From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:01:54 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article A@engin.umich.edu, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
>In article <ld3gdiINN2i0@spim.mti.sgi.com>, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>|> ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) writes:
>|> > Ron Buckmire) writes:
>|> > >
>|> > >I just saw on CNN that Bush's 36th veto was just over-ridden. So the Cable
>|> > >Regulation Bill becomes law despite Bush. Of course it is unclear whether
>|> > >cable rates will go up or down, but Bush losing a veto fight seems like a
>|> > >progressive result.
>|> > 
>|> > PROGRESSIVE RESULT?  This has got to be one of the most disgusting examples
>|> > of government interference.  [...]
>|>
>|> What planet are you on Sean.  The cable industry was a government
>|> supported monopoly that could make whatever rules it wanted.  Who was
>|> pandering?  Bush.  If he wanted the cable industry de-regulated, take
>|> away their monopoly and let them compete on the open market.  But
>|> you can't have it both ways, goverment protection and a free rein.
>|> 
>
>Of course this bill does nothing to really encourage competition.
>The bill is structured so the incentive is for local governments
>to keep local cable companies a monopoly.  The bill included
>an interesting section on rebroadcast but then ruined the notion
>by requiring cable companies to carry local stations (an idea
>which has been ruled unconstitutional).  Local cable companies
>are now presented with the need to negotiate an appropriate fee
>from local broadcasters without the ability to not carry the
>local broadcast if they don't agree to the fee.  What idiocy!
>Of course, nothing Congress does surprises me.
>
Agreed.  Congress can take almost anything and muck it up.

What would have been wrong with a simple law allowing local governments
from controlling cable rates, the way it used to be before the FCC
decided otherwise.

Prior to the FCC decision, local governments awarded franchises, based
on promises of service and pricing levels.  Then the FCC told local
govt. they can't control that anymore.  As I see it, that's on par with
the fed suddenly deciding that the bank you put your money in doesn't
have to give it back.

Govt. loves changing rules in the middle.  All govt.  But why decide
that the federal government should decide cable rates?  They don't
decide telephone rates, electric rates, water rates.  Local or state
government does.  They also decide levels of service.  Doesn't that
make more sense?

The only reason I was for the re-reg bill was I knew Bush couldn't back
off the veto threat; not while he was accusing Clinton of (imaginary)
flip-flops.  And congress couldn't change their votes either.  Any
congressman who did would risk being creamed this fall as a puppet of
the pres, a flip-flopper, anti-consumer.  Bush didn't count before his
threat, and he paid the price.

Since a Bush operative said that their campaign strategy is to expect
Clinton to make a mistake Sunday (debate 1), hammer it all day Monday
(maybe with quick ads), and have Quayle push it all thru Tuesday's
debate, it's nice to see Bush make the first mistake.

--f2

------------------
  "Pot is a herb.
   Bush is a dope."

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50403 misc.headlines:6555 talk.politics.mideast:20939