Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
From: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 02:14:54 GMT
Organization: Northern Bytes BBS - Sault Ste. Marie, MI U.S.A.

In article <1992Sep12.000740.14723@news2.cis.umn.edu> dated Sat, 12 Sep 1992
00:07:40 GMT, grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) wrote:

 > 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.

Now how did this turkey get in here?  :-)

Here is the point you miss:  The government is already involved with Cable TV
by virtue of it being a regulated monopoly (in almost all areas).  When a
business is a regulated monopoly, it is permitted to operate free of
competition, BUT there is a tradeoff... it must accept regulation by the
government.  And it is QUITE appropriate for citizens to petition their
government officials when they feel that the price of a regulated service is
too high.

Now, if you feel that normal competitive pressures should apply, and that
government should NEITHER regulate NOR PROTECT cable companies, I can live with
that.  What I cannot accept is the idea that cable companies should be totally
free of normal competitive pressures AND permitted to set rates at whatever
they can get, without regard to actual costs.

I do not think the original poster was being greedy at all.  It would be greedy
to expect a company to give away service for below their costs, or only
slightly above.  But it appears that cable companies almost have a license to
print money, and they don't use much of it to improve their service or to add
more channel capacity (on the other hand, they seem to have plenty to spend on
propaganda campaigns that attempt to scare cable customers, and lie about the
intent of upcoming legislation).

 > 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.

If the original poster is working for a regulated monopoly, and is receiving a
salary that far exceeds the norm for those in similar positions in
non-regulated industries, then you may have something of a point.  Since he
probably isn't in that situation, you're being totally ridiculous.

Remember, most regulated utilities WANT government to meddle in their affairs,
at least to the point of keeping the big, bad competition away.  Well, if you
want government to be your master and protector, you have to accept that it can
tell you what to do in other areas of your business.  And since "government" is
"we the people" (here in the U.S.A.), it is very proper for citizens to request
their government officials to set acceptable rates for regulated utilities.

I don't usually post to this group, but I just thought that it took a lot of
nerve (and almost no thought) to flame the guy who wrote the original message
like you did.  You don't happen to work for a cable company, do you?

Jack

Jack Decker                               | No, I don't own an Amiga; I just
Internet address: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com | get Internet mail via a gateway
Fidonet address:  1:154/8                 | system that runs on an Amiga.