🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep2.204208.15232@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:

>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)?
>
I've thought that logic for a long time, and still believe it too.  You
missed one or... I tape a show while watching another, and then give the
tape to a friend who watches it in another room wile I watch another show
on TV.  Thats viewing the same cable in two different places at (with respect
to timeshifting) at the same time.  Why is that not wrong? (or is it?)

BUT, the Senate bill, as I read it, will stillow allow cable companies
to charge for additional outlets if that is their general way of doing
things.

I SAW THE NCTA LETTER today incorporated into a commentary in the local
Contra Costa Times (Wed. Sept 2, 92) today.  It was in the editorial
section, but not in the letters to the editor place.  It was in a 
location reserved for columnists.  I will try to type out that letter and 
post it for information to those who want to see the cheap tactics which
the cable lobby is using.... Oh, did I mention, the column was written by
the general manager of Televents, a TCI company.

MY LETTER TO THE EDITOR.

Letters to the Editor
Contra Costa Times
P.O. Box 8099
Walnut Creek, CA
94596-8099

Editors Fax Number: (510) 943-8362

I find it truely disqusting that the Times would allow a represenative
of a corporation which has a self interest in the demise of the Cable
Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992 to speak out against legis-
lative bills S.12 and HR.4850 with very small writing at the end of
the commentary stating the writers affiliation with the cable industy.

Although a bit more detailed than a letter which is being sent out 
nationally by the National Cable Television Association, much of which
is incorporated in the commentary comes directly from that letter.

I would hope that the Times will assign a reporter to do an indepth 
analysis of the Cable Television Consumer Protection bills, and report
ALL the facts to the people.  

Both bills have passed their respective houses with about 75% of the 
members of each house supporting their respective bills.  With a vote
of that size, certainly you must see that these bills are more than
special interest legislation for broadcasters as Mr. Haber seems to
imply.

The payment of fees to NETWORKS, does not exist in the Senate bill, nor
in the House bill.  What the bill does require, is that if a LOCAL
BROADCASTER elects to NOT force the cable operator to carry the station,
then the station may request a fee (which shall be regulated by the FCC)
for the carriage of that station on the cable system.  

I suggest to everyone who has doubts as to my statements, or Mr. Haber's,
to call your Federal representatives, and request copies of both bills,
and read them yourself.  In my opinion, you will see that the statements
made by Mr. Haber are overly inflated, if not totally wrong.


Michael D. Maxfield
Moraga, Ca, 94556-2255