:

    1.  The analogy between cable additional outlets and telephone extensions
    is not technically valid.  There are significant differences between the
    two networks that opt against using this analogy beyond a very general
    point of reference.

    2.  Some of the technical realities of cable systems were not taken into
    account in the post to which I was replying.  There are strong technical
    reasons for not configuring the system as Bill suggested.  Those technical
    reasons do not, however, suggest that subscribers should or could not have
    other providers (themselves possibly included) do additional outlet
    wiring.  They do suggest strongly that definite standards and signal
    leakage oversight are needed.  I do think that cable companies should not
    turn over additional outlet wiring to any third party, including the
    subscriber, in the absence of clear laws or rules from the FCC regarding
    signal leakage control and responsibility.  Under the present rules if
    cable co X (CATVX) says "Ok subscribers, hook up whatever you want" and
    CATVX patrols regularly for signal leakage and properly logs their leaks
    found and fixed, and they just went through "Elk Meadows" subdivision on
    Friday finding no leaks, the FCC inspection van comes to town Monday and
    finds 5 large leaks in Elk Meadows from subscribers who hooked up their
    own outlets, CATVX is potentially liable for $125,000 in fines ($25,000
    per leak/per occurrence).  Will the FCC really levy such fines?  Yes they
    will and yes they have.  Will they really assess $25,000 each?  Very
    unlikely.  But several thousand dollars is very likely.  It is an
    imprudent gamble for CATVX.

>  So. You propose that signal the cable company be allowed to
>  determine what constitutes derived benefits and also be allowed
>  to enforce their own installations and hardware? Do you work for
>  a cable company or something? Are you a fascist? Get real man.

     I have re-read my post and could not find anywhere that I "proposed" that
     cable companies determine derived benefits.  I was simply pointing out
     that we often pay for derived benefits.  Often we do not.  I do not think
     that most cable companies are using "derived benefit" as an argument for
     additional outlet charges.  Those that do are on clearly debatable
     ground.  As I pointed out, there are REAL and demonstrable costs for the
     cable co in original design and construction of their network to allow
     for additional outlets.  Fair rate regulation would have to allow them

    some return on that investment (not necessarily the present rate) OR
     require that they build their networks to allow for only one outlet and
     leave the expense and leakage liability of add outlets on the customer.
     The cable company should certainly have as much right to enforce their
     legal requirements that you pay for what you get as the taco vendor, the
     pajama seller, or the software seller who licenses you for only one
     machine.
     Who I work for is irrelevant, except in so far as it might indicate a
     biased viewpoint.  That I have a bias toward the cable companies I will
     stipulate.  (Those who have been following this discussion have probably
     already gathered that.)  These posts are done on my own time (insert here
     all the standard disclaimers about employers, colleges etc.) and are my
     own opinion.  I do hope that some of the technical realities that may not
     be known or realized by some posters will be helpful in this discussion.
     They will be taken into account in the real world, whether this group
     becomes aware of them or not.  If you really want to make some changes in
     how cable television is priced and delivers, you will be in a better
     position to formulate realistic and attainable goals if you know your
     opposition and the technical limits and realities of the medium.

     Referring to Websters:  fascism-a political philosophy, movement, or
     regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that
     stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial
     leader, severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression
     of opposition.
     NOT ME.  I think, politically, I'm somewhere in the Libertarian,
     Democratic/Republican left-right fringe.

>  If I decide to build a ham radio at home, and I screw the design
>  up and start bleeding RF all over the prohibited bandwidth, I will
>  shortly have someone knocking on my door. There is already a control
>  in place for this sort of thing, and it is the FCC and the local law
>  enforcement. We do not need to deputize the cable companies to police
>  the airwaves and most especially not, police our homes and private
>  lives.

     A more accurate analogy would be if 1,000 or 5,000 ham radio operators
     did what you describe, all at the same time and 24 hours a day, and
     caused a problem with an emergency service radio.  The FCC is not staffed
     nor prepared to deal effectively with massive amounts of such problems on
     a national scale.  They have recently moved even further away from
     dealing with individual interferences from computers or ham radio
     operators because they are short staffed.  Ham radio operators are
     licensed by the FCC (and thus findable quickly) and have at least enough
     training to pass the FCC test which lessens the likelihood that they will
     cause such problems.  Given similar licensing I would have no problem
     with cable subscribers hooking up their own outlets :) (joke?)

>  And as for derived benefit, if I buy a pair of children's pajamas
>  for my kids at Target, should Target be allowed to enforce that
>  pair of children's pajamas be worn by one and only one child?
>  That sounds ridiculous right?  Good.  It should.

     There is a continuum here that you are not allowing.  You CAN'T put those
     pajamas on two kids at the same time.  There is a difference between
     services and hard goods.  You can tape TV programs and could set up a
     public viewing and charge admission, showing the program you taped.  That
     sounds ridiculous (and illegal) right?  Good.  It should.

>  If a product is sold for use on the premises of a retailer, the
>  the retailer may adjudicate what is and is not proper use.
>  If a product is sold for use OFF the premises of the seller, it is
>  up to the buyer what he/she does with it. If I buy a pint of cream
>  at the store, must I use it for coffee or may I not give it to my cat?
>  You and yours would argue that there are acceptable uses for the cream
>  and that I must comply with them.  Up yours!

     I can only speak for me (mine), but if it were illegal to feed the cream
     to your cat, then yes I would argue that you shouldn't do so.  Again a
     retailer of hard goods is not a valid analogy for  a retailer of soft
     goods (services).  (Such language!  Children may be up.)

>  If the cable company has something to offer me, great. They should, as
>  was suggested in several previous posts, deliver a signal with some
>  nominal attenuation and strength and noise level, and that's it. It should
>  be strong enough to supply at least ONE TV with no amp needed.  They
>  may deliver it to my curb, at which point I will install a legal coupler
>  and cable, after which they should have absolutely NO jurisdiction. NONE!
>  This is my home. This is my property. If I decide to hook my car battery
>  up to the cable and blow out the local lines, they may litigate. It is
>  exactly the same if I were to do that to the local phone lines. I don't
>  care what it costs the cable company. If it was my fault and I am guilty
>  they will be awarded reparations in court.

>  If you think that putting power over peoples lives and properties into
>  the hands of a private sector company is good, then you are completely
>  insane.

     I suppose private hospitals and doctors are somehow not private companies
     or don't have significant power over peoples lives.  Many times I don't
     think their power is good.  When they save my life, I'm more kindly
     inclined.

>  This would dilute the essential freedoms guaranteed us in the
>  constitution. Yes, I believe it would be unconstitutional. You and your
>  Nazi mind-control ideas should take a hike!

     For mind-control please refer to alt.hypnotism; for hiking
     alt.outdoor.recreation.hiking; for Nazi's alt.hitler.

>  Disgruntled,
>-Max

Bob Vogel
Newsgroups: alt.cad