Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 00:54:15 -0700
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: U.S. Cable Television Re-Regulation
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 713, Message 1 of 16

Nigel Allen <Nigel.Allen@lambada.oit.unc.edu> forwarded a press
release from the National Association of Broadcasters and the Consumer
Federation of America that supports the Cable TV Consumer Competition
And Protection Act of 1992.  Granted, cable is a mess: in fact, since
I have moved, I haven't bothered to get cable, preferring the
disinformation I get from the {Los Angeles Times}, National Public
Radio, or Westinghouse Broadcast Group.  My experience with cable TV
operators (Paragon Cable, specifically) would seem to imply that the
words "customer service" don't exist in their dictionaries: I have
lost service so many times that I stopped counting.  And forget about
contacting them to fix anything within a day.  Repair technicians come
out within a week, if that.  Apathetic phone representatives take it
as a given that no matter how long you are kept on hold (typically 10
minutes or more), you can't do anything about it anyway.  Shut up and
like your monopoly.

But that doesn't mean that Congressional re-regulation will solve
these problems.  In fact, I expect them to worsen as a result of this
bill.

The first warning bells go off with the use of inflammatory prose:

>    Cable's Distortion Campaign:

Now, I grant you that I have heard some wild tales from the cable
operators as a result of this bill making the rounds in Congress.  But
nothing in this proposed legislation makes me feel any easier about
dealing with the people running the cable companies.  To wit:

>    Rate Regulation

>    -- The FCC and franchising authorities are authorized to ensure
> that rates for basic service are "reasonable" where cable systems do
> not face effective competition.

>    -- The bill allows citizens, local government and other public
> organizations to file petitions to the FCC challenging rates for all
> other tiers of service.

Can you say, "GTE"?  If anybody ever needed an example of how badly a
regulated utility can be run and still operate in the purported
"public interest", this has got to take the prize.  Anybody
unfortunate enough to have GTE California knows what I mean: surly
technicians, overpriced service (substantially higher than Pac*Bell),
and a business office that operates only during the day -- when I am
at work.  Rate regulation would protect cable operators' profits at
the expense of its customers.

>    Equipment Prices

>    -- Allows the FCC to ensure that prices for installation, remote
> control, converter boxes and other equipment used to provide basic
> service shall be "reasonable."

Wanna bet the cable business finds some foxes to guard the "reason-
able" chicken house?

>    Customer Service

>    -- The bill requires the FCC to establish enforceable customer
> service standards addressing concerns such as outages and service
> calls, system office hours and telephone availability, and information
> on billing and refunds.

What could "enforceable customer service standards" mean?  Who knows!
At this point, any improvement in service after passage of this bill
would allow its sponsors to crow about how much they've done to help
the situation, no matter how tiny a fix.  So they've cut your wait on
hold from fifteen minutes to ten.  Whoopee.

>    Encouragement of Multiple, Competitive Cable Franchises

>    -- Franchising authorities may not award exclusive cable
> franchises, and may not unreasonably refuse to award additional
> competitive franchises.

Why do I smell a rat?  Refer, if you will, to the section in which we
are told that regulators will ensure "reasonable" prices where no
effective competition exists.  The chief reason we now have monopolies
is because there is big money to be had from the cable business for
reelection chests.  Reason is, after all, in the eye of the beholder.
The city councilmen et al. responsible for the present monopolies will
no doubt find some very good and reasonable excuses to continue the
allotment of exclusive operating contracts.  In large cities like Los
Angeles which have several large cable contractors, eliminating
regional monopolies would be even harder: after all, the city's
satraps may say, each operator competes to keep its share of the cable
business.  In practice, though the franchisees may be pitted against
one another for an occaisional show, real competition based on price
and quality of service doesn't happen.  People still live in a Century
Cable neighborhood or a Paragon Cable neighborhood.

The only real, effective way to make the present arrogance from cable
operators go away is competition.  If the experience with local dial
tone is any guide, regulation won't cut it.


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    (310) 568-3555
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      (310) 568-3574
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: rlm@indigo2.hac.com