🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov3.224826.25246@mtu.edu> cmwolf@mtu.edu (christopher m. wolf) writes:

	{local cable company wants extra fee if home has multiple TVs}
>jeh@cmkrnl.com writes:
>>This varies from one place to another.  Here in San Diego both Cox Cable and
>>Southwestern Cable do not charge for additional outlets, nor do they mind if
>>you hook up your own splitters 

>Herein lies the problem.  Many cable companies believe another set should be
>another payment, meaning if you hook up two and pay for one, you're stealing!

	No, they cannot call it stealing; there is a legal definition
of 'theft' which requires that an object 'stolen' be unavailable to
the original owner.  The phrase 'theft of services' is a PR catchphrase,
what they REALLY are objecting to is the violation of a term of their
contract with the subscriber.

	Cable companies are (in some localities) monopolies (because
the city/county has allowed them exclusive access to telephone/power 
poles for wiring).  Monopoly companies are free to cut a deal with
the municipal authority for any kind of services and fees, and
some of these deals are... rather cheesy.

	If the federal 'cable bill' recently passed is upheld
in the courts, some considerable pressure will be brought on 
monopoly cable companies to conform to some standards of service
and fees.  At the present time (partly due to the Reagan 
era disaffection with regulation) the cable companies can
do whatever they want: the local (city, county) regulatory
agencies are largely ineffective in representing the interests
of the public in this regard.

	The future may belong to small-dish satellite systems,
and the cable companies (knowing this) are in the uncomfortable
position of having to pay off their investors quickly, or
having to compete with a competitive operation that doesn't
need to lease telephone-pole rights of way, nor maintain 
miles of wire and hundreds (thousands?) of amplifiers.

	John Whitmore