From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Cable Regulation [Was BUSH LOSES VETO FIGHT!!]
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:30:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.230449.12049@sequent.com> bills@sequent.com (Bill Sears) writes:

>In article <70165@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt7994a@prism.gatech.EDU (ORMOND,SEAN PATRICK) writes:
>>In article <9210060146.AA58813@sub.its.rpi.edu> buckmr@rpi.edu (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.  The way congress pandered to the public
>
>And just who should congress be pandering to?

     The Congress *should* be making decisions in the best interests of the
country within their Constitutional powers.  Unfortunately, every two or
six years their constituents don't ask "What have you done for the country,"
but "What have you done for *me*?"

>Aren't they public servants?
>They are supposed to represent the wishes of their respective 
>constituencies.

     They are supposed to represent their constituencies, not the wishes of
their constituents.  If at election time the constituents don't like the
job they're doing, they elect somebody else.  There is a difference
between representing a district in Congress and obeying the whims of
that district.  (Even if you could figure out what five hundred thousand
people want.)

>This is the first time that my legislators have represented my
>interests.     
>I
>will grant that this was perhaps not the most optimum solution, but at least
>it's a step in the right direction IMHO.

     Local governments grant a monopoly which the federal government then
regulates?

     I can't get behind the idea that a bad bill is better than no bill.

>>Never - NOT ONCE - did I ever hear anyone
>>in the media suggest that you simply cancel your subscription if it's too
>>expensive.  People think they're bloody ENTITLED to low-cost cablevision, as
>>if it were a necessity of life!
>
>Okay, let's grant gas companies monopolies in various cities so that they can
>charge whatever price they want to for a gallon of gas.

     Let's not "grant" them anything.  You see, that was the point.  What
the local government did *was* grant them a monopoly, which the federal 
government then decided had to be regulated.
     If the monopoly was the problem, why didn't the federal government just
tell the local governments they couldn't grant those monopolies?
     And there is a vast difference between gasoline and cable television
in regards to "necessity."  


>Are those of you who
>support the above statement ready to give up your car so that you don't have
>to pay those exorbitant prices?

     Are you going to seriously argue that cable television plays an equally
important role in modern life as automobiles?

>After all your not "ENTITLED" to low-cost
>gas.

     Are we?

>It's not a "necessity of life".

     Under most conditions in the United States, if you don't have an 
automobile, you don't have job.  Very, very few places have, or for 
practical purposes are capable of having, mass transit systems capable of 
replacing automobiles entirely.

>My guess is that a vast majority of
>you are going to go running to your congressperson complaining about those
>nasty gas companies.

     Considering the situation after Iraq invaded Kuwait, you are most likely
correct.  However, if the situation was because local government had granted
the gas companies an unregulated monopoly, my first choice would be to
eliminate the monopoly entirely.
     Now we've got the local governments granting a monopoly so cable 
companies can't compete and the federal government regulating the cable 
companies to lower prices becuase of lack of competition.
     What is this doing other than wasting money?

>>this bill well illustrates the selfish idiocy rife within the American public.
>
>This bill isn't the only thing that "illustrates the selfish idiocy rife
>within the American public."  There are countless examples that happen
>everyday that demonstrate this.

     So?  Do other examples invalidate this one?

>    - People speeding down the highway trying to get in front of "one more
>      car" so they can arrive at their destination 12 seconds sooner.

     Did I miss a segue here?     

>    - People going through the "10 items or less" line at the supermarket
>      with 30 items so they don't have to wait in one of the other lines.

     Is this, then, a candidate for regulation?  If the store objects,
they can refuse to serve the people who won't abide by the posted rules.
Maybe we can post local police officers to enforce the "10 items or less"
signs, then federal agents to make sure the supermarkets can't refuse
people service even if they ignore the signs!

>Face it, the American people are selfish, period.  Maybe you don't personally
>do any of these things, but there are some 285 million people in the country.

     I don't understand your point.  Since there are selfish people in
this country Congress should roll over and hand them whatever they want
on a platter?
     That we shouldn't oppose selfishness?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  Information Services Group
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc