🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: uiuc.consumers
Article #26

Re: Cablevision lies

#26
From: Michael D. Maxfield
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 09:53
40 lines
2828 bytes
In article <17p716INNf07@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> hougen@uirvlh.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen) writes:
>
>Evidently, the cable companies are worried that they will loose
>business or make less profit if the so called "reregulation bill" is
>passed and they are probably right.  I'm sure they would like to pass
>their increased costs on to the consumers so while their tactics may
>be slimy, I can't say that I blame them.  

The funny stuff I see about the NCTA letter, is that they mention only
one facet of S-12 and HR-4850 and not the other 95% that would make
the customers say "SOUNDS GREAT."  At a worst case scenario, the cable
companies would have to pay each of the three network affiliates around
$0.05 cents per subscriber per month.  Thats $0.15 cents per month or
$1.80 per year per subscriber.  I don't know where they think they can
get away implying that the network carry clause will cost $23-$51 more
per month.

>It would be much better if the cable companies were deregulated.  As
>it is now, most cable companies have an exclusive franchise (even
>though it is sometimes called a nonexclusive franchise) to serve a
>particular area and the only thing that is keeping them from raising
>their rates sky high is the fear of rate regulation.  This is supposed
>to be a free country; why not open up the cable markets to free market
>competition?  Then we could have low rates and the cable companies

Thats the beauty of the proposed bills.  If there is reasonable competition
in the same cable market, then those cable operators in those markets will
not face the same regulation which the monopolies face.  Neither will the
small start-up cable operator trying to make a go of it in a market which
for all intents and purposes, is monopolized by one cable operator.

Once I get the bills typed into ASCII, I will post a location from
where they may be FTPed.  Until then, as I type them, I am posting
10K blocks to alt.cable-tv.re-regulate.
estimated time of completion-  S-12 1 week
                             HR4850 2 weeks

**************************************************************************
*     tweek@netcom.com  tweek@tweekco.uucp  WWIVNet 5@5058  4@5056       *
**************************************************************************
Technical Details
Message-ID: <2hgnzd-.tweek@netcom.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!tweek
References: <1992Aug28.180447.31477@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1992Aug28.205213.761@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <17p716INNf07@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!tweek
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Message-ID: <2hgnzd-.tweek@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 09:53:25 GMT
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES
References: <1992Aug28.180447.31477@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1992Aug28.205213.761@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <17p716INNf07@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>
Lines: 42