🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Sep03.014035.18388@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> bc338569@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Brian Catlin) writes:
>In article <BtyytA.DLs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>>
>>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.
>>>
>>Tell me, do you think that the phone company should charge you $5 extra
>>per month for EACH and EVERY PHONE you have connected to your phone line
>>in your home? Even if you OWN those phones? I notice that the phone company
>>doesn't try to charge you for having a phone jack in your bedroom as well
>>as your living room. Why should the cable company be any different?
>
>Actually, it does cost the cable company extra.  (A _very_ little extra).
>When adding several sets, the cable company must supply you with a stronger
>signal, which also takes some of the signal away from the rest of the people
>farther down the distribution cable.

Sorry, but that's not true at all.

I currently have 4 devices connected to my cable. RapeVision barely
provides me with enough signal to drive ONE TV; in order to drive 4, I
needed to purchase, at my own expense, a CATV distribution amplifier. It
costs RapeVision NOTHING extra for my 3 "extra" sets; therefore they
have absolutely no right to charge me for hooking them up.

>*** Re-regulate the cable industry to the max!!! (I love to see them squirm) ***

I agree, but I only want them to give consumers a fair deal, good
service, and decent picture quality. Seeing them squirm is only a
pleasurable fringe benefit ;-)