From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 12:58:10 GMT

In article <Bu08DM.18q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>
>In article <Sep03.014035.18388@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> bc338569@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Brian Catlin) writes:
>>In article <BtyytA.DLs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Sep2.170848.10491@mcc.com> amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>>>>In article <Btxpp4.C98@cmptrc.lonestar.org> andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart) writes:
>>>>>   Do you KNOW that they would like to charge me an ADDITIONAL FIVE DOLLARS
>>>>>   for each TV set hooked up in the house?  No additional services, just
>>>>>   more extensions.
>>>>
>>>Tell me, do you think that the phone company should charge you $5 extra
>>>per month for EACH and EVERY PHONE you have connected to your phone line
>>>in your home? Even if you OWN those phones? I notice that the phone company
>>>doesn't try to charge you for having a phone jack in your bedroom as well
>>>as your living room. Why should the cable company be any different?
>>
>>Actually, it does cost the cable company extra.  (A _very_ little extra).
>>When adding several sets, the cable company must supply you with a stronger
>>signal, which also takes some of the signal away from the rest of the people
>>farther down the distribution cable.
>
>Sorry, but that's not true at all.
>
>I currently have 4 devices connected to my cable. RapeVision barely
>provides me with enough signal to drive ONE TV; in order to drive 4, I
>needed to purchase, at my own expense, a CATV distribution amplifier. It
>costs RapeVision NOTHING extra for my 3 "extra" sets; therefore they
>have absolutely no right to charge me for hooking them up.

As Khan points out, it does NOT cost the cable company anything extra
in terms of signal strength/level.  The problem (if any) stems from
a lack of standrads relative to what the cable company delivers to
the residential property in terms of signal level.  The cable 
companies should be required to deliver to every subscriber a signal
within certain minimum/maximum parameters, especially as to signal
levels.  The subscriber should be required to provide the proper
electrical termination to the cable (a 50 ohm impedance).  In fact,
one could provide a relatively inexpensive (less than 10 dollars)
isolation device that the cable company could use as its termination to
the residential property.  The resident/owner could then run his
own inside wiring and if needed add an broadband amplifier (less than
50 bucks at Radio Shack) if the resident terminated enough sets
that a stronger signal was needed.

Bottom line...additional sets cost the cable company nothing (other than
the one time additional wiring costs) and
serve only as an added revenue source.  The cable company delivers
nothing extra to those homes paying for additional TVs.  Even if the
cable company added a broadband amplifier, that is a one time
capital cost that is more than offset in just the few months of extra
fees they derive AND, there's no reason an individual (as Khan above)
can't install their own inside wiring and broadband amplifier if one
is needed..

The cable companies want a total monopoly on their service.  The phone
company's had that once.  Since divestiture of the telephone 
equipment in the home, a whole splinter group of businesses that
install and maintain the residential phones (for those that don't
want to do it themselves) has grown.  There's no reason that can't
be the same thing for home/inside wiring for TV connected to cable
systems.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate