From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Cable Bill Rip-off
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:46:32 GMT



In article <adams.718479079@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>That's the problem with this bill:
>
>1) Cable companies are REQUIRED to carry the network stations
>
>2) Cable companies are REQUIRED to pay the networks

WRONG, add an "OR" between 1 and 2, as well as change 2 to read:
2) Broadcasters may require the cable company to aquire consent to
rebroadcast.

There is no mention of exchange of money.  The form of renumeration is up to
the arrangement between the broadcaster and the cable company.  If the
Broadcaster elects to use the retransmission consent clause, then the cable
company is no longer required to carry that station via the Must carry rule.

>
>3) No controls on network charges appear to have been set

WRONG (that contingency has been planned for)

SEC. 325 of the Communications act of 1934 (as ammended by S-12)
(3)(A) Within 45 days after the enactment of this subsection, the
Commission shall commence a rulemaking proceeding to establish 
regulations to govern the exercise by television broadcast stations
of the right to grant retransmission consent under this subsection
and of the right to signal carriage under section 614, and such
other regulations as are necessary to administer the limitations contained 
in paragraph (2). The Commission shall consider in such proceeding the
impact that the grant of retransmission consent may have on the rates for
basic cable service and shall ensure that rates for basic cable service
are reasonable.  Such rulemaking proceeding shall be completed within
six months after it's commencement.

More controls exist in the bill also.  

>In other words, the networks have the cable company and the consumer over a
>barrel.  They can charge whatever they want, and the cable company will
             ^^^^^^^ B U L L ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>have to pass on the costs to the public, who will be forking over money for
>something they can otherwise GET FOR FREE.

Get for free?????  Yea, If I received decided to publish Bay Area Computer
Currents on my BBS (BACC is a frebbie paper) for my bbs users to read 
online,  I am sure that the publisher would want to charge me for using
his work.  If I charged users to call my board and read the online version,
they probably would want to charge me more.  

>The House and Senate are out of their minds.

I'm glad they got in their minds for this one.

>
> -Steve
>--
>  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
>                         -------------------
>   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
>   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558

I suggest that the next time you decide to open your mouth and spout off
total BS,  You read up on what you plan to talk about.  I can tell from
your statements that you have not read the bill/law.  I thought that there
would be no-one foolish enough to believe these lies that the cable companys
were publishing.

I was wrong.  It looks like this may be the second person in as many days
who spouted of the cable lies (almost line for line) and allowed themselves
to be open for the true facts to be thrown back in their face.

Think before you open your mouth next time!

       tweek@netcom.com  tweek@tweekco.uucp  WWIVNet 5@5058  4@5056 
          I'd rather get my cable service from the phone company,
                than my phone service from the cable company.


Newsgroups: misc.consumers