From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:13:31 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

map@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters) writes:

>In <Sep.9.10.20.27.1992.10670@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

>>map@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters) writes:

>Until the government decided to give its permission for telephone
>companies to transmit video over telephone lines, it was in fact
>illegal to do so.  And this is my primary point -- this is supposed

Yes, it was illegal for the *telephone* company to be involved in this
type of business.  That was one of the restrictions they had to accept
in order to be allowed the priviledge of monopoly status.  This had
nothing to do with protecting the cable companies.

It is not and never was illegal to compete with the cable company.  
That is my point.  If it were, one would not be allowed to have
a satellite dish in an area served by a cable franchise.

>to be a country founded on the unalienable rights of man, but in
>fact, all we have in many cases are permissions, not rights, which
>can be revoked at the whim of government bureaucrats.

A right does not mean that everyone can do whatever they please without
regard for anyone else.  

>The existence or non-existence of competition is completely irrelvant 
>to the issue -- this is a *moral* issue, not an economic one.  Every 
>individual has the moral *right* to make a profit by voluntary exchange 
>on a free market, and government regulation violates that right.

With most products, yes.  With information, no.  Information is not
treated like any other product because it is something that people
must have in order to participate in this society.  

>The absence of market forces is *caused* by government regulation of
>the industry.  These regulations (and all other laws) are, in fact,
>enforced at the point of a gun.  If a cable company owner tried to
>charge prices that were higher than the government imposed limit,
>he would be thrown in jail and/or fined -- and both actions require
>the use (or the threat of the use) of guns or some other means of
>physical force.

As long as you are under the impression that delivering information
into the home is a business that can be equated with delivering 
pizzas, then we really have nothing to discuss.  There are two many
basic concepts that we do not agree upon to make this a productive
discussion.

>>>I'm shaking in my shoes because I can't believe that our universities
>>>produce (or employ) people who so openly and unashamedly advocate the 
>>>enslavement of businessmen.  I take that back; I can believe it -- but
>>>it still scares the hell out of me.

>>First of all, no one is advocating the enslavement of businesspeople.
>>I am merely advocating regulation of a monopoly until market forces
>>can properly take over the job.

>But don't you see that what you advoate *is* slavery?  You want the
>government to *force* cable tv companies to satisfy your desire for
>lower prices.  But what about the desires of cable tv company 
>owners?  Are they not relevant?  You apparently think that you have

The cable owners are considered, at this point, natural monopolies.
That is their justification for being allowed to have sole access
to a single market.  This is not a right, this is a privilege.  In
return for that privilege, they give nothing.  I think they should
be required to submit to regulations that protect the interests of
their customers.  Interests that would be protect if they were 
actually competing in a free market.

>>Fourth, when you were interviewing for your position, did they give you 
>>a little quiz asking you about your political beliefs? Of course not.
>>Because that is illegal. They don't do that here at Rutgers either.  
>>I was hired based on my ability to do a job, not because of my political ideas.

>When I realized that you were probably an employee and not a student,

I was a student once.  I graduated from this very university.  I am
still a student here.  I am Master's student in the Communication and
Information Studies program.  I also am an employee here.

I and my philosophies are a product of this state-run university.

>I should have deleted my "...shaking in my shoes..." paragraph rather
>than merely adding the "(or employ)" parenthetical.  I don't believe
>that universities should exclude non-capitalist individuals from
>employment consideration, even though what I wrote can legitimately
>be interpreted in that way. 

Yes, but you still think that Universities should not produce such
non-capitalist individuals right?


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate