HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:34:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:

>shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

>  But that's the point, coax can only deliver X number of channels.  You can

We agree that this is not feasible, using current coax networks.

>  Sure, fiber optics provide more bandwidth, but you're still at the mercy of
>the carrier that owns that wire, cable or fiber.  Look at the nonsense that
>the phone companies have tried to lay on modem users for additional access fees
>for the same line you use for voice.  Imagine what they'd do with digital data
>coming into your house?

Okay.  I see the political/beaurocratic problems you are referring to.  However
using fiber means that interactive programming is possible in the future. 
Is that possible with wireless?

BTW, I was unaware of any additional access fee for modem use.  I use a modem
in my home.  

>  By removing the wired system you remove that carrier, the maintainence and
>installation costs and the vulnerability to inclimate weather that it is
>succeptable to.

>  Wireless also allows for many more providers in an area, you just subscribe
>by aiming a dish or getting access to a cellular system.  The services it
>could provide could equal or exceed fiber as well, microwaves have a lot of
>bandwidth.

Yes.  It sounds great.  It seems to solve all the problems.  Is this
technology in place anywhere yet?

>  No, regulation itself causes this, in the longrun it stabilizes prices, but
>in the shortrun it usually increases them.  Happened with the phone system 

How can the rates go up if the regulation stipulates that they have to stay
down?

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Date: 12 Sep 92 04:13:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

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

>Again, I must repeat: Cable tv is already regulated.  What we are
>talking about is adding further regulations. 

  Cable TV rates are *not* regulated, haven't been for over a decade now.

>As for exorbitant price hikes, there is a simple principle:  If the
>price is too high don't buy the good/service.

  Are you this simplistic in all your rationaliztions?

  -jack-
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: We need COMPETITION, not Re-regulation
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:36:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

>Okay.  I see the political/beaurocratic problems you are referring to.  Howeve
>using fiber means that interactive programming is possible in the future. 
>Is that possible with wireless?

  Sure, cellular is two-way already, cellular modems are quickly becoming a
better way of communicating on the road.

  Cellular can't due video in its current incarnation, but receive-only 
antennae are more than sufficent.  Cleaner signal since it is line-of-sight 
microwave, which allows for more bandwidth and less interference than you 
have with a coax system.

  You still get the interactivity via cellular if need be and you still can
have addressable video boxes since the addressing is done during vertical 
blank which you would still have in the wireless setup.

>BTW, I was unaware of any additional access fee for modem use.  I use a modem
>in my home.  

  Yes, a few years ago the phone companies petitioned the FCC for imposing a
modem "tax".  Raised a hell of a ruckus on the networks, surprized you never
heard of it.

>>  Wireless also allows for many more providers in an area, you just subscribe
>>by aiming a dish or getting access to a cellular system.  The services it
>>could provide could equal or exceed fiber as well, microwaves have a lot of
>>bandwidth.

>Yes.  It sounds great.  It seems to solve all the problems.  Is this
>technology in place anywhere yet?

  It was in place as far back as 1984 in Queens while they were still bickering
on how they were going to divide Brooklyn and Queens up amongst seven cable
operators.  At that time it was pretty limited, one or two channels overall.

  The FCC has supposedly allocated frequency bands for improved systems, not
sure how far along the technology is, but HDTV might actually speed up the
introduction of it.

>How can the rates go up if the regulation stipulates that they have to stay
>down?

  Hehe, rates can always go up, but only after the providers petition the
regulators for a rate increase.  

  Overall, there are probably going to be some smaller operators that are
going to be swallowed up after regulation goes into effect, those subscribers
might see increases if they were paying below average rates.  In other cases
you might have operators that are going to need to bring their equipment up to
regulatory standards, again, a rate increase would be allowed in order to get
the equipment.

  I highly doubt that there would be an actual drop in rates if regulation 
goes into effect, too much whining from the operators would result.  What you
would see is a slight increase in some areas, no change in others and a much
more level rate change over a long period of years.

  -jack-
From: beh10@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Holsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:42:23 GMT
Reply-To: beh10@DUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Barry Holsinger)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>To continue the example, even if I have no alternative source for
>a car, it still wouldn't be proper for me (or the government) to
>force you to accept my terms.  And if you have no alternative source for
>what you want from me, resorting to force would be equally improper.
>

It is not proper to compare a retail outlet with a utility service, which
describe a car dealership and the cable tv utility, respectively.  The
car dealership is easily challenged in a free market society whereas the
utility is not.  

A retailer will serve (sell to) any and all customers who are willing
to pay for services and merchandise.  A utility company serves EVERY
potential customer in a FIXED area, and serves them EQUALLY.  

Because the retailer works in a free market system, he must set prices
based on what the market will bear.  The retailer must control costs to
insure profitability, while maintaining competitive pricing.  There is
a trade off between price of goods and services (which is directly 
proportional to profit) and the amount of overhead that can be tolerated.

The utility service in a free market economy is a lawful MONOPOLY.
Legal monopolies are justified because of the high cost of running
the given business and the impracticality of SUPPORTING competitors.
Note the difference between competing retailers who provide their
own outlets for distribution (eg, retail stores) and the service
monopoly's burden on society to provide distribution (eg, sewers,
power lines, coax cables, railroad tracks).  The service monopoly
relies on RIGHT OF WAYS to be granted in order to distribute product.
It is undesirable to have multiple competing companies because it
would require multiple distribution channels (many sets of pipes,
tracks, cables).

The government recognizes society's need or desire to purchase
services from the monopolies, and thus legislates controls over
the monopolies.  This REGULATION protects the customer, and is another
trade off.  Where free market pricing isn't practical, government
regulated pricing is required.   The government must, however, make
sure that the monopoly is able to sustain profitability, unless
the government is willing to subsidize the monopoly service.
In this case, regulation of a legitimate business is replaced
by complete beuracracy (sp).


(Just my opinion, of course.)





--
Barry Holsinger       | I ain't git'n et by no gators to make my wage!
Sunnyvale, CA         | There are better ways to make a buck in dis
beh10@DUTS.amdahl.com | nutty town!!  -Ralph Snart
From: speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 10:21:47 EDT
Organization: Dan's Domain, Randolph, New Jersey

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

> In a previous article, someone wrote...
> 
> >>Of course prices won't go up -- the government (backed by people like
> >>you) will point a gun at cable company owners and *force them* to
> >>keep their prices down.
> 
> To which, someone responded
> 
> >If there are no market forces to keep prices down, then I believe
> >the government should regulate them.  No gun is required, by the way.
> >
> Try starting a competing cable firm.  Within a short period of time
> a government official will request that you desist from said activity.
> Should you refuse, you will ultimately be greeting by gun toting police
> officers, hence a gun and the threat of imprisonment is required and
> employed.

   If this did happen, it would go to court where the whole idea
  of a local franchise (monopoly) would be challenged.  The BIGGEST
  problem in such an undertaking is money - It would take alot to
  put up such a challenge.  Has anyone talked to Ross Perot lately??

> >If this makes you shake in your shoes.  Then, by all means, shake. People
> >with minds as narrow as yours deserve a good shaking.
> My definition of narrow mindedness is being unable to envision
> competition in the cable (actually entertainment) industry.

   To become narrow minded one must put their head through
  a very small hole . . .   [ The choice of which hole is
  up to the individual - Remark intended as humor, not insult.]


Dan Speers                                       (speers@micro-c.mcds.com)
Sysop & Dictater - err - Ruler - Hmm.. - How bout BOSS - no - King!
                no - Alright then, Super Genius! - TOO Much... What
                about, Dan The GREAT! - No huh? - ok, what about
                System Guru?  That's good.  Hey Sarah!  Don't touch
                that keyoluboaidkla;lkj,mn.,amnsdklga;lk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan's Domain - THE Best BBS Period! (Ok, semicolon...)
(201) 366-5018 - We use a Telebit T3000 (among other things...)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 00:22:43 GMT

In article <3717@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:
>
>  It's just as immoral to exploit people whom you have complete control over.
>
>  -jack-
Why is it that the cable companies have complete control over you but
not over me? 
Furthermore, if they have complete control over you, why are they
allowing you to post your postings?

Here is a simple idea; if you don't think you are getting a good service
for your money, don't subscribe.  I think cable is a waste, so I don't
subscribe.  On the other hand, I think the Wall Street Journal is a
great paper to read.  Although it is expensive, I am not calling for
the government to regulate its price.  When its price exceeds that which
I am willing to pay, I will stop reading it.

Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: jennings@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Tim Jennings)
Subject: Distribution Amp
Reply-To: jennings@chdasic.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola SPS ASIC, Chandler, AZ
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:25:10 GMT

I just bought a distribution amp from Radio Shaft to try to clean up a lousy
channel I have.  It seems to help so far.  Unfortunately if I turn up the 
gain all the way the Pay channel on 2 goes scrambled.  Is it possible that
the scramble signal is boosted to the extent that the descrambler can't get
rid of it? This does not cause a problem because if I wish to watch this
channel I just down the gain a bit. I'm waiting to see if the amp helps on
the really bad days.

---
----------------------
Timothy J. Jennings 			"I Yam What I Yam."
Motorola ASIC Division			--Popeye
email: jennings@chdasic.sps.mot.com
From: iln@cbnews.cb.att.com (i.niswander)
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 14:21:12 GMT
Keywords: cable tv regulation

In article <1992Sep13.002243.22401@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>In article <3717@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:
>>
>>  It's just as immoral to exploit people whom you have complete control over.
>>
>>  -jack-
>Why is it that the cable companies have complete control over you but
>not over me? 
>Furthermore, if they have complete control over you, why are they
>allowing you to post your postings?
>
>Here is a simple idea; if you don't think you are getting a good service
>for your money, don't subscribe.  I think cable is a waste, so I don't
>subscribe.  On the other hand, I think the Wall Street Journal is a
>great paper to read.  Although it is expensive, I am not calling for
>the government to regulate its price.  When its price exceeds that which
>I am willing to pay, I will stop reading it.
>

The point is that you have access to the Wall Street Journal.  What if
it were restricted because of competition and your only choice was 
a local newspaper you considered inferior?

Would you accept the situation?
From: terryk@encore.com (Terence M. Kelleher)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:59:21 GMT
	<1992Sep8.014837.27688@news2.cis.umn.edu>
	<TERRYK.92Sep8093724@fenix.encore.com> <Bu9v83.58F@encore.com>

In article <Bu9v83.58F@encore.com> rcollins@encore.com (Roger Collins) writes:

   This argument can be used for any business.  Why does a grocery store
   enter a market already serviced by one?  In fact, the newer cable
   company may also have an advantage in that technology advances make his
   equipment cheaper than the established competitor's.

I don't know of a market served by only one grocery store, and I don't
know of a grocery store that has been free to inflate prices for many
years.  The established cable companies have had free reign on prices
while enjoying the monopoly status.  Barring bad managment, most
should be fat and happy in thier current states and poised very nicely
for price war against any competition that starts up.

The majority of the cost of a new cable system would be in materials
and labor to string hundreds of miles of cable.  Neither cable or
labor costs are lower now than when the old systems were installed.

Of course, if you have the funds to survive the price war, and pay the
equipment costs, you may be able to establish a second cable system in
a locality.  You need to keep in mind that after putting out wire
enough to connect every household in your area, your competitor will
not loose all his customers to you, so assume at best you might get
half the households.  Also keep in mind that the prices you charge
will not be as high as your competitor once had.  You should probably
assume you cannot charge customers for installations, as they already
have a system and it is up to you to entice them to change.  Your
competitor will probably also customers to "change back" at no cost if
they are not satisfied with your service.

I'm not saying you can't make it work, but my guess is that only in
locations with extremely high population densities will the business
look at all promising.


--

                                 +----------------+
Terence Kelleher              +--+-------------+  |
Encore Computer Corp.         |  | E N C O R E |  |
terryk@encore.com             |  +-------------+--+
607-687-2644                  +----------------+
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:48:37 GMT

In article <PB1PqB9w164w@tweekco.uucp> alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard) writes:
>Nothing you have said applies to situations that are quasi-public
>monopolies like the phone company, the electric/gas companies,
>and other situations where only one company can generally operate
>within a specific area (as in one network of wires, cables, pipes,
>etc.) and that receives permission from a state, region, or
>municipality to operate within its area.
>
And let me add, nothing you have said demonstrates that cable tv
is, in fact, a 'natural monopoly'.  In certain regions of the country,
competition does exist in the provision of cable tv service.

Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:30:23 GMT

In article <Sep.14.11.13.30.1992.507@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
>
>With most products, yes.  With information, no.  Information is not
>treated like any other product because it is something that people
>must have in order to participate in this society.  
>
Food, clothing and shelter are also more necessary.  Are you advocating
that the government heavily regulate those areas?
I think we have a fundamental disagreement, as you state (which I 
accidentally deleted and can't get back - sorry).
From: pacific@polari.online.com
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Switching Channels During Olympics
Summary: usa
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:11:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)


     During the Olympics the Viacom cable franchise in the Tacoma area
moved the Canadian Broadcasting Company channel and one of the shopping
channels to a frequency that I could not tune without one of their cable
boxes.  they did this so they could accomodate NBC's pay-per-view.  Viacom
did this without any prior warning.  IMHO this constitutes a breech of
contract with subscribers.

John Cohen
Puyallup, Washington
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:52:03 GMT

In a previous article, someone wrote...

>>Of course prices won't go up -- the government (backed by people like
>>you) will point a gun at cable company owners and *force them* to
>>keep their prices down.

To which, someone responded

>If there are no market forces to keep prices down, then I believe
>the government should regulate them.  No gun is required, by the way.
>
Try starting a competing cable firm.  Within a short period of time
a government official will request that you desist from said activity.
Should you refuse, you will ultimately be greeting by gun toting police
officers, hence a gun and the threat of imprisonment is required and
employed.


>If this makes you shake in your shoes.  Then, by all means, shake. People
>with minds as narrow as yours deserve a good shaking.
My definition of narrow mindedness is being unable to envision
competition in the cable (actually entertainment) industry.
From: map@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Date: 12 Sep 92 02:04:53 GMT
Reply-To: map@svl.cdc.com
Organization: Control Data Corporation, Silicon Valley Operations

> = Barry Holsing

>> = Mark Peters

>>To continue the example, even if I have no alternative source for
>>a car, it still wouldn't be proper for me (or the government) to
>>force you to accept my terms.  And if you have no alternative source for
>>what you want from me, resorting to force would be equally improper.
>>

>[Stuff deleted for space]

>The utility service in a free market economy is a lawful MONOPOLY.
>Legal monopolies are justified because of the high cost of running
>the given business and the impracticality of SUPPORTING competitors.

>[Stuff deleted for space]

>The government recognizes society's need or desire to purchase
>services from the monopolies, and thus legislates controls over
>the monopolies.  This REGULATION protects the customer, and is another
>trade off.  Where free market pricing isn't practical, government
>regulated pricing is required.   The government must, however, make
>sure that the monopoly is able to sustain profitability, unless
>the government is willing to subsidize the monopoly service.
>In this case, regulation of a legitimate business is replaced
>by complete beuracracy (sp).

But the very idea that the government has a right to create legal
monopolies, or that it has a right to dictate the prices of a company 
(to whom it hasn't granted such a monopoly) presupposes that an
individual and his property exist to be disposed of at the whim of 
bureaucrats (or the people who elected them).  This is not so -- and
it was in an attempt to escape such governments that this country
was created.

Whether an individual owns a pencil or a multi-national corporation, he 
*does* own it, and so long as he refrains from violating the rights of 
others, nobody can properly take it (or any part of it) away from him.
Neither can anybody but the owner properly dictate the use and
disposal of his property.

To advocate government regulation of an industry (any industry) is
implicitly to claim the right to the use and disposal of other people's 
lives and property.  Why is this not clear to those of you who support 
government regulation of the economy, or if it is clear, how do you
justify it? 

--
Mark A. Peters                              ****** ======================
Control Data Systems, Inc.                  ****** == "What a save!!!" ==
Internet: map@svl.cdc.com                   ****** == "What an idea!!" ==
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: terryk@encore.com (Terence M. Kelleher)
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:37:24 GMT
	<1992Sep8.014837.27688@news2.cis.umn.edu>


In article <1992Sep8.014837.27688@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:

   In article <PB1PqB9w164w@tweekco.uucp> alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard) writes:
   >Nothing you have said applies to situations that are quasi-public
   >monopolies like the phone company, the electric/gas companies,
   >and other situations where only one company can generally operate
   >within a specific area (as in one network of wires, cables, pipes,
   >etc.) and that receives permission from a state, region, or
   >municipality to operate within its area.
   >
   And let me add, nothing you have said demonstrates that cable tv
   is, in fact, a 'natural monopoly'.  In certain regions of the country,
   competition does exist in the provision of cable tv service.
There may be some isolated cases of competition in the cable industry,
but what sane person would enter into competition with an established
cable system?  First, you invest a bundle in equipment and cable to
serve your area, and what do you have?  A price war with a competitor
who has paid off his equipment years ago, while your company has a
heavy debt overhead for years to come.

Allowing competition now, with few unexploited markets available, will
not yeild competition.  

--

                                 +----------------+
Terence Kelleher              +--+-------------+  |
Encore Computer Corp.         |  | E N C O R E |  |
terryk@encore.com             |  +-------------+--+
607-687-2644                  +----------------+