🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov4.001041.10635@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, kolstad@cae.wisc.edu (Joel Kolstad) writes:
> In article <3943@eastman.UUCP> lsls00@iliad.Kodak.COM (Ilia Levi) writes:
> >Actually this makes sense. The telephone company may not charge fee for the
> >extra extentions because you still have one line, you cannot call two people
> >at the same time. Whereas with cable extensions each TV can be tuned to
> >a different channel. So you may get significantly better value with additional
> >outlets, and the cable company is on the ball wanting to charge you extra.
> 
> You're right that the cable company should WANT to charge you for it given
> your interpretation.
> 
> But lets try another one... I pay for the ENTIRE frequency spectrum that
> happens to come across on my phone line.  I also pay for the ENTIRE
> frequency spectrum that comes across my cable TV line.  I should be able
> to do whatever I want to with that spectrum.
> 
> Besides, your argument is silly from the practical perspective -- if we
> buy it, you'd be telling us that the cable company should be able to charge
> us more if we have picture-in-picture TVs or VCRs so that we can record
> one channel and watch another at the same time.
> 

But according to my cable company, they justify this by saying that
you can only watch either the VCR or the TV signal at one time.  They have
nothing against the record while watch idea, because you can't do both.  I won't
touch your PIP idea.


> If the cable company wants to charge me for a _channel_, then fine -- they
> should provide the equipment to ship _only_ that channel into my home.
> But as it stands right now, I have a wire in my home, and I should be able
> to do whatever I want to do _any frequencues whatsoever_ that appear on
> that wire.
> 
> Notice that this argument of mine implies that descrambling cable is
> OK.  Legally, I think this should be the case.  Again, if scrambled HBO
> shows up at 55MHz on that cable and I can manipulate the voltages in such
> a way as to get unscrambled HBO, I think that this ought to be legal.
> I should note, though, that I have severe MORAL problems with this idea,
> and would therefore never do it personally.  But the law should NOT
> legislate morality!  
> 
> If the cable company doesn't want people to see HBO without paying something 
> for it, they shouldn't ship it down the line.  Putting filters inside the
> cable box is a cheap way to do this, but some cable companies are so
> profit hungry that they won't even do this.  (And tampering with the cable
> company's boxes is obviousy a crime.)
> 
> Well, that's my $.02...
> 
> 						---Joel Kolstad
> 

Walter Boese Jr.
walterb@sequoia.cray.com