Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 02:06:10 PDT
From: zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: U.S. Cable Television Re-Regulation
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 732, Message 2 of 8

On Sep 25 at 16:10, Richard Nash writes:

> I honestly enjoy and appreciate reading from the mind of someone who
> is fearless in expressing their ideals and challenging those of us
> that are still learning ...

Thank you. I accept that as a compliment.

> So if this is so realistic, why haven't I heard about the J.H. Telco and
> Auto Repair Kompany? :) :) :)

For the simple reason that the my phone company exists under another
name. Oh, are you surprised that I practice what I preach? I have been
in the long distance business for some time. Unlike many on the forum,
however, I do not solicit business or promote my services in any way
on the net. So instead of an Organization: line that reads 'Hayes' or
'IBM', it reads 'Green Hills and Cows' which is definitely NOT the
name of any of my companies or DBAs.

> Yes, you may accuse me of straining my credibility with my sarcastic
> parroted remark, but perhaps the spirit of the remark may have evaded
> you.  That is, unless the lottery ticket wins substantially, I doubt
> that most can or will ever be able to afford the satellite dish, the
> legitimate subscription fees, and additional start up and maintenance
> costs to support a TVRO.

But this is precisely what my remark was addressing. In other words,
by your own admission there IS competition to cable; it just is not
priced as reasonably. So the issue is not competition but rather
REASONABLY PRICED competition. Hence, it would seem that cable is not
the Bad Deal that many are making it out to be. It is, in fact, the
most reasonably priced alternative, no?

> Cable companies know that they have a captive audience and treat us
> so, providing the same poor service that you claim to receive from
> your telephone company.

Actually, I receive exceptionally good service from Pacific Bell. It
is GTE that stinks. Which indicates that even under regulation,
different companies will provide different levels of service. GTE even
costs more than Pac*Bell. Both are highly regulated monopolies. Why
the differences? How would regulation change anything with cable? (For
the record, my cable company -- TCI, the Evil Empire -- provides first
rate service to my home. Outages are unheard of and everything except
bonafide premium channels are in the clear and not scrambled.)

> As you well know, in this age of being constantly bombarded with
> life and death drama as played over television screens all across this
> nation, television is not an insignificant medium. It feeds upon the
> weaknesses of the socially repressed and strengthens the
> misrepresentations of political parties. Witness the significance of a
> completely fictional character (Murphy Brown) having the slightest
> influence in directing the thoughts of the masses to evaluate the
> correctness of a presidential hopeful.

That is actually a good reason why television should be ignored,
which, by the way, is what a genuinely well-informed person should do.
TV has blurred the distinction between fantasy and reality.
Docu-dramas, "fact-based" programs such as "Unsolved Mysteries", and
even news magazines such as "60 Minutes" spread more misinformation in
one week than was ever accumulated in the first half of this century.
Television has single-handedly done a superb job of dumbing down
America.

And, of course, all of the above is simply my opinion. But from that
point of view, I can hardly consider the availability of TV on the
same plane as the availability of telecommunications.

> What is essential, is very much confined to the perspective of each
> of us in our own present circumstances.  Since my cable delivers
> information that I constantly use for my personal and business
> affairs, (stock market, electronic news, entertainment, current global
> social perspectives, etc), this flow of information is essential.
> "Information is power!!" someone said.

And, of course, there are other sources for all of this information.
Which means that your cable company is already competing for your
dollar.

> Yes, cable TV is a medium used to deliver entertainment, but is much
> more that just a mental escape hatch. You won't agree that the nations
> children are partially educated by TV, and that most of it is
> delivered via cable TV? Or that nations' leaders use television to
> gauge the public reaction to their exploits?

Unfortunately, this is very much the case. Television has become a
surrogate parent, teacher, playmate, and reality for children who
would rather waste away watching an average of 7.5 hours of TV a day
instead of building, creating, learning about reality, or interacting
with peers. Sometimes I wonder if the occasional programs of value or
interest are worth the monstrous mind-numbing infrastructure that
carries them.

> Or that large corporations rely upon successful advertising
> campaigns delivered into the homes of between 70-80 percent of all
> American homes via cable TV? Perhaps your income and the continuation
> of personal and business affairs is tied to their business success?

Actually, I am more radio oriented. Cable is the competition. I
consider TV advertising to be aimed at a much lower power spending
demographic than the print medium or even radio. The businesses whose
economic health concerns me are definitely not TV advertising-driven.

> Nope, both are utilities and have a very similar monopolistic
> structure.  In fact I do believe that cable TV wants to enter the
> telephone biz and provide dial tone on their delivery systems.

If cable goes into competition with Pac*Bell, I am free to use it or
not. If it is not as good or more expensive, I will just stick to what
I have. That is the beauty of a free market. As I pointed out above,
regulation does not guarantee anything. GTE is crap and Pac*Bell is
very good; both are regulated by the same entity. So it will be with
cable. Regulation will accomplish nothing. Some cable providers will
do a good job and some will not. It will be the luck of the draw.

I believe our differences of opinion, sarcasm aside, center around the
importance of television. I not only consider it not important, I
consider it to be a liability and a hazard to the social well-being of
our nation. On a personal level, I grew up in a house without
television. I am also mostly self-taught. By the time my eight-year
younger brother came along and reached the impressionable years, he
watched more TV than I would have considered possible. And pushing 40,
he is still trying to decide what to do with his life. (None of this
is offered as scientific reasoning, but rather to acquaint you with
some of my prejudices.)

Just now, in closing, I caught the fact that you reside in Canada. We
are talking on two different levels here. You have REAL television; US
TV is garbage. I have seen the calibre of Canadian TV via satellite.
None of my comments apply to your TV industry. In essence, we disagree
because we are each in a different universe.


 John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
 john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407