From: ewv@craycos.com (Eric Varsanyi)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 11 Sep 92 05:53:57 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

OK, I ftp'ed a copy of the cable bill and read it. It sounds great!

Since it took a while to wade through I thought it would be useful to
paraphrase and condense it a bit. There is a lot of GOOD stuff in there
despite what the cable co's say. The summary below is based on how I,
a non-lawyer, read it. Get your own copy (and draw your own conclusions) from:
ruby.oce.orst.edu:pub/things/senate.bill.12.txt[.Z].

High points:
	- The rates would be regulated like other monopoly utilities
	  (by a commision of some sort, I assume similar to a PUC)
	
	- The loophole with the 'basic' tier seems to be closed (they
	  will regulate the lowest cost service that at least 30% of
	  the subscribers have). After my system scrambled to add a
	  worthless basic tier (some local broadcast stations) to get
	  around regulation this one sounds real good to me.

	- Companies wanting to distribute video programming who are not in
	  bed with the cable company will have a chance.

	- Any satellite programming made available to cable companies (ie: HBO)
	  would have to be made avaiable to C band TVRO users as well.

	- Establish regulated rates for which commercial users can lease 
	  cable co bandwidth for their own use.
	
	- Will be illegal to hog all channels with given distributors channels
	  to lock out other programmers.

	- Cable CO can't buy or own any interest in locally competing companies
	  (like microwave distribution or TVRO distribution systems).

	- Customer service standards will be enforced.

	- Looks like there are some teeth in there that can be used by a 
	  community trying to dump their franchisee.

	- Minimum technical standards will be enforced (signal quality) and
	  there will be an official way to complain about substandard signals.

	They even have a 'Cable Equipment Act of 1992' in there that requires:

	- Cable operators should employ technology that allows use of cable
	  ready TV's and VCRs.

	- They are prohibited from scrambling local broadcast signals

	- If its unfeasibile to not use a single channel descrambler (box)
	  for the cable co they MUST notify subscribers that they have
	  crappy service and they are stuck using the cable co's worthless
	  box (my interpretation :) ).

	- If channels subscribed to are not scrambled force them NOT to
	  require a box/remote rental.

	- If the box can receive a remote control signal they must NOT
	  disable the box from receiving remote signals and MUST tell
	  subscribers that they can buy commercially available alternative
	  remote controls.

	- Nothing can be provided and billed for unless the subscriber
	  actually asked for it by name.

	- Cable co's must actively take actions to prevent leakage of private
	  consumer information.

	There is, of course, the 'family values' section:

	- If a sexually oriented channel (ie: Playboy) is going to have an
	  unscrambled free promo they have to tell everyone 60 days in advance.

	- The cable operator can regulate what a lesee of their bandwidth
	  shows (indecent)

	- The cable operator can make up standards regulating what the
	  public access channels broadcast (obscenity wise).

	There's also a bunch of stuff in there allowing regulation on DBS
	providers (without new legislation) if the need seems clear, as well
	as some language that specifically allows microwave style competition
	from a community even if they have a franchise contract that disallows
	it.
	
	All the fuss they (the cable co's) are raising seems to be aimed at
	the 'RETRANSMISSION CONSENT' section. To me all it says is that
	by one year after this all goes through cable companies will have to
	get permission to retransmit commercial stations. There are a bunch
	of exclusions. It says NOTHING about rate increases or mandatory
	fees to be paid to the broadcasters. It specifically voids out the
	'MUST CARRY' requirements for any station that wants anything to
	have their signal carried (ie: a broadcaster can't force the cable
	co to carry them and pay for it).

	Sounds to me like the greedy SOB's at the various cable companies
	will do anything to make people think this is a bad idea. All we can
	hope is that the congress critters who have actually read the bill
	will be able to make a possibly unpopular (due to the propoganda)
	choice.

	I figured that if the cable co's were against it it would be good,
	but I didn't expect it to be this good.  So, who do I write to 
	to express support?

-Eric Varsanyi
 Active Daily Cable Company Hater
 ewv@vars.com
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate