Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
From: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 09:26:22 GMT
Organization: Northern Bytes BBS - Sault Ste. Marie, MI U.S.A.

In article <BuyqD1.643@news.orst.edu> dated Tue, 22 Sep 1992 04:41:21 GMT,
stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) wrote:

 > You admit you had and know about lockouts, but you still complain that
 > you had no way of stopping unwanted channels.

I know that they exist.  I don't know how or where to get one or install it.

 >> Now I do realize that it is probably
 >> possible to use technological means to eliminate certain channels (e.g.
 >> traps)

 > Probably possible? You admit having done it in the past.

Pardon me?  I never said any such thing (and if I did, then I mis-typed
something because I have NEVER used a trap).  Back when the cable company used
converter boxes (which they do not anymore), I had THEM disable MTV in my
converter box. But that would not work now, because they took away the
converter boxes.  So what I am saying is, I don't personally know how to
disable a particular channel other than trying to get the cable company to do
it.

 >> So, I'm not going to waste my time looking for "proof"

 > Is this an admission that you have never had the proof and that you
 > aren't going to start looking for it now? Sure sounds like it.

Someday I'm going to have to find and re-post my little text file about the
impossibility of finding "proof" that will satisfy anyone on an electronic
communications network.  I've tried it too many times in the past... researched
a subject only to have someone reject my "proof" out of hand because they
wouldn't accept my source as an authority (of course, I was expected to accept
THEIR source as the center of all enlightenment).  Sorry, I don't play that
game anymore.

 >> > Federal Regulation of Moral Underpinnings is a waste of time and
 >> > effort, and a violation of a number of sections of the Constitution.
 >>
 >> That is one of the most blatent mis-statements to ever be posted in a
 >> newsgroup. After the way you blasted me for "ad hominem arguments" and
 >> such, I

 > This is not an ad hominem.

 >> cannot believe that you'd resort to the "big lie" technique here (and THIS
 >> one is a WHOPPER!). The only thing in the Constitution that even comes
 >> CLOSE to saying this is the so-called "establishment clause", which
 >> forbids the FEDERAL government from establishing a religion

 > Uhh, I think there IS still a 1st Amendment, something about not
 > limiting the freedom of the press. And a 4th, something dealing with
 > the right to privacy? Or did you repeal those two?

Those amendments give you specific rights, but I still don't see how it
supports your statement that "Federal Regulation of Moral Underpinnings is ...
a violation of a number of sections of the Constitution."

 >> Somehow, I suspect that you would indeed like to see your standard of
 >> morality embodied in law.

 > Bzzzzzzzt.

Well, if that is NOT the case, you are probably one of only a handful of people
who would not.

 > Until you are ready to accept other's moral codes imposed on you, you
 > are not ready to attempt to impose yours on others. Despite your
 > opinions, you have no moral imperative.

I already have to accept other's moral codes imposed on me.  They are embodied
in the laws of the federal, state, and local governments.  I don't agree with
all of them, and I think a few of them are downright IMmoral, but I still have
to accept them (at least until the legislature changes them).

 >> Try asking your state police for statistics on the link between
 >> pornography and violent sex crime.  If you really care, THEY have the hard
 >> facts, because they have to deal with it.

 > No, if YOU want the Feds to regulate what gets put on TV, the YOU had
 > better be able to supply the proof of what you claim. If YOU really
 > cared, YOU would have the hard facts, because YOU would have asked for
 > facts before you started making claims.

If I get to the point of talking to the feds about it, I *will* supply proof.
The proof is available but it would take some time to research, and there are
other organizations that are already involved in that anyway.

 >> Exactly.  But there may be consequences to society when people are allowed
 >> to view this stuff.

 > Yes. It is called "freedom". It generally has serious consequences. One
 > of those is "eternal vigilance" -- keeping watch for those who would
 > rather those freedoms didn't exist. Those who think they know best what
 > type of material I should read or watch on TV.

Absolute freedom is also known as anarchy, if you have two or more people
trying to exercise it at the same time and in the same general place.

 >> If a person who is engaged in criminal sexual behaviour lives
 >> down the street, just keeping pornography away from my family isn't going
 >> to restrict his access to it.

 > Neither is stopping the cable company from carrying it.

It would sure make it harder for him to access it, though.

 > Even should such
 > a law pass through the courts, other sources have already been qualified
 > as "press", and their 1st amendment rights adjudicated favorably.

Well, I have to tell you that I would not be all that surprised to see the
First Amendment either modified or dumped entirely one of these days, given all
the trouble we've had with liberal judges stretching it beyond all reason.
That's not what I would want to see happen, but I fear it just may.

 > Of course, you have yet to provide even one shred of evidence that
 > keeping such material from him will protect your family. Seems likely
 > that, barring a simple, legal way to get his jollies, he might turn to
 > illegal ones.

Or, on the other hand, it might give him ideas he hadn't previously had.

 >> For example, even though I had NO desire to watch MTV, I'll bet that part
 >> of my cable bill was going to them.

 > And I bet that there are plenty-o-people who are pissed as hell that
 > their cable carries the Family Channel or EWTN and that their money
 > goes to pay for that.

Don't quote me, but I believe those networks are provided either for free or at
a very low rate.  And the Family Channel does carry a lot of secular
programmimg.

 >> >> but it would be fairer
 >>
 >> > Here's the problem. You are working under the assumption that life is
 >> > supposed to be fair.
 >>
 >> I realize it isn't, in many ways, but that doesn't mean we can't try to
 >> make it fairer.

 > Free Clue: putting YOU in charge of what I get to watch is not making
 > life fairer for anyone but you.

I disagree.  If I were put in charge, I would truly try to do what was best for
everyone. I probably wouldn't want the responsibility, because I'd keep getting
flamed by guys like you, but the truth is that none of us always gets his way,
and life is unfair to all of us at times.

But you act as though NO ONE is currently in charge of "what you get to watch."
But in fact many are... network executives, station owners, cable franchise
owners and so on.  All make decisions that affect what you get to watch.

 >> And just close my eyes to how it may be affecting the rest of society,
 >> right?

 > You haven't any proof of how it is affecting the rest of society. You
 > have closed your eyes already.

Bzzzzzzzt.

 >> Waht I hear you saying is, you'd like to pay tolls every time you leave
 >> your driveway.  Well, I suppose it could be done, but hiring all those
 >> toll-takers and creating the support mechanism necessary to collect the
 >> tolls would probably make it so expensive that few could afford to drive.

 > You mean, just like forcing cable companies to use fully addressable
 > converters and to offer pick and choose? You mean like all the hardware
 > that they would have to buy, and all the people they would have to hire
 > to man the phones so that finicky customers could call up today to get
 > A&E because there will be a good movie and then dropping it tomorrow
 > would make cable service so expensive that few could afford it?

Surely you don't think they would pass up the opportunity to charge a service
fee for adding and dropping channels?  Haven't they learned ANYTHING from the
telephone companies?  :-)

 >> A better
 >> comparison might be in going to a video store and buying a video... only
 >> the makers of the video you purchased receives the royalties on that
 >> video; they are not divided evenly among the makers of every tape in the
 >> store.

 > And part of the money you pay goes to the store owner, who buys movies
 > to rent to other people using that money -- movies you might not like.
 > And to pay his rent so that he can provide these awful movies.

 > You had better stop going to the movie store. They do awful things with
 > your money.

What you CAN do is only patronize a video store that doesn't carry the X-rated
stuff.  Personally, I hardly ever rent videos anyway (again, too much
profanity... I'd rather wait for the TV version where most of the profanity is
cut).

Jack

Jack Decker                               | No, I don't own an Amiga; I just
Internet address: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com | get Internet mail via a gateway
Fidonet address:  1:154/8                 | system that runs on an Amiga.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv