Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihnss.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihnss!warren
From: warren@ihnss.UUCP (Warren Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.tv,net.legal
Subject: Re: Can CATV fees relate to number of TV's connected?
Message-ID: <2134@ihnss.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Jul-84 11:54:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihnss.2134
Posted: Thu Jul  5 11:54:43 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Jul-84 00:41:48 EDT
References: <709@ihuxe.UUCP> <511@hou2h.UUCP>, <819@pyuxn.UUCP> <512@hou2h.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 26

Actually, I think that the dominant practice for telephones is now
for there to be no charge for telephone extensions, only rental on
the phones (if any).  This is certainly the case with my bill.

There is an important difference here, though.  With all electric
systems and most telephone systems, the consumer owns all of the
wiring in the house/appartment/whatever, and is responsible for
their own installation and maintenance on it (the phone company will do
at, charging a substantial fee).  With cable, however, in many
systems including mine, the cable company owns everything up to the
set.  Thus you could argue that the extension charge is simply
recovering this cost.

In fact, I think that the real reason is just to charge in
proportion to the service received.  In my case, this is very
awkward, since I have a portable TV we treat as a portable and move
around.  I can't have multiple cable jacks without paying for them,
even if I only have one set!  Thus I have a very long cord on my one
jack.

-- 

	Warren Montgomery
	ihnss!warren
	IH (8-367) x2494