From: terryk@encore.com (Terence M. Kelleher)
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:15:39 GMT
	<TERRYK.92Sep11104927@fenix.encore.com>
	<Sep.14.11.53.49.1992.6611@gandalf.rutgers.edu>

In article <Sep.14.11.53.49.1992.6611@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

   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.
I understand the analogy.  I don't think it is a valid one.  Even if
sharing the cable amound multiple program package providers was
technically possible  (I don't think it is due to bandwitdh
limitations of video cable in use today)  you are still left with a
single company who is responsible for providing the physical cable and
base transmissions.  The program providers could free-market their
prices right down to rock bottom, but you still have to pay for a
single company to provide the basic support they are all dependent on

   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.

The way I see it, they are already set up the same.  I am limited to a
single choice for the basic support.  Yes or no.  I pay whatever the
local provider charges, as they are a monopoly.  I then can choose the
extras, such as which long distance carrier, which pay stations, etc.

   >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?

And as it is a monopoly, charges whatever it wants for that space?

   >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.

Eh?  The utility is what we are paying for.  What do you mean by this?
--

                                 +----------------+
Terence Kelleher              +--+-------------+  |
Encore Computer Corp.         |  | E N C O R E |  |
terryk@encore.com             |  +-------------+--+
607-687-2644                  +----------------+

Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate