Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!ria!uwovax.uwo.ca!telecom-request From: whs70@taichi.bellcore.com (24460-W. H. Sohl(L145) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws Message-ID: Date: 25 Mar 91 15:07:35 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Reply-To: "24460-W. H. Sohl" Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ Lines: 57 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 240, Message 3 of 11 Several days ago I wrote: >> My view is that the cable "service" should be provided to a single >> point within any home at a standard signal level and then any further >> distribution within the home should be left to the homeowner. Fears >> of bad inside wiring being detrimental to other cable subscribers can >> be alleviated by using some type of unidirectional broadband isolation >> device as a standard cable interface (terminating module) for each >> home. Jeff Sicherman asked the following in response to my posting above: > Maybe you would also like to be charged for only the electrical or > water connections to your home without regard to the volumes consumed. > Or perhaps a rooming house should pay the same as a single-family > home. > I know that the issues are not _exactly_ the same since the programs > are not consumables but there are acquistion costs that do relate to > the level of usage that affect profitability of a particular type of > programming versus alternative ones. That's why some shows are > pay-per-view, so the average watcher won't end up subsidizing some > high-cost showings. The issues aren't even close by my judgment. First, as mentioned in my original posting, cable companies in NJ do NOT charge for the presence of an in-line VCR with your TV, so you already have the means to "double-up" your volume consumed. Second, there are now TV sets available with the capability to watch two or more channels at one time, does that mean I (we) should be charged more for that type of set. Three, and perhaps the most important, is that I pay a basic service fee each month that is totally irrespective of the use I get from the cable channels. The fee is the same if I watch TV seven days a week or not at all. The cable company puts togeather a basic cable offering to which I subscribe. It is not my concern as to how much that costs, because the costs are born across all cable users as the basic fee. A few more notes: I do NOT have any premium service channels. If one uses the "value or volume" argument to justify the charges for a second or third TV set charge, then I should have the option to buy a premium channel and then watch it on a TV set separate from the "primary" set if I so choose. After all, I'm now paying a premium service charge in addition to my basic charge. I know of NO cable tariff that would allow me to do this. These comments and opinions are the mine alone and are not those of my employer. Bill Sohl || email Bellcore, Morristown, NJ || UUCP bcr!taichi!whs70 (Bell Communications Research) || or 201-829-2879 Weekdays || Internet whs70@taichi.cc.bellcore.com