From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:31:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.22256@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org> jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:
>Andy, without geting into the "no win" debate about whether government should
>uphold some moral standards (I believe it must, but I realize many who haven't
>thought it through don't agree), 

Your ad hominem arguments are an insult. I am sure that just as many
people who have thought it through don't agree with you, and a good
number of those who haven't do agree. 

>let me just throw this thought at you.  Let's
>say the cable company puts some unscrambled soft porn on the cable. 

Your argument falls apart in the first sentence. There are enough people
who would pay extra for this that the cable company would be selling
this as a pay service. If it comes into your home unscrambled, it is
your fault -- either you are paying for it or you are getting some
thrill over getting something for free and you haven't called to have it
fixed.

> This will
>cause some folks (like me) to drop their cable service, 

Why? If you don't want a channel, get a lockout. Supervise your
children's TV viewing. Be a parent instead of a placeholder. Why is it
the cable company's responsibility for what your children watch instead
of yours and your childrens?

>(if you don't see what the
>problem is with that, wait until you have kids of your own).  

If you can't present a rational argument that proves that something is
a problem, don't pull the "wait until your father comes home" line and
expect anyone to jump. This is just another of those "if you were
smarter you would agree with me" arguments that serve only to insult.

>If enough folks
>like me cancel their cable service, the cable company will use that as
>justification to raise rates even further.

Or as a reason to change their lineup. 

>I realize that advocating a modicum of censorship in this group is like
>advocating motorcycle helmet laws at a biker's convention, but I do feel that
>our country has to regain some of our moral underpinnings

Federal Regulation of Moral Underpinnings is a waste of time and
effort, and a violation of a number of sections of the Constitution.
I am certain that you would not object in the least were YOUR morals to
be legislated, but until you allow me to legislate MY morality on YOU
don't you DARE try to legislate yours on me.

>If you ever have a violent
>crime committed against you, or some member of your family, there's a pretty
>good chance that the perpetrator got the idea (or at least the urge) from
>watching some sleazy movie, quite possibly on cable TV.

Do you have proof of this claim, or is this just the unsubstantiated
guessing of someone who wants to censor what his neighbor watches on TV?

>Remember that on most cable systems, what gets piped into your home also gets
>piped into mine (if we're served by the same system) and there are some forms
>of "entertainment" that I simply do not wish to have available in my home.  

Here is a novel concept: if you don't want it in your home, don't have
it in your home. It really is that simple.

>In
>fact, I would even find it objectionable that part of my monthly cable bill
>would go to subsidize such channels, when I never watch them and don't really
>want them to exist. 

Here is a novel concept: if you don't want to support programming that
you don't like, don't. 

> And that is part of the problem with cable as it is
>currently structured... we have to take only the channels the cable company
>chooses to offer, and then we are forced to pay for all of those channels
>whether we want them or not.  

Baloney. There are several channels on my local cable system that I do
not desire to pay for -- and I do not.

>I wish there were a system where we could, say,
>pick any 20 channels from a list of 50 and receive (and pay for) ONLY those
>channels.  I realize that's not technically feasible at this time, 

It is perfectly feasible. Addressable converters have been around for
many years.

>but it would be fairer 

Here's the problem. You are working under the assumption that life is
supposed to be fair.

>I realize the socialists in the crowd are probably tilting already, but just
>remember that folks like me have the option to NOT take cable service

That's right. So don't take it. Your problem is solved.

>(fortunately, it's not a government service for which we are taxed... yet...)
>so you can't force us to pay for obscene programming (unless, of course, it's
>on PBS, and we're working on that!).  :-)

I am sure you are.

While you are at it, can you do something about gasoline taxes? I don't
like where all the roads are, and I have no intention of using most of
them, so I should only have to pay a pro-rated amount based on the
percentage of the roads that I DO use.

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate