From: rjh@selway.umt.edu (The Necromancer)
Subject: Re: Question pertaining to the Cable Bill
Organization: University of Montana
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:34:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.180445.15195@netcom.com> tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.153048.10974@rock.concert.net> cole@concert.net (Derrick C. Cole) writes:
>>I received a card in the mail last week notifying me of rate changes to my
>>cable service AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the recent legislation effective 1/1/93.
>>They graciously informed me my rates would increase by no more than 5 percent
>>AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the recent legislation.
>
>Yow,  Do you have the exact wording of this notice?  Did they hint that
>the rate increase was due to the bill, or did they come right out and say it?
>It is still too early for them to know what the effects of the bill will be
>since the FCC is still working out most of the details.  Sounds like they are
>just trying to stuff their pockets in a last attempt to make money without
>any regulation.

YES!!!  this is a direct result of the Cable Act!  The Act requires that all
systems must carry local broadcast stations, these stations may make up one
third of the cable companies programming.  The bill also states that these 
broadcast stations may request payment for their signal.  The cable company 
cannot refuse to carry the station, no matter their price.  This issue is
currently in court, as it is viewed as unconstitutional by most cable operators. 
>>My question:  Without knowing the details of the bill, is this action...
>>1) Expected?
>Yes,  I would expent nothing less from the cable industry.
>>2) Legal?
>Yes, except for the lying.  But it should have no effect once the regulation
>happens.
Lying? Not at all.  The Bill was wrongly named a consumer protection act.  get
a copy of the act. read it.  you would be suprised at what it says.
>>3) Premature?
>Yes, if they claim it is due to the re-regulation.
No, The broadcast stations may already be demanding payment.  This cost will be
passed on to the subscriber.
>>4) Necessary?
>?  Maybe.  IMO, probably not.
IMHO, yes. absolutly.  few americans have taken a look at how business at a
cable company is conducted.  They are merely trying to make a reasonable amount
of money just as any other business.  They too must pay for the items they sell. 
>>5) Justified?
>Depends on answer to #4
>>Another aside:  They also are not even considering adding any new channels
>>(namely the Sci-Fi Channel and the Cartoon Network) until April 93.  They're
>>"waiting to see just what will result from it [the Cable Bill] besides the
>>rate increase."  I didn't realize the rate increase was part of the recent
>>legislation...
>
>It's not... They (no-one) knows what the effects will be, and thus the
>cable companies are LYING when they say it is.  It is the same BULL that
>they were spreading before the congress voted on the bill.
>

No, No, No!  In your case the effect IS making itself known.  I know MANY cable
operators, and trust me, the last thing they want is flames from the subscribersNowhere in the bill does it make mention of a rate decrease of any sort.  Only
regulation, which will be another 16 months before the FCC comes up with their
formulas.  These formulas are giving the FCC a very difficult time!  They must
allow for such things as inflation, cost of rebuilds, cost of new equipment 
required by the Bill, etc.  No one knows what this formula will look like yet.
Having grown up with the cable industry around me, I cannot think of any way
to regulate the rates of every cable system in the US in a manner that is fair
to customers and cable operators alike.

I have a copy of the bill, and an interpretation of the bill in plain english
by the Washington DC law firm Cole, Rawid & Braverman.  I would be more than
happy to discuss various aspects of what the bill requires cable ops to do and
what effect it will have on the subscribers.

Ryan Hilliard
rjh@selway.umt.edu