HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Anti-regulation ad overriding normal commercial!!!!
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:06:56 GMT

Lifetime, as most other basic, cable tv satellite delivered stations
provide cable tv operators with 2 or 3 minutes of advertising availability.
You have probably seen local companies advertising on Lifetime before, 
althoug it is possible Continental is just now using the ads.  Normally the
timing should be a little better and it should look like part of the program.
All the program suppliers run their own ads in that time slot alotted for
the local cable company, simply because many cable companies do not use
the "avails".  No hanky-panyk there.
Bob Vogel
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: competition
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 07:03:34 GMT

this is a test but the article following, if any, is real

Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: root@sanger.chem.nd.edu (Doctor Math)
Subject: Re: Switching Channels During Olympics
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:17:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.161150.9001@polari> pacific@polari.online.com writes:
>
>     During the Olympics the Viacom cable franchise in the Tacoma area
>moved the Canadian Broadcasting Company channel and one of the shopping
>channels to a frequency that I could not tune without one of their cable
>boxes.  they did this so they could accomodate NBC's pay-per-view.  Viacom
>did this without any prior warning.  IMHO this constitutes a breech of
>contract with subscribers.

Yes, it does. Some cable companies are facing class-action suits about this
very issue. The decision here was to compensate subscribers by giving them
one free month of the "premium" channel of their choice, BUT ONLY IF THEY
CALLED TO COMPLAIN. No complaint, no compensation. What a wonderful policy.
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:14:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

cole@concert.net (Derrick C. Cole) writes:

>>  The *only* solution to the competition problem in the cable TV industry is
>>to remove the cable.  Wireless systems would provide the competition that wou
>>obviate the need for regulation.

>You started out well, but then missed the boat.  Regulation is NOT the answer
>to the apparent problems with the cable industry.  Competition is the ONLY
>answer to meet the demands of consumers (better service, cheaper prices,
>programming diversity and accessibility) in such a widespread, visible, and
>controversial industry.

  You twit, read that first quote, *I* posted it!  I missed nothing.  When you
are faced with a single operator, wired system you have no competition.  To
allow that to happen you have to remove the cable.  It's all quite simple,
really.

  -jack-
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
	<Sep.14.11.13.30.1992.507@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
	<1992Sep15.013023.13455@news2.cis.umn.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:25:39 GMT

>>
>>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.  
>>
>Food, clothing and shelter are also more necessary.  Are you advocating
>that the government heavily regulate those areas?
>I think we have a fundamental disagreement, as you state (which I 
>accidentally deleted and can't get back - sorry).

Maybe he isn't, but I am...  Lets face it if a man who owns a well in
the the middle of a desert and charges a dieing men everything they own for
enough water to possably make it to the next water hole...  who is 
going to blame someone who shoots him in the back of the head?  The real
question is cable a need, or a desire?  As far as I'm concern it is still
a desire, but I have this clearly will not be true too far in the future...

                                        Bill
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Archive or FTP source 4 this group?
Date: 3 Sep 92 06:10:44 GMT
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

Is there an archive file of all the messages posted to this conference?
Can you tell me where and how to access it?  If this is old news to the
group, please reply direct to me.  Thanks for any help.
Bob Vogel
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:37:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department

In article <Sep.14.13.22.24.1992.19093@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>
>>>grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>
>
>>>>Again, I must repeat: Cable tv is already regulated.  What we are
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^           
>>>>talking about is adding further regulations. 
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Jack Radigan replied:
>
>>>  Cable TV rates are *not* regulated, haven't been for over a decade now.
>
>
>To which Jonathan said:
>
>>I never said the rates were regulated.  What I do say, however is that
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Exuse me, but I understand forgetting what one has said a long time ago,
>but to say something in the beginning of a post and then later, in the
>same post, that you never said it, is a bit inconsistant.
>
>What gives?


Let me repeat:
The provision of cable services is regulated at the local level.  That
does not mean that the rate is regulated.  Thus, the above two points
are quite consistent.
From: garrem@aix.rpi.edu (Matthew Olsen Garretson)
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 22:40:07 GMT

In article <47496@shamash.cdc.com> map@svl.cdc.com writes:
>To advocate government regulation of an industry (any industry) is
>implicitly to claim the right to the use and disposal of other people's 
>lives and property.  Why is this not clear to those of you who support 
>government regulation of the economy, or if it is clear, how do you
>justify it? 

To me it's pretty clear, but I don't own a cable company and I'm greedy, so
I want the cable company to do as much as possible for me while at the
same time charging me as little as possible.  
-- 
Matt Garretson                       :-)                          garrem@rpi.edu
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: sdw@meaddata.com (Stephen Williams)
Subject: Anti-regulation ad overriding normal commercial!!!!
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:22:42 GMT

I couldn't believe it!

Here in Miamisburg (suburb of Dayton, OH), we have Continental
Cablevision.

My family happened to have the TV on on Lifetime watching something,
and they had a anti-regulation ad with newspaper quote style warnings
of rate doubling, etc.

The thing that really shocked me was that when it was over, there was
a noticable flip, as if the channel was switched back to another feed,
and the last 1.5 seconds of some mail-order commercial (order screen).

They obviously produced this thing and overroad the normal ad with
their own (they had the Cont. Cable logo in the ad).

I wonder if Lifetime agreed to this?

sdw
--
Stephen D. Williams    SDW Systems (513) 496-5223 Pager (513) 439-5428 VMail
Object Oriented R&D    Internet: sdw@world.std.com CIS 76244.210@compuserve.com
Source Distribution    By Horse: 10028 Village Tree Ct., Miamisburg, OH 45342
GNU Support            ICBM: 39 34N 85 15W I love it when a plan comes together
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 05:59:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Sep15.013708.13689@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>Let me repeat:
>The provision of cable services is regulated at the local level.  That
>does not mean that the rate is regulated.  Thus, the above two points
>are quite consistent.

The current law of the land precludes the local level from
regulating the price, the content, when or how the rates can change,
the stations carried, etc.  About the *only* thing the local level
"regulates" is some general level of service in responding to
outages.  The way the law is today could NOT be stretched to mean
"regulated".
-- 
Glenn Tenney AA6ER
voice: (415) 574-3420 fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com
From: Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:24:24 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Sep15.013023.13455@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>Food, clothing and shelter are also more necessary.  Are you advocating
>that the government heavily regulate those areas?

Those areas *are* regulated. Various federal, state and local laws deal
with food quality, meat inspection, food packaging and labeling, food
additives,  fire-retardancy of children's clothing, building codes and zoning.

In some jurisdictions, there is explicit price regulation in the form of
rent controls. Food prices are implicitly regulated by quotas and
marketing boards established by the government.

A totally free market may lead to interesting clothing designs, but it
also leads to unsafe food and buildings that are firetraps.
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,chi.general
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:29:00 GMT
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:

>Why is it that the cable companies have complete control over you but
>not over me? 
  
  I live in an area that's too far for non-cable reception, further, the
development I live in prohibts antennas of any kind from being installed on
your property.  Since there is some television programming that I do care to
receive, I am forced to pay the cable operator their price in order to receive
it.  It's quite simple really, they have complete control over my television
since they are not in competition with anyone.

>Furthermore, if they have complete control over you, why are they
>allowing you to post your postings?

  Don't be such a twit.

>Here is a simple idea; if you don't think you are getting a good service
>for your money, don't subscribe.  I think cable is a waste, so I don't
>subscribe.  On the other hand, I think the Wall Street Journal is a
>great paper to read.  Although it is expensive, I am not calling for
>the government to regulate its price.  When its price exceeds that which
>I am willing to pay, I will stop reading it.

  Bad analogy.  The WSJ is an instance of a newspaper, it is not the only
newspaper in existence, there are less expensive alternatives that you can
choose to buy.

  There are no alternatives for me to go for my television signal.  The
solution of not buying it even though I want to does not want solve the
problem.

  -jack-
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 00:33:21 GMT

In article <3718@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:
>grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>
>>Again, I must repeat: Cable tv is already regulated.  What we are
>>talking about is adding further regulations. 
>
>  Cable TV rates are *not* regulated, haven't been for over a decade now.

I never said the rates were regulated.  What I do say, however is that
the effects of regulation are felt in the price structure.
The more the cable company has to pay for providing government extorted
facilities such as local access... the higher the base rate will be.

>
>>As for exorbitant price hikes, there is a simple principle:  If the
>>price is too high don't buy the good/service.
>
>  Are you this simplistic in all your rationaliztions?
>
>  -jack-

If you wish to consider my rationalization as simplistic, go ahead.
If my rationalization above is 'simplistic' then I proudly declare that,
in fact, all my rationalizations are this simplistic.   
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: jfc@salmon.sea.macsch.com (Jack Castro)
Subject: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Originator: jfc@salmon.sea.macsch.com
Organization: The MacNeal-Schwendler Corp. (MSC) Seattle Technical Office
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 00:23:44 GMT





Most everyone, including myself is not happy with the cable television
industry.  With all the negative Cable TV sentiment, it is easy to want the  worst for the Cable TV industry, and encourage regulation simply to get back
at these companies. We should, however, examine this Cable TV regulation bill
with open eyes, and not simply follow our angry hearts.

I believe the root of the problem is the fact that only a single Cable TV
company can transmit over any given cable. I have not heard clearly if this
restraint is due to a lack of cable technology, or due to current laws. It 
seems to be a combination of both.

I strongly believe the solution is to allow competition amongst the various
Cable TV companies over the same cables or over fiber optic networks. This
should improve service and product quality just as it has done in the long-
distance telephone industry. 

I do not believe the solution is to regulate the Cable TV industry. Regulation
will cost all taxpayers money and increase the size of the current government
bureaucracy. Furthermore, Cable TV companies will try as hard as they can to
stick us with additional fees within the regulations in order to recoup lost 
profits.  Also, if the Cable TV companies have to pay royalties to the networks
for broadcasting privilages, it is only natural for the Cable TV industry to
pass these added expenses onto the consumer. 

Personally, I believe that the networks should pay the Cable TV companies
to broadcast their signals. By doing so, the networks reach a tremendously
larger audience for their advertisers. Hence, they can charge more for
advertisiing spots. Also, I believe that the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC)
are the strongest supporters for the current Cable TV regulation bill.

I have written my Congressman and Senator and asked him to vote against the
Cable TV regulation bill. I encourage everyone else to do the same. We need
competition, NOT additional regulations. We need to change the current laws
if they do not allow competition. 

-- 
 
Jack Castro                  E-MAIL: j_castro@macsch.com
(All opinions expressed are my own and not my employers.)
From: tmetro@ds5000.DAC.Northeastern.edu (Thomas Metro)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Anti-regulation bill ads
Date: 8 Sep 92 09:16:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston MA. USA 02115
cc: temetro


I just (9/6 ~11:45PM) saw an ad sponsored by my local cable co. (Continental
Cablevision) that claimed that the new regulation bill is being promoted by
special interest groups and that this bill is going to raise my cable costs.
The interesting part is that they showed newspaper clips from several local
papers (Boston Globe, etc.) featuring editorials that they claimed apposed
the bill and said how it would raise consumer costs. They emphasized the
names of the papers and not the fact that the articles were editorials.
They of course didn't mention who wrote the editorials. (A recent post
in alt.cable-tv.re-regulate described an editorial in the poster's local
paper written by a TCI executive.)
 
Within a minute later, another ad featuring a man being rained on under an
umbrella aired (sponsored by NCTA). This one might have been nationally fed
(as apposed to the previous ad which would only have been seen locally). 
Both ran on MTV. I have seen this second ad quite a few times lately.
 
At least the NCTA ad wasn't as deceptive as the local ad - even if what
they were saying wasn't true, they didn't try and back it up with misleading
proof.
 
There may be a few points in the senate bill that I disagree with, but I
will certainly welcome many parts of it, including preventing the cable
companies from turning off the IR remote receiver on the converter box - 
making your own remotes (programmable or otherwise) unusable. They claim
they are charging a rental fee for the remote - not an IR remote control
access fee.
 
 -Tom

tmetro@ds5000.dac.northeastern.edu

Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Switching Channels During Olympics
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 02:36:08 GMT
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Sep7.161150.9001@polari> pacific@polari.online.com writes:
>
>     During the Olympics the Viacom cable franchise in the Tacoma area
>moved the Canadian Broadcasting Company channel and one of the shopping
>channels to a frequency that I could not tune without one of their cable
>boxes.  they did this so they could accomodate NBC's pay-per-view.  Viacom
>did this without any prior warning.  IMHO this constitutes a breech of
>contract with subscribers.
>
>John Cohen
>Puyallup, Washington

And why did Viacom do this....  So that you could pick up the Triplecast
without the box???  I think not!  This is the typical type of stunts that
they pull all the time.  You need a box to descramble the triplecast, so
why put it on a channel that can be received without a box?  My guess is
so that they can rent out more cable boxes.

At least your cable system relocated the displaced channels.  What Televents
Cable in Contra Costa County did, was to put the triplecast on channels
3, 10, and 13.  For two weeks, these channels were totaly unavailable to
cable subscribers.  Those 4 channels, coupled with the shopping channel
on channel 11 means that there are 4 channels located in the lower 12 
channels which the cable company gets paid to carry.... and then they
have the nerve to bitch when the is the slightest talk about having to 
pay to carry broadcast stations.
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 15:16:14 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:

>In a previous article, someone wrote...

>>>Of course prices won't go up -- the government (backed by people like
>>>you) will point a gun at cable company owners and *force them* to
>>>keep their prices down.

>To which, someone responded

>>If there are no market forces to keep prices down, then I believe
>>the government should regulate them.  No gun is required, by the way.

>>If this makes you shake in your shoes.  Then, by all means, shake. People
>>with minds as narrow as yours deserve a good shaking.

>My definition of narrow mindedness is being unable to envision
>competition in the cable (actually entertainment) industry.

Well, that doesn't fit me.  As I have said many times.  I think 
competition in the cable industry is the best-case scenario.
However, until that is feasible ( and is isn't in most areas),
I think regulation should be the *temporary* solution.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Date: 13 Sep 92 02:45:08 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:

[...]
>Here is a simple idea; if you don't think you are getting a good service
>for your money, don't subscribe.  I think cable is a waste, so I don't
>subscribe.
[...]

While monopolies on nonessentials such as cable are better than
monopolies on essentials such as electric power, there're still not
as good as competition.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:44:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

jfc@salmon.sea.macsch.com (Jack Castro) writes:

>I strongly believe the solution is to allow competition amongst the various
>Cable TV companies over the same cables or over fiber optic networks. This
>should improve service and product quality just as it has done in the long-
>distance telephone industry. 

  Cable TV and telephones are not the same thing.  One is a distributive system
where the source propagates out to the receivers in a unidirectional fashion
while the other is a discrete network of point-to-point connections allowing
two-way communication.  The technologies involved are entirely dissimilar.

  The *only* solution to the competition problem in the cable TV industry is
to remove the cable.  Wireless systems would provide the competition that would
obviate the need for regulation.

>I do not believe the solution is to regulate the Cable TV industry. Regulation
>will cost all taxpayers money and increase the size of the current government
>bureaucracy. Furthermore, Cable TV companies will try as hard as they can to
>stick us with additional fees within the regulations in order to recoup lost 
>profits.  Also, if the Cable TV companies have to pay royalties to the network
>for broadcasting privilages, it is only natural for the Cable TV industry to
>pass these added expenses onto the consumer. 

  It's quite true that regulation will not lower prices, it might even raise
them a few dollars in the short run.

  The point you're missing, and the reason why regulation is necessary, is to
*stabilize* prices so that we don't see the exhorborant rate increases that
we've seen over the past decade.

  -jack-
From: tmetro@ds5000.DAC.Northeastern.edu (Thomas Metro)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:09:55 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA

In article <BuF4L5.5vF@cmptrc.lonestar.org> 
andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart) writes:
> It all sounds pretty good, but the part about the cable company deciding 
> standards for what can be tranmitted (family values) raises the hair on
> my neck a little bit.
That was my biggest objection to S-12. Other than that I would support it.
I'm interested to see what comes out of the rewrite that is going to occur.

 -Tom

tmetro@ds5000.dac.northeastern.edu