From: habs@panix.com (Harry Shapiro)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 13 Sep 92 17:18:23 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <xcxnc_n.tenney@netcom.com> tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:

> In article <1992Sep12.201355.7505@panix.com> habs@panix.com (Harry
> Shapiro) writes:
>>The Cable Act of 1984 does *NOT* prevent more than one cable company
>>from being in the same service area. In some towns they do have
>>2 cable companies.  The cable act prevents telephone companies from
>>owning cable operations in the their "monopoly" area.

>>It is up to each city and town (etc.) to grant operating rights to
>>a cable company. 

>2. However, there is a virtual monopoly in existance.  Except for
>   a few areas (predominantly test or high visibility markets) there
>   is a single cable provider available to you in your home.  

>   For example:  A few years ago, I took many examples of repeated
>   and knowing violations of the franchise agreement to City Hall.
>   The City Attorney told me the reality:  Nothing they can do.  If
>   they did terminate the agreement, the company made it clear that they
>   would immediately just turn off cable to everyone, and then take
>   their time (one year) to dismantle and turn over the system.  He
>   cited one city that was just thinking of doing it, and the cable
>   company turned off cable for a holiday weekend and just aired
>   text on all channels telling subscribers to call their City
>   Council at home (and gave the home numbers) to complain.  It's
>   amazing, but people would rather have lousy cable today than no
>   cable for a year.

>Glenn Tenney AA6ER
>voice: (415) 574-3420 fax: (415) 574-0546
>tenney@netcom.com

I have read the cable act of 1984 and I have talked to one
of time warners top lawyers. I just haven't done so recently.

I am sure that such an event as depicted above could happen by
a hard ball playing cable operator. I would be interested in
learning if it happened priro to 1984.

The Time-Warner lawyer was rather clear in his presentation
that a city would be able take over the cable system intact
and sell/lease it to an other operator. (Previous operator
getting paid fair value for the plant.)

I don't see how a company could 1) get away with dismantling
the system, 2) turning off subscribers who have paid for
a service. without 1) violating the terms of their fran. agreement
and 2) getting hit (rather fast) with an injunction that would
assert the local towns control over the system or at least 
place a judge in control.

The 5% payment that (on average) a city gets from the cable
opperator, plus often free cable in government buildings,
schools, etc, plus often free potical coverage (i.e., town
meetings, talk shows, etc.) is clearly a conflict of interest.

There was a recent ruling in the northwest were a owner of a
small complex was able to keep the local opperator *OUT* of
his buildings because he had already built a equal or better
system then the local system. This was quite a victory. The
city brought the law suit but its cost were paid by the cable
company.

In NYC, besides the Time-Warner controlled systems, their
is Liberty Cable and Urban Cable, both of whom use microwaves
and sat. feeds to bring cable choices to the consumer.
(Liberty requires a 10 year contract with an entire building,
so it is a fully competed choice).

It is hard to get changes but the fact remains that if you and
your fellow townsfolk decided to fight and read book and watch
VHS-Tapes for a few months, real change could be made.
-- 
Harry Shapiro  				      habs@panix.com
List Administrator of the Extropy Institute Mailing List
Private Communication for the Extropian Community since 1991
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv