From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: >>>>>Cablevision lies
Keywords: cable tv regulation
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:20:27 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

map@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters) writes:

>In <Sep.3.14.09.12.1992.5128@gandalf.rutgers.edu> shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

>>rslugg@med.unc.edu (Robert Slugg) writes:

>over a certain geographical area.  Competition against these companies
>is *illegal*.  It is *this* type of company that doesn't "... give a
>damn ..." about customers.

Competition w/ these companies isn't actually illegal.  Its just that
every way in which one could compete is illegal.  I know that that
is a subtle difference, but without that difference, it would be
illegal to make video signals available over the telephone lines, because
it would be in competition with cable. This isn't illegal, just
not possible right now because the fiber optic network doesn't
feed directly into the home yet.  But once it does, there are
no laws forbidding competition with cable that will get in the
way of video delivery via these channels.

>A cable company (and any other company) has a moral *right*
>to whatever profits it can make -- so long as it is done without 
>coercion.  Government granted monopolies are immoral and a violation
>of everybody's rights (and ought to be illegal) because they *do*
>involve coercion.

I realize that competition is the best solution to the "out-of-control"
cable industry.  However, until that is technically feasible, I 
advocate regulation to keep prices down.

>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.

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.

>I'm shaking in my shoes because I can't believe that our universities
>produce (or employ) people who so openly and unashamedly advocate the 
>enslavement of businessmen.  I take that back; I can believe it -- but
>it still scares the hell out of me.

First of all, no one is advocating the enslavement of businesspeople.
I am merely advocating regulation of a monopoly until market forces
can properly take over the job.

Second, I am shaking in my shoes to think that a citizen of the United States
would actually think that University should only produce or employ 
individuals with identical, capitalist  philosophies of life or 
business, surpressing and/or ignoring alternative and contradicting ideas 
instead of encouraging them.

Third, American universities encourage and promote diversity of thought, 
opinion, and philosophy and advocate their free and unbridled expression, so
long as the thoughts, opinions, and philosophies are products of careful
consideration and research.  American universities are not manufacturing
plants which produce identical right-wing capitalists, one after the other.

Fourth, when you were interviewing for your position, did they give you 
a little quiz asking you about your political beliefs? Of course not.
Because that is illegal. They don't do that here at Rutgers either.  
I was hired based on my ability to do a job, not because of my political ideas.

If this makes you shake in your shoes.  Then, by all means, shake. People
with minds as narrow as yours deserve a good shaking.





-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services