From: walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Cable TV: Disorganized Crime, Was: Re: dangerous group
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:25:58 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

From article <0dwV03b=c8aQ00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, by jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston):
> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes:

# }From article <26qW0338c7Ym00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, by jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston):
# }> It's called "greed".  There _is_ such a thing as a fair and reasonable
# }> profit that serves equally well the two purposes of providing sufficient
# }> profit for the stockholders and making most customers feel that they are
# }> getting their monies worth.  It is not necessary to push the former to
# }> the upper limit while pushing the latter to the lower limit.

# }I hope that this does not cause you grief, but the purpose
# }of most businesses is to make money for the owners of that
# }business.  Call this greed if you will, but it is the basis
# }for the world as we know it.  Sure, there have been experiments
# }to the contrary (communism, socialism, etc.), but they have not
# }worked out very well.  Who is better at determining the manner
# }in which a business should be run?  You?  Me?  The government?
# }Oh, what about the owners?  Hmmm...  they might know something.

> Jeez, guy, did you even bother to read what I wrote before you jerked
> your knee and responded?  Show me where I attacked capitalism.  show
> me where I suggest that communism is or would be better.

> I did not say that capitalism is greed, nor that making a profit is
> greed.  I said that it is greed when you can't be satisfied with a
> *fair and reasonable* profit, but instead find it necessary to push
> your profit to the absolute limit at the expense of all else.

Perhaps your assertion that you somehow know just what a fair
and reasonable profit is.  If a company (cable or otherwise)
is making a profit in excess of what you call "fair and
reasonable," just what do you propose doing about it?

# }> But do you get CNN, Nickelodean, Arts & Entertainment, American Movie
# }> Classics, USA, Lifetime, The Family Channel, Bravo, TBS, TNT, MTV?  I

# }Much of the programming available through these services is
# }already available free through the land based station
# }network.

> Sorry, but this is flatly wrong.  Very little of what I watch on ANY
> of the above cable channels is available through ANY other source that
> I know of.

I see.  Do you have the misfortune to live in a place that
bans satellite dishes?  Are there video stores in your state?
And just what do you propose doing about this most dreadful
programming situation?

# }> Your argument is the same as arguing that PG&E is not a monopoly because
# }> you can just use candles and a kerosene heater.

# }Will your life be threatened if you get your [TV] cable
# }disconnected?  If so, seek professional help immediately.

> Why are you so bent on blowing everything totally out of proportion?  I
> said nothing about lack of cable threatening my life, I was only disputing
> your point that cable TV is not a monopoly.  It is most definitely a
> monopoly in most areas.  Your argument that there are alternative ways
> of obtaining TV signals does not lessen that monopoly in any way.  The
> monopoly is on the *cable* service, not on TV signals in general.

Interesting.  Yes, most communities have a monopoly on
cable service.  So?  It has been pointed out by many
that you can receive similar programming through land
based stations, or in the event that you live in an RF
black hole, the satellite network.  Of course you are
correct that there is no monopoly on TV signals in
general.  They're the best because they are free!
-- 
Mark Walsh (walsh@optilink) -- UUCP: uunet!optilink!walsh
AOL: BigCookie -- Amateur Radio: KM6XU@WX3K -- USCF: L10861
"What, me worry?" - William M. Gaines, 1922-1992
Newsgroups: ba.politics