HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ennisj@tt.com (Jay Ennis)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: Telecommunications Techniques Corporation, Germantown MD
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:14:39 GMT

>How large are your typical cables?  My understanding is that  utilities
>poles are nowhere near holding there limit of cables.  Maybe we could 
>discuss this again if you can prove to me that the utility poles out
>there can't hold any more cable.

I am afraid you have missed the point here.  There is no physical limit to
the number of cables that can be strung, only a practical one.  The government
imposed monopoly you are raving about is necessary, although (as is the case
whenever politicians are involved) poorly executed.  The ONLY reason phone and
electrical service in this country are as reliable as they are is that they
are maintained by (usually) well regulated monopolies.  Two phone companies
maintaining parallel cable plants would be an EXTREMELY expensive nightmare
for all of us.  I think the power distribution scenario would be far worse.

There are two possible remedies I can see for this problem.  One is immediatly
practical, the other is pretty far off, but I feel inevitable.  The immediate
solution is to apply the same sort of tight regulation to the local cable
monopoly and turn them into as benign a monopoly as possible.  I think the
history of regulated public utilities has been pretty respectable.  I don't
see why the cable companies can't be beat into submission like everybody else.

What I feel is the inevitable, long-term solution is that somehow, the local
governments need to come into ownership of the cable plants and lease 
the bandwidth to phone companies, cable companies or whatever.  That way there
CAN be a choice of service providers.  This probably makes the most sense
when the next generation of distribution facility is installed.  It would
have to be designed with this sort of bandwidth sharing in mind and I think
it is.  Obviously, the locality would have to contract out for maintanance of
the facility, probably to one of the service providers.  Sounds like a
nightmare?  Welcome to modern society.
-- 
Jay Ennis 
ennisj@fb.tt.com                 "The sea is your wife, your ship your mistress,
                                  and the land a treacherous whore"
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1390 misc.consumers:16483 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:245
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:15:33 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department

In article <1992Sep12.201355.7505@panix.com> habs@panix.com (Harry Shapiro) writes:
>
>The Cable Act of 1984 does *NOT* prevent more than one cable company
>from being in the same service area. In some towns they do have
>2 cable companies.  The cable act prevents telephone companies from
>owning cable operations in the their "monopoly" area.
>
>It is up to each city and town (etc.) to grant operating rights to
>a cable company. 
>
>If you are unhappy with your cable service (Consumer Reports found
>50% of their members are) you need only go a far a your "City Hall"
>to voice your complaints.

Thank god city hall doesn't grant operating rights to grocery stores.
I am much happier voicing my complaints to my local store and having
the option of going to the competitor's store.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: New User begs forgivness
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:56:21 GMT

>In (1992Sep5.053129.13493@ultb.isc.rit.edu) I foolishly and carelessly
>referred to "my post 464" blithely thinking that my directory number
>for that article was everybody's number.

I have been informed by several kind readers that it is a local number
and not universal.  Ony the long and cumbersome Message ID is universal.
I will conform to the useful convention.  I suppose there is some good
reason why each message couldn't come with a simple index number that
everyone could use.  It sure would save alot of trouble and reduce
the 4 or 5 lines at the front of some articles to 1/2 line.  Anyway,
off that soapbox.

I do not have a copy of "post 464" so I can't give you its header.  In short
it said that relative tothe current discussion about a standalone descrambler
they have been built, at least in prototype.  They do work.  They are not
commercially available.  The EIA (Electronic Industries Assn) and the
NCTA(Natl Cable Televison Assn) have agreed upon a plug for such a device.
It does use the TV's tuner and would be cheaper than the present convertors.
They are not in mass production for two reasons;
  1.  Catch-22, decoder mfgs don't want to make any unless they have sizeable
      order.  CATV cos don't want to make sizeable orders when there are few
      TV sets produced with the plug.  (Yes there are some.)  TV mfgs don't
      want to add the plug until the descramblers are readily available.
  2.  Probably both sides would break the Catch-22 above except that they 
      fully expect digital and/or HDTV within 2-5 years which would obsolete
      the standalone convertor.

And before anyone flames away about that being poor service from the cable
cos just keep in mind that under typical business accounting rules, used
by most companies, if you remove your existing convertor before its 
"accounting" life is over and replace it with a standalone descrambler, the
cable co will have to pay for both the descrambler and take an accounting
charge to their operating income for the remaining value of the convertor.
These costs are not insignificant and the cable customer would have to foot
the bill.  Put another way, any convience comes at a cost.
Bob Vogel
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: eric@tfs.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: TFS
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:26:02 GMT

In article <BuKys6.Kpp@news.orst.edu> stanley@bubbles.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
...
>>If the prices get too
>>high, or service too poor, SOMEONE will step in with a free market solution.
>
>If this were true, it would be happening. It isn't. The cost of putting


It is.  Video rental stores are one free market solution.  Satellite
dishes to receive HBO etc. directly were another.  Free market
solutions ALWAYS eventually correct the distortions caused by
regulation.  My own personal free market solution was to stop watching
cable TV and just waste time reading these newsgroups instead.

One thing to keep in mind is that the present prices and quality of
service are tolerable.  Otherwise people would drop their cable service
and the cable companies would go broke due to lack of income.

Government regulations are for quick-fix solutions to complicated problems.
They are advocated mainly by people who are too lazy to consider all the
consequences.  The usual answer to the problems caused by regulations is
more regulations.  The end result is tons of paper with regulations written
on both sides of each page.
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1383 misc.consumers:16462 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:234
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 12 Sep 92 08:53:35 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:

>Did you use the word greedy sob?  In my book, it is the person who
>uses the coercive powers of government to force others to provide
>him/her with a service at the price of their own choosing.

You mean the same powers that gave the cable company the monopoly in
the first place?  The monopoly the cable companies fight to keep 
just about as hard as they fight this bill?  Is that what you're
trying to claim is free market pricing for cable service, jonathan?

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: rgc@wam.umd.edu (Ross Garrett Cutler)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Looking for info on scramblers
Date: 13 Sep 92 06:16:58 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Originator: rgc@rac2.wam.umd.edu

Hello,
	Could someone please let me know if there is an archive that might have 
articles discussing how scramblers (and descramblers) work?  Thanks very
much!  Ross.

-- 
Ross Cutler
University of Maryland, College Park
Internet: rgc@wam.umd.edu
From: shawn@Aardvark.Rain.COM (Shawn Allen)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Jones Cable
Date: 8 Sep 92 06:03:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Steve's UNIX System, Portland, Oregon



	Hello fellow netters, I am getting ready to move into my new (to me)
	home. Jones Cable is the cable comp that will end up servicing me there
	and I know nothing about them. 

	1. Are they a national cable comp or just local to my area.
	   (Portland Metro Area, Ore.)
	
	2. What channels do they have (Comedy Central, Sci-Fi, Cartoon,
	Learning Channel, are the ones I am really interested in.)

	3. How have they been as far as customer service/price and specials
	are concerned.

	I realize a phone call to Jones Cable would be able to answer #1 and #2
	however I wanted to ask #3 here and thought that the first two might
	provide some interesting insight from the net.

	I am glad that I am out of the TCI-Oregon area, as I have had their
	service and was not happy at all. Their prices were way too high and
	the service was marginal at best. I have also had the services of
	Paragon Cable and was very happy, they gave me a Lg Domino's (tm) pizza
	and charged me only $.99 when I hooked-up. (vs $60 to hook-up from TCI)
	And
	their customer service was much much better than TCI's. It does no good
	to complain to the company either, I know I tried and TCI could give a
	sh*t. Paragon was very happy to help me in any way possible at any time
	that I called. Also Paragon leases the Digital Radio service and
	provides service for the units at no additional cost, whereas TCI makes
	you pay for the box and any service that may be required later. (As
	well as their high hook-up rates)

	Any info on Jones Cable would be much appreciated. 

	Thanks in Advance.

-- 
shawn@aardvark.rain.com                     |"The number of UNIX
"I'm with the government, I'm here to help!"|machines has grown to 10
"The God I believe in                       |with more expected." 
isn't short of cash, MISTER!!" -Bono        | -The UNIX manual, *1972*
From: ramsey@spot.Colorado.EDU (L. Ron Hubbard)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: cable distribution boxes
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:11:15 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <67660@hydra.gatech.EDU> mj4@prism.gatech.EDU (JONES,MICHAEL D.) writes:
>
>Can anyone recommend a quality cable distribution box.  I just bought one
>from Radio Shack (Archer brand).  They had one for $10 and one for $30.  I
>bought the expensive one, but when I used it to feed 2 VCRs and 2 TVs I got
>a lot of interference and ghosting.  Adjusting the gain to minimum doesn't
>help.  I've heard others in this group say that they have also had problems
>with distribution boxes from Radio Shack.  Any advice would be greatly
>appreciated.
>

Well, I got a Radio Shack brand amp many moons ago, and at first, I had
a problem with oversaturation of my VCR's AGC.  I didn't really NEED the amp
then, I just wanted one.  After running a line down to my basement however, the
amp sure worked like a charm.

Since you are getting interference and ghosting, the problem isn't with the
cable *after* entering your house, you're cable run from the box *to* the
house might be picking up a signal.  Be sure the sheilding is properly grounded
(hopefully the cable installer did that).
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Reply-To: thomasr@cpqhou.UUCP (Thomas Rush)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 13:28:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.055357.1233@craycos.com> ewv@craycos.com (Eric Varsanyi) writes:
>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)

Well, this really is the heart of it, isn't it.  

	Problem: Cable TV service is a monopoly and has led to some
		(many, tremendously large numbers) incidents of 
		high prices and poor service.

	Wrong Solution: Introduce yet another government agency to
		regulate this monopoly industry in an attempt to 
		have the federal government determine what fair 
		prices and good service are.  Steal money (via 
		taxes) even from those who don't want or get cable
		to pay for the bureacracy just created.

	Better Solution: Ensure that no government body limit the 
		ability of additional firms to enter the cable market.
		Allow each individual to choose which of the available
		service providers gives herm the best combination of
		price, channels, convenience, and signal quality.

And with that, the vast majority of your points are answered.
Why should cable TV be a monopoly industry?


thomas rush				uunet!cpqhou!thomasr
compaq computer corporation		their employee,
deep in the hearth of texas		not their opinions.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 00:07:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.055357.1233@craycos.com> ewv@craycos.com (Eric Varsanyi) writes:
>OK, I ftp'ed a copy of the cable bill and read it. It sounds great!
>
>	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?
>
Did you use the word greedy sob?  In my book, it is the person who
uses the coercive powers of government to force others to provide
him/her with a service at the price of their own choosing.

Perhaps we should look at your chosen field and determine whether
your company is being too greedy.  Maybe the government should fix
your salary (let's say at 30% of its current level). After all, you
don't need all that much money to get by.

From: krb@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Kevin Barnes)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:35:56 GMT
Subject: Re: cable distribution boxes
Organization: the HP Response Center, Atlanta
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv

I bought the cheap one several years ago and it works just fine. I have never
had a problem.      
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 13:32:28 GMT

In article <BuI7o8.GL4@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.011533.22927@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>>Thank god city hall doesn't grant operating rights to grocery stores.
>
>Thank God that grocery stores don't need to string their cables all over
>the city using public rights-of-way. Thank God that grocery stores don't
>leak their vegetables all over the public airwaves.
>
How large are your typical cables?  My understanding is that  utilities
poles are nowhere near holding there limit of cables.  Maybe we could 
discuss this again if you can prove to me that the utility poles out
there can't hold any more cable.

Since you mentioned it, however, how many businneses are there that 
don't make use of public rights of way?  My local grocery store doesn't
get its produce by picking Manna from the parking  lot in the morning.  They
ship it in via trucks that use the rights-of-way. That does not mean
that the government should have the right to set the rates at my local
grocery store any more than the government should have the right to
set your salary because you use public rights of way to get to work.




Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1438 misc.consumers:16597 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:300
From: ewv@craycos.com (Eric Varsanyi)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:47:13 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Sep15.092602.20132@tfs.com> eric@tfs.com (Eric Smith) writes:
>Government regulations are for quick-fix solutions to complicated problems.
>They are advocated mainly by people who are too lazy to consider all the
>consequences.  The usual answer to the problems caused by regulations is
>more regulations.  The end result is tons of paper with regulations written
>on both sides of each page.

I wish there was a feasible way to directly compete with cable. Its getting
close (with DBS, TVRO, multi-channel, and (stretching it) video stores) but
its not there yet. If there was direct competition I would certainly vote
to completely deregulate the industry.

I got the impression from the bill that it was trying to make sure that
the cable cos can't get away with suppressing the possible alternatives to
standard cable. We had competition here in Colorado Springs a few years back,
you could get cable from one of two companies. The newer one had much lower
rates and better service. Then the evil one bought them and over a couple
of years adjusted the rates up and service down to match the rest of the
system. They couldn't compete fairly so they just went in and nuked them.
I support legislation that keeps the playing field a little more level.

-Eric Varsanyi
 ewv@craycos.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Subject: Warning Letter
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:52:13 GMT

	I got a warning letter from my cable tv company
yesterday (Viacom) yesterday...
	Any one know the true story here? Or is it just
cable compamy rantings?
          v---v---v  included   v---v---v

It was folded in half, cover looked like this:
	The $'s was the border of the letter.	
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$         			      $
$ 	NOTICE:			      $	
$ Legislation in Washington DC        $
$May Increase Your Monthly Cable bill $
$THE LAST CHANCE TO STOP THIS IS NOW  $
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

	Inside they go on to say that 
 ``Congress will act on legislation in september that will
raise, not lower tour monthly cable rates. ''

They go on to say that they will be forced to pay broadcast 
stations (ABC, CBS, NBC) as much as $1billion a year ''

	They go on to say 
 This box has lines around it.
`` The U.S. Dept. of Commerence estimates this legislation
could mean in creased costs of % $23 to $51 per year for each 
suscriber.  ''

	Then they go on to say how bad the bill is
and who to contact ( the Senate ).

Also other `` Blah - Blah - Blah ''
| national cable television assoc.
+-----------





 +-(c)--------------------------+   Freedom is to the soul is what  
 | delisle@eskimo.celestial.com |   fresh air is to the lungs, and  
 +------------------------------+   knowledge is to the mind.  

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:11:53 GMT

I just got next month's cable bill. Like many others, this one included
a small leaflet urging me to contact my congresscritters and tell them
to vote NO on the cable bill since it will raise my rates.

Now, I wonder: what is it about this bill that has the cable companies
SCARED OUT OF THEIR MINDS to such a degree that they feel it is
necessary to launch a nationwide campaign to get this bill struck down?
Even with NO additional information, their reaction is enough to tell me
that this bill SHOULD be passed. They claim that the bill will raise
cable rates. Pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical; since when has any cable
company balked at raising their rates? They do it so often and to such a
high degree, it's obvious they enjoy it (and the added PROFIT that comes
along with it).

Thanks for the heads-up, CableVision. I am indeed going to contact my
congresscritters. I'm going to tell them to vote YES on this bill.

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: stanley@bubbles.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:16:52 GMT

In article <BuKn5z.M7M@portal.hq.videocart.com> kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <BuI7HM.GB9@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>
>>In most cases, there is no "government" imposed monopoly. It is an
>>economic one. It doesn't matter why the monopoly formed -- the result
>>is a captive consumer base and unresponsive service providers.
>
>Not true.  The monopoly exists in many cases 

Please read ALL THE WORDS. My statement is quite true, and so is yours.
Other than the part that says mine is not true.

>because local governments grant
>"exclusive" franchises to a single company.  This, taken to extreme in an
>area, leads to monopoly and no choice.

Yes, many have exclusive franchises. Many do not. In the cases where
there is no exclusive franchise, the monopoly is an economic one. If,
lacking a government granted monopoly, there are very few places where
there are competitors, then why would you expect there to be competitors
if the exclusive franchise were opened up?

>The answer is open competition and guaranteed equal-access to the rights of
>way needed to install equipment and physical plant.  

You cannot guarantee this without regulation. You also cannot just open
up the rights-of-way to anyone who wants to use them.

>If the prices get too
>high, or service too poor, SOMEONE will step in with a free market solution.

If this were true, it would be happening. It isn't. The cost of putting
in new plant is too high compared to the marginal return that can be
expected. There are parts of the country where cable is not economically
feasible unless 100% (or close to it) of the homes are wired. Two
systems just wouldn't survive -- without both charging astronomical
prices. 

This situation is, indeed, one of those where the costs of providing
service are only recoverable at reasonable prices if there is one
service provider. Every piece of hardware that is duplicated is
duplicated expense.