From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Regulation
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 03:39:44 GMT
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES
Distribution: usa
Keywords: regulation, congress

In article <19423@ector.cs.purdue.edu> bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma) writes:
>
>In article <q3jny_c.tweek@netcom.com>, tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield) writes:
>|> In article <19402@ector.cs.purdue.edu> bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma) writes:
>|> >
>|> >   only transmit over cable and do not broadcast?  In summary, if I start
>|> >   a TV station and say cable can have my signal for free, which cable
>|> >   companies can I force to carry me? 
>|> 
>|> You ask a lot in one question... the exact desciption of what cable
>|> system, and what TV station takes up many lines of text in the bill.
>|> I suggest that you read the bill (either get it from your Reps in
>|> congress, or get the copy I am working on once I finish it, and read it.
>
>   I'll do that sometime.  But are you saying that this is so complicated
>   that it cannot be easily summarized?  If so, then I begin to have some

No, I am not saying that it is confusing.  I am saying that if is very
specific. There are LOCAL COMMERCIAL TELEVISION STATIONS, DISTANT COMMERCIAL
TELEVISION STATIONS, LOCAL NONCOMMERCIAL EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION STATIONS,
DISTANT NONCOMMERCIAL TELEVISION STATION, LOW POWER TELEVISION STATIONS...

But, with the bill being very specific, I found it very easy to read.  
LOCAL COMMERCIAL TELEVISION STATIONS, (limited to a percentage of total
channels available IE: 4 on a 12 channel system) can force cable systems
to carry them.  LOCAL NONCOMMERCIAL TV STATIONS can force cable companies
to carry them (limited to a percentage of total system capacity IE: 1 on
a 12 channel system)

>   sympathy for the cable companies.  People have been arguing that cable
>   really has nothing to complain about because if they are forced to carry
>   a station then they get it for free.  Problem is, no one has mentioned

AGAIN! This is a very small portion of the Act, but if you must...

S-12 SECTION 2 (11)-(19)

(11) Broadcast television stations continue to
be an important source of local news and public
affairs programming and other local broadcast services
critical to an informed electorate.

(12) Broadcast television programming is supported
by revenues generated from advertising
broadcast over stations.  Such programming is otherwise
free to those who own television sets and do not
require cable transmission to receive broadcast signals.  
There is a substantial governmental interest in
promoting the continued availability of such free
television programming, especially for viewers who are
unable to afford other means of receiving programming.

(13) As a result of the growth of cable television,
there has been a marked shift in market
share from broadcast television to cable
television services.

(14) Cable television systems and broadcast television
stations increasingly compete for television
advertising revenues.  As the proportion of households
subscribing to cable television increases,
proportionately more advertising revenues will be
reallocated from broadcast to cable television systems.

(15) A cable television system which carries the
signal of a local television broadcaster is assisting
the broadcaster to increase its viewership, and thereby
attract additional advertising revenues that otherwise
might be earned by the cable system operator.
As a result, there is an economic incentive for cable
systems to terminate the retransmission of the
broadcast signal, refuse to carry new signals, or
reposition a broadcast signal to a disadvantageous
channel position.  There is a substantial likelihood
that absent the reimposition of such a requirement,
additional local broadcast signals will be deleted,
repositioned, or not carried.

(16) As a result of the economic incentive that
cable systems have to delete, reposition, or not carry
local broadcast signals, coupled with the absence of
a requirement that such systems carry local broadcast
signals, the economic viability of free local
broadcast television and its ability to originate 
quality local programming will be seriously jeapardized.

(17) Consumers who subscribe to cable television
often do so to obtain local broadcast signals
which they otherwise would not be able to receive,
or to obtain improved signals. Most subscribers to
cable televisions do not or cannot maintain
antennas to receive broadcast television services, do
not have input selector switches to convert from a
cable to antenna reception system, or cannot otherwise
receive broadcast television services.  The regulatory
system created by the Cable Communications
Policy Act of 1984 was premised upon the continued
existence of mandatory carriage obligations for cable
systems, ensuring that local stations would be 
protected from anticompetitive conduct by cable
systems.

(18) Cable television systems often are the single
most efficient distribution system for television
programing. A government mandate for a substantial
societal investment in alternative distribution
systems for cable subscribers, such as the A/B
input selector antenna system, is not an enduring or
feasible method of distribution and is not in the 
public interest.

(19) At the same time, broadcast programming
that is carried remains the most popular programming
on cable systems, and a substantial portion of
the benefits for which consumers pay cable systems
is derived from carriage of the signals of network
affiliates, independent televisions stations, and public
television stations.  Also, cable programming placed
on channels adjacent to popular off-the-air signals
obtains a larger audience than on other channel 
positions.  Cable systems, therefore, obtain great
benefits from local broadcast signals which, until now,
they have been able to obtain without the consent of
the broadcaster or any copyright liability.  This has
resulted in an effective subsidy of the development
of cable systems by local broadcasters.  While at one
time, when cable systems did not attempt to compete
with local broadcasters for programming, audience,
and advertising, this subsidy may have been appropriate,
it is so no longer and results in a competitive
imbalance between the two industries.


>   which stations can force a cable company to give them access.  This is
>   extremely relevant to the discussion.  If I were a cable company and
>   any TV station on the planet could force me to carry them, I would be
>   scared too!  A good portion of the facts seem to be being left out of
>   the argument.

I answered that in the first section.  If you want the full bill, 
email me and I will send you a zipped up version uuencoded.  The 
full Bill is about 100K unzipped.  The zip is about 30 K and I would
guess that the uuencode file is about 50K.  I am currently looking for 
an FTP site to put the text (any offers) but I will for now, email it
to those who ask for it (tweek@netcom.com).

>
>   I do not work for any cable company, nor am I associated with anyone 
>   that does.  I quit subscribing to cable 2 months ago when I moved, but 
>   I will probably subscribe again sometime, so I am interested in how
>   this all turns out.  Thank those of you that have posted info about this
>   bill.  I am inclined, as many of you are, to believe that if the cable
>   execs say this bill is a bad thing, it must in fact be good.  However,

Can 75% of both Congressional houses be wrong?  (Don't answer that)
With support like that, there must be something to it.  Don't you think
that if you are going to take up a viewpoint on it, it should be an informed
one?  Read the Bills, and then make up your mind  (which I hope would be
for regulation but... be informed either way).

>   I would like to know for sure.

But if any of us knew for sure on anything, we would not need to live, we
would already have done it all.  (Thats slight humor for those of you whose
blood is still boiling wishing I'd shut up)