From: kelsey@mdd.comm.mot.com (Joe Kelsey)
Subject: Re: Tell Viacom Cable to add the SCI-FI Channel
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: seattle
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:10:25 GMT

In <1992Sep29.194543.19038@tera.com> erik@tera.com (Erik Hedberg) writes:

>In article <klg.717705607@statsci> klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross) writes:
>>casimir@sumax.seattleu.edu (Jim Lubin) writes:
>>
>>   Viacom said they have a 36 channel capacity and that they are currently at
>>   36 channels. If they get a large number of request to add the SCI-FI
>>   Channel, they will.
>>
>>Well, I called, for all the good it will do. When I asked them what
>>happened to the plans to provide more than 36 channels, they said that
>>they have no plans to expand that number at this time. When I informed
>>them that they had told me 3 years ago that they WERE going to expand, I
>>was told that they have no plans to expand that number at this time.
>
>This outdated coax system is slowly being replaced with a fiber
>system.  Out in the toolies on the Eastside between Bellevue and

Don't believe *anything* the cable company tells you over the telephone.
Anyone you reach on the phone basically just figures out what you want to hear
and tells you it.  Right now, the cable companies *really* don't want to have
regulation re-imposed, so they blame *everything* they can on the new cable
bill.  I have called every cable system in Seattle (Viacom, TCI and Chambers)
asking why they still have the *ancient* 36 channel system and get basically
the same answer every time: ``We have plans to upgrade, but it takes time...''

I say Bullshit!  I've heard the same arguments for 5 years from three
different cable systems and the bald fact remains that I have seen absolutely
no progress upgrading these out-of-date cable plants, and yet the cable
companines each reaised their rates nearly 100% in the same time span!  Do I
see any new services? NO! Do I see new cable installation? NO!  The only
change I saw that had any consumer effect occurred when TCI removed the extra
charge for multiple outlets.  In spite of this, Viacom and Chambers *still*
charge for multiple outlets, which show just how little competition exists
between systems.

>BTW, if the cable bill (just passed by Congress) reduces Viacom's
>income (some heated debate on this), they'll have less money available
>(per year) for upgrading their system.  I don't expect to see more
>channels on Viacom in my lifetime ... (I'm thinking about a satellite
>dish ;-).

In fact, until we get *real* competition, we *must* regulate cable systems in
order to insure that they actually spend the millions of dollars they steal
from consumers every year.  You don't actually believe that the nearly 100%
rate increases in Seattle since deregulation have gone to upgrade the
infrastructure?  Your statement about the cable companies keeping less of the
money they extorted from consumers in the past may have a grain of truth, but
in fact, under regulation we might *force* them to sepnd *more* on actually
upgrading their systems.  With the amount of money that Viacom, TCI and
Cahmbers made since deregulation, they have absolutely no excuse for leaving
us with these totally inadequate and out-of-date 36-channel systems.  

Look at the new central district cable franchise -- awarded as the last
franchise in Seattle, it has the 72-channel capacity!  So, if you want better
cable, move downtown!  Look at the report from Spokane -- 72-channel cable
there!  Why can't the major cable companines in Seattle do this?  Can you say
``unregulated monopoly''?  I knew you could!

/Joe

Newsgroups: seattle.general