From: max@megatek.com (Max Elliot)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Rules
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:59:21 GMT

From article <1992Nov5.182932.2317@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, by rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu:
> In article <1992Nov4.162413.25560@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, whs70@dancer.uucp
>  (22501-sohl) writes:
>>In article <3NOV199209470542@utrcv1> wjm@utrcv1 (Bill) writes:
>>>I have a question regarding cable TV rules.
>>>
>>>If someone is already paying the monthly subscription fee for a television 
>>>set hooked up to a cable service, the cable company wants to charge an 
>>>additional monthly fee if you want to watch cable on a set in another room.
>>>
>>>This is the case even if both sets are cable-ready, and it doesn't matter 
>>>if you use a: 
>>>* splitter (able to use both sets at once)
>>>* switch (use one set at a time)
>   **detail deleted**
>>
>>This is one of the most annoying aspects of cable companies.  The issue
>>is really no different than the situation when the phone
>>companies charged for extension phone connection. 
> 
> There are several very significant differences.
> 1.  Signal leakage is a very real problem which requires control.
> 2.  The phone network is a star topology.  If my "ol days illegal extension"
> causes a network problem, it can be disconnected at ONE central office.  Cable
> has to roll a truck to the subscriber home to accomplish the same protection.
> 3.  There is a very REAL cost to allowing for additional outlets which the
> cable company does pay.  They either pay it when they design the system orthey
> pay it in system additions (upgrades, extensions) when more people want
> additional outlets than what they originally designed for.

  Etc. on and on about derived benefit and signal leakage.

  So. You propose that signal the cable company be allowed to
  determine what constitutes derived benefits and also be allowed
  to enforce their own installations and hardware? Do you work for
  a cable company or something? Are you a fascist? Get real man.

  If I decide to build a ham radio at home, and I screw the design
  up and start bleeding RF all over the prohibited bandwidth, I will
  shortly have someone knocking on my door. There is already a control
  in place for this sort of thing, and it is the FCC and the local law
  enforcement. We do not need to deputize the cable companies to police
  the airwaves and most especially not, police our homes and private
  lives.

  And as for derived benefit, if I buy a pair of children's pajamas 
  for my kids at Target, should Target be allowed to enforce that 
  that pair of children's pajamas be worn by one and only one child? 
  That sounds ridiculous right?  Good.  It should.

  If a product is sold for use on the premises of a retailer, then
  the retailer may adjudicate what is and is not proper use.
  If a product is sold for use OFF the premises of the seller, it is
  up to the buyer what he/she does with it. If I buy a pint of cream
  at the store, must I use it for coffee or may I not give it to my cat?
  You and yours would argue that there are acceptable uses for the cream
  and that I must comply with them.  Up yours! 

  If the cable company has something to offer me, great. They should, as
  was suggested in several provious posts, deliver a signal with some
  nominal attenuation and strength and noise level, and that's it. It should
  be strong enough to supply at least ONE tv with no amp needed.  They 
  may deliver it to my curb, at which point I will install a legal coupler 
  and cable, after which they should have absolutely NO jurisdiction. NONE! 
  This is my home. This is my property. If I decide to hook my car battery 
  up to the cable and blow out the local lines, they may litigate. It is 
  exactly the same if I were to do that to the local phone lines. I don't
  care what it costs the cable company. If it was my fault and I am guilty
  they will be awarded reparations in court.

  If you think that putting power over peoples lives and properties into 
  the hands of a private sector company is good, then you are completely 
  insane. This would dilute the essential freedoms guaranteed us in the 
  constitution. Yes, I believe it would be unconstitutional. You and your 
  Nazi mind-control ideas should take a hike!

  Disgruntled,
-Max