Article View: uiuc.consumers
Article #40Re: Cablevision lies
From: 22501-sohl
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 20:42
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 20:42
44 lines
3052 bytes
3052 bytes
In article <1992Sep2.170848.10491@mcc.com> amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes: >In article <Btxpp4.C98@cmptrc.lonestar.org> andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart) writes: >> Do you KNOW that they would like to charge me an ADDITIONAL FIVE DOLLARS >> for each TV set hooked up in the house? No additional services, just >> more extensions. > >Your position is self-contradictory. If having cable on more than one >TV _weren't_ an additional benefit (i.e., service), there would be no >reason for you to desire it. And yet you complain about having to pay >for it. Do you think you should get free rugs in all your rooms after >paying for the first one, too? Ah.. a favorite gripe of mine, I agree with those that believe there should be a single fee for a single residential home regardless of the number of sets one has. Why, because the cable company delivers a single composite signal and the internal distribution/use of that single shouldn't be any concern of there's. The telephone company made the same claims about extension phones and inside wiring. Today, no one pays for extensions and anyone can run there own inside telephone wiring. I've heard the argument that with 2 or more sets the user is getting extra benefit. That's true, but not at any additional cost to the cable TV provider. There are those that say you have only "contracted" for reception of one channel at a time. If that is so, then why is there no additional charge for a VCR that is connected in series so I can watch channel X and record channel Y. (I am aware that some systems apparently want you to pay for a VCR connection also as an extra TV fee). Likewise, what if the user pays for the basic service plus one or more premium services? Shouldn't the paying of any extra premium service fee imply that you should be able to watch at least 2 channels simultaneously (a basic channel on one TV and the premium on another)? Food for thought..... Oh, and the rug example above is not an accurate analogy, in that case the store that sells you a rug clearly would need to supply additional material to you to cover additional rooms. Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.) Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!dancer!whs70 201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Sep2.204208.15232@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!walter!porthos!dancer!whs70References:
<1992Aug28.205213.761@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <Btxpp4.C98@cmptrc.lonestar.org> <1992Sep2.170848.10491@mcc.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!walter!porthos!dancer!whs70 From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) Subject: Re: Cablevision lies Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 20:42:08 GMT Message-ID: <1992Sep2.204208.15232@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> References: <1992Aug28.205213.761@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <Btxpp4.C98@cmptrc.lonestar.org> <1992Sep2.170848.10491@mcc.com> Sender: netnews@porthos.cc.bellcore.com (USENET System Software) Lines: 45