HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 00:36:36 PDT
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems, Moraga, CA

Nothing you have said applies to situations that are quasi-public
monopolies like the phone company, the electric/gas companies,
and other situations where only one company can generally operate
within a specific area (as in one network of wires, cables, pipes,
etc.) and that receives permission from a state, region, or
municipality to operate within its area.

theory behind regulation of these utilities is that since they
have been given essentially, a license to make money, that they
should be prevented from turning it into a license to steal, the
license having been granted by Congress after heavy lobbying from
the cable companies. If one had a choice of multiple service providers
that allowed competitive choices of service, then your statements
would make sense. Your knee-jerk reaction to anything which might
interfere with the "God-Given" right of any businessman who wants
to separate people from their money by any means necessary reflects
unfavorably on your intelligence.

If a businessman doesn't want to be 
"enslaved", he should not get involved with regulated monopolies.

                                 A.Lizard
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:34:04 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:

>In article <PB1PqB9w164w@tweekco.uucp> alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard) writes:

>And let me add, nothing you have said demonstrates that cable tv
>is, in fact, a 'natural monopoly'.  In certain regions of the country,
>competition does exist in the provision of cable tv service.

This the second time that I have heard this assertion, I don't remember
who said it before.  But for the second time, I will ask:

Where are these "certain regions of the country" who have competing
cable services?  Technically, how is the competition handled?  Does
each company run its own wires?  Do they share a trunk line and 
run their own individual wires off that?  

I've been promised an article reference which I have yet to receive.
So, until I receive more concrete information, I can't take this
seriously.


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: jfc@salmon.sea.macsch.com (Jack Castro)
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Originator: jfc@salmon.sea.macsch.com
Organization: The MacNeal-Schwendler Corp. (MSC) Seattle Technical Office
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 18:39:47 GMT


In response to  terryk@encore.com (Terence M. Kelleher).

I agree with you. If a single operator controls the local cable TV system, then
there is obviously little or no benefit to the consumer. That is why I was 
questioning whether it was technology possible for two operators to transmit
over the same cable independently. In doing so, I was implying that both
companies would be able to carry all channels independent of each other. 
Perhaps this is only possible with two cables in the ground. Will this be possible with with fiber optic networks? I don't know. But I would hope that
with todays technology something could be devised. Maybe I am being 
unrealistic, but I know very little about cable technology.

Regarding royalties to the networks... 

I know that the bill allows the cable comapnies to drop a network if they
must pay for retransmission rights. But this is not likely since the 3 major
networks are still highly desirable to most people. I read that the president
of CBS estimated that they would receive 1 Billion dollars in retransmission
royalties if the bill passes. Therefore, it is likely that the consumer
will still suffer.

The cable bill is not all bad. However, I am an advocate of hands-off
government in most situations. Lets work towards a true state of competition,
and then if that does not work, possibly consider regulation.

-- 
 
Jack Castro                  E-MAIL: j_castro@macsch.com
(All opinions expressed are my own and not my employers.)
From: speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Anti-regulation ad overriding normal commercial!!!!
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 09:55:51 EDT
Organization: Dan's Domain, Randolph, New Jersey

sdw@meaddata.com (Stephen Williams) writes:

> The thing that really shocked me was that when it was over, there was
> a noticable flip, as if the channel was switched back to another feed,
> and the last 1.5 seconds of some mail-order commercial (order screen).
> 
> They obviously produced this thing and overroad the normal ad with
> their own (they had the Cont. Cable logo in the ad).
> 
> I wonder if Lifetime agreed to this?

   Here in Morris Cty NJ we have Sammon's Cable which does the same
thing with local advertising - Most of the ads they produce and put
over the regular feed seem to appear on channels like MTV, USA and
the like . . . I've never seen them do this with ABC, NBC, CBS.


Dan Speers                                       (speers@micro-c.mcds.com)
Sysop & Dictater - err - Ruler - Hmm.. - How bout BOSS - no - King!
                no - Alright then, Super Genius! - TOO Much... What
                about, Dan The GREAT! - No huh? - ok, what about
                System Guru?  That's good.  Hey Sarah!  Don't touch
                that keyoluboaidkla;lkj,mn.,amnsdklga;lk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan's Domain - THE Best BBS Period! (Ok, semicolon...)
(201) 366-5018 - We use a Telebit T3000 (among other things...)
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:33:13 GMT
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

map@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters) writes:

>As I said in my original posting, you have something that cable tv
>companies want (money) and they have something you want (cable tv).
>This is a straight forward *trading* situation, but you want the
>government to force the other side to accept a deal that they 
>otherwise would not.  If this is moral, then it is equally moral 
>for the government to force you to accept a deal that you otherwise 
>wouldn't.  

  You're right, to a point.  The cable TV owner has a right to earn a 
profit as much as the viewer has a right to pay for what he chooses.

  Where your argument fails is the fact that this is not a normal
situation of trade since there is little room for bartering due to the
lack of competition.  You usually have the option of seeking out more
than one seller when you choose to buy a car, television, camera and
so on and in some cases, even try to bargin a lower price in the 
process.

  You don't have the option here, the domain of the cable TV operator is
a captive audience almost without exception.  By removing the ability for
the viewer to barter for a lower price they have to pay what the operator
wants, not what the market will bear since there is no market.

  In those situations you need regulation to prevent the operator from
doing the obvious, overcharging.

>Forcing a company to accept a lesser payment for a product/service is 
>morally identical to forcing a customer to accept a higher price.  Both 
>actions are immoral, and both are violations of individual rights -- and 
>the government therefore should not permit (much less perpetrate) them.

  Not in the least.  So long as the lower payment allows for a net profit
after paying for taxes and operating overhead there shouldn't be a problem
at all.

  The rub is determining what is a realistic profit.  Cable TV has proven to
be an essentially risk-free enterprise due to the lack of competition,  Lower
risk normally nets a lower return, like a government insured savings account
nets a lower interest rate than the possible return you can realize by playing
the stock market.

  In the decade that cable TV has been deregulated we've seen rates increase
that far outpaced the cost of living index, real estate and inflation.  Nor
due these increases reflect increased services because most of the new channels
are second tier and not part of the basic package.

  In light of that it is quite safe to say that cable TV owners are enjoying
excessive profit with minimal risk.

  That is a situation that demands regulation.

  -jack-
From: bitbug@netcom.com (James Buster)
Subject: Re: Anti-regulation ad overriding normal commercial!!!!
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 19:12:46 GMT
Organization: Lynx Real-Time Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Sep9.081821.9086@leela.cs.orst.edu> bob@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (robert s. richardson) writes:
>on cue from the network, such as lifetime.  This is accomplished by
>DTMF tones (like a touch-tone phone) embedded in the program material
>or placed on a separate channel that occur a few seconds before a
>scheduled local break.

Is this why SportsChannel has those annoying tones at the end of each
half-hour? I thought they sounded like DTMF, but I didn't connect them
with DTMF because it was coming from a cable system, not a telephone system.
Incidentally, my cable system doesn't instantaneously interrupt a program
after those tones are received.
-- 
				James Buster
			     bitbug@netcom.com
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:08:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

>>  Cable TV and telephones are not the same thing.  One is a distributive syst
>>where the source propagates out to the receivers in a unidirectional fashion
>>while the other is a discrete network of point-to-point connections allowing
>>two-way communication.  The technologies involved are entirely dissimilar.

>Not entirely.  True, the telephone is two-way, and cable is one way, but
>I think the original poster is referring to the capability of receiving 
>his choice of long distance company over one common carrier line.  The
>fact that cable delivery can be addressable indicates that, given sufficient
>capacity on the lines, a similar choice of cable services could be made
>available over a single, common carrier line.

  But that's the point, coax can only deliver X number of channels.  You can
multiplex voice connections, which are only established for Y minutes, so you
have a virtual number of phone circuits at your disposal.  The cable TV system
doesn't have that capability since the video is unable to be multiplexed and
must be present continuously.

  So, even with addressable boxes, a cable system is probably not able to offer
enough channels to multiple station vendors to support the economics of the
user/carrier/supplier system.

>Yes, it could.  Currently, it is probably the only viable technology.  However
>once optical fiber is available in the home, the way is paved for a whole
>new host of opportunities.

  Sure, fiber optics provide more bandwidth, but you're still at the mercy of
the carrier that owns that wire, cable or fiber.  Look at the nonsense that
the phone companies have tried to lay on modem users for additional access fees
for the same line you use for voice.  Imagine what they'd do with digital data
coming into your house?

  By removing the wired system you remove that carrier, the maintainence and
installation costs and the vulnerability to inclimate weather that it is
succeptable to.

  Wireless also allows for many more providers in an area, you just subscribe
by aiming a dish or getting access to a cellular system.  The services it
could provide could equal or exceed fiber as well, microwaves have a lot of
bandwidth.

>>  It's quite true that regulation will not lower prices, it might even raise
>>them a few dollars in the short run.

>Not that I don't believe you, but I am interested in the specifics of this
>claim.  Are you saying that this is because the bill, itself, was written
>badly or that any regulation would have this effect?

  No, regulation itself causes this, in the longrun it stabilizes prices, but
in the shortrun it usually increases them.  Happened with the phone system 
after the breakup, happens with private utilities that are taken over by the 
local govenment.  Not always, but it does.

  -jack-
From: beh10@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Holsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:04:46 GMT
Reply-To: beh10@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Holsinger)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>
>But the very idea that the government has a right to create legal
>monopolies, or that it has a right to dictate the prices of a company 
>(to whom it hasn't granted such a monopoly) presupposes that an
>individual and his property exist to be disposed of at the whim of 
>bureaucrats (or the people who elected them).  This is not so -- and
>it was in an attempt to escape such governments that this country
>was created.
>
>Whether an individual owns a pencil or a multi-national corporation, he 
>*does* own it, and so long as he refrains from violating the rights of 
>others, nobody can properly take it (or any part of it) away from him.
>Neither can anybody but the owner properly dictate the use and
>disposal of his property.
>

The government maintains the right of "imminent domain", which allows
that government to effectively take your property and use it for the
good of the population.  Although not completely applicable in this
argument, it shows that the idea of ultimate individuality, that you
propose, does not truly exist.


--
Barry Holsinger       | I ain't git'n et by no gators to make my wage!
Sunnyvale, CA         | There are better ways to make a buck in dis
beh10@DUTS.amdahl.com | nutty town!!  -Ralph Snart
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: bicker@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Reply-To: Brian.C.Kohn@att.com (The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality)
Organization: The Internet
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:42:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate

Terry writes:
>>Others have compared multiple cable companies sharing the cable to
>>multiple long distance carriers sharing the phone lines.  It is not a
>>correct analogy.  We already have multiple channels, owned and
>>operated by competing firms, sharing the cable.  We have a single
>>local operator, as we do in the phone system, and no choice about it.I
>>can drop AT&T or MCI anytime I want to, but I have no choice about NY
>>Telephone.  

I think many people have read this but it has simply not
registered...so I'll reiterate what you said if you don't mind...

Susan responds:
>Then you don't understand the analogy.  The comparison is between the
>cable system and long distance telephone service.  You can choose
>MCI, Sprint, or AT&T. You can only have one at a time, per phone number.
>But within each one, you receive a whole host of services.
>If cable were set up the same way, you could choose between competing
>cable operators.  Each one would offer you a selection of services,
>packages, and deals, and you would choose the operator that offered what
>you wanted.

But you still have the same LOCAL phone company...just like we have a
LOCAL cable company who provides the line to the house...and acts as the
agent for dozens of "long distance" cable services (ESPN, HBO, ...)
which actually offer cable service.  I know my cable company doesn't
offer any substantial cable service itself (if you don't include the
public access channel.)

That's the analogy.  The company that provides the service to the
house is, or should be, a public utility.  In my area, cable companies
are currently the only for-profit, non-utilities that get those
easements from the townships to string (or lay) wires. 

-- 
Brian Charles Kohn               using !bicker's account
Poet-Magician of "Quality"       E-MAIL: bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM
    'Hope, not fear, is the most positive advocate of action.' - S.R. Lawhead
                   Stamp Out "SO": "RP" = "Romantic Partner"
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:22:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:

>In article <3718@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:
>>grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:

Now, I'm really confused.  Jonathan first said:

>>>Again, I must repeat: Cable tv is already regulated.  What we are
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^           
>>>talking about is adding further regulations. 
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Jack Radigan replied:

>>  Cable TV rates are *not* regulated, haven't been for over a decade now.


To which Jonathan said:

>I never said the rates were regulated.  What I do say, however is that
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Exuse me, but I understand forgetting what one has said a long time ago,
but to say something in the beginning of a post and then later, in the
same post, that you never said it, is a bit inconsistant.

What gives?

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: re: cablevision lies )Jonathan Grad(
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 02:15:04 PDT
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems, Moraga, CA

In the sense of the phrase "natural monopoly" you are using, there
is no such thing. In Calfornia and at least several other states,
PG&E has sent literature stating that you can buy electrical power
from other power providers to be shipped over their power lines.
There are alternatives to the phone company for the connection
from your long distance provider to your business phone, several
companies offer to run fiber optic cables direct from their facility
to yours.

There are other examples, but my point is that making arrangements
to bypass your favorite "natural monopoly" service provider is
economically prohibitive , or at best, not cost-effective for the
average individual user. One of the primary purposes of government
is to take the side of the individual against "natural monopolies".

You are correct in your statement that there are several municipalities
where competition exists in the provision of cable service. Perhaps
you would like to explain to us why this phenomenon is rare instead
of commonly available.

A.Lizard
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:53:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

terryk@encore.com (Terence M. Kelleher) writes:

>In article <1992Sep11.002344.17362@draco.macsch.com> jfc@salmon.sea.macsch.com (Jack Castro) writes:


>Others have compared multiple cable companies sharing the cable to
>multiple long distance carriers sharing the phone lines.  It is not a
>correct analogy.  We already have multiple channels, owned and
>operated by competing firms, sharing the cable.  We have a single
>local operator, as we do in the phone system, and no choice about it.I
>can drop AT&T or MCI anytime I want to, but I have no choice about NY
>Telephone.  

Then you don't understand the analogy.  The comparison is between the
cable system and long distance telephone service.  You can choose
MCI, Sprint, or AT&T. You can only have one at a time, per phone number.
But within each one, you receive a whole host of services.

If cable were set up the same way, you could choose between competing
cable operators.  Each one would offer you a selection of services,
packages, and deals, and you would choose the operator that offered what
you wanted.

>How can it improve the local service? What does a second company on
>the same line get you?  You are still dependent on one primary local
>carrier and your service will be good or bad based on that one
>carriers.  

What about more than a second company.  What about a number of companies.
What if the lines belong to an independent party that doesn't deliver any
cable service, it just makes money by leasing space on the wires?

>Does your choice of A&T vs. SPRINT matter if your local telephone
>carrier can't provide proper signal strength and noise free lines?

Those are the restrictions of a utility.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:26:27 GMT

terryk@encore.com (Terence M. Kelleher) writes:
>There may be some isolated cases of competition in the cable industry,
>but what sane person would enter into competition with an established
>cable system?  First, you invest a bundle in equipment and cable to
>serve your area, and what do you have?  A price war with a competitor
>who has paid off his equipment years ago, while your company has a
>heavy debt overhead for years to come.

>Allowing competition now, with few unexploited markets available, will
>not yeild competition.  

This argument can be used for any business.  Why does a grocery store
enter a market already serviced by one?  In fact, the newer cable
company may also have an advantage in that technology advances make his
equipment cheaper than the established competitor's.
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate