johnk@opel.com (John Kennedy) (03/16/91)
Does anyone know of localities where the cable TV companies are required to provide signal to a demark rather than pretending to know where the cable is routed within the house? Around here, the cable companies want to account for and charge the subscriber for each piece of equipment connected to the cable. It seems that cable legislation is a few years behind that for the telephone industry. Have there been any cases involving a subscriber who has, say, an entire house wired for watching the output of a VCR, yet the incoming cable is attached to only that one device, the VCR? Is there legislation afoot anywhere that is attempting to modernize this? John Kennedy johnk@opel.COM Second Source, Inc. Annapolis, MD
bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) (03/17/91)
In article <telecom11.209.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, johnk@opel.com (John Kennedy) writes: > Have there been any cases involving a subscriber who has, say, an > entire house wired for watching the output of a VCR, yet the incoming > cable is attached to only that one device, the VCR? Lots of folks have those 'RABBIT' boxes that ferry the output of the cable box to remote rooms, and relay the infa-red control signals back to switch channels. That must be legal considering the 'nice' stores that sell it. Locally here they encode and charge for the regular channels - even WGBH channel 2, the educational one. But they will give you a healthy hunk of wire to fish where you wish because they only do crude installs. They generally assume they will get to crunch the F fittings on later, but many just do their own. It is time for competition in the cable industry to force the issue of letting all those 'cable ready' TVs be usable without boxes. Maybe when the telco wants to provide TV or the cable folks want to do phone service everyone should write and show up for DPU hearings. Fat chance it will do any good, but just sometimes it may.
POWERS@ibm.com (03/18/91)
I have heard (but not verified) that the city of Las Vegas, NV has cable service to a demarc and inside wiring is the customer's responsibility. Charging is supposed to be on a "per premises" basis. One of the reasons cable companies give for hanging on to inside wiring (besides the obvious one) is that the FCC holds them responsible for RF radiation from their systems, and they shouldn't be held responsible for something they don't own and control. I think their ability to cut off the service from outside gives them all the control they need. Please post any news on this subject. I am on the local Cable Commission in my home town and would like to see a demarc arrangement part of our next franchise agreement. Jack Powers powers@ibm.com fax 408/927-4001 Usual Disclaimer: Opinions, if any, are mine, if anyone's.
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (03/18/91)
In article <telecom11.209.6@eecs.nwu.edu> John Kennedy <johnk@opel. com> writes: > subscriber for each piece of equipment connected to the cable. It > seems that cable legislation is a few years behind that for the > telephone industry. > Is there legislation afoot anywhere that is attempting to modernize > this? Yes, Senate Bill 12 for 1991. Ask your senator to mail you a copy, then bug him to support it if you agree with it. Hearings were held on S.12 last week, but the issues were not covered by CNN.
uccxmgm@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (03/19/91)
I would really cheer the day when cable TV systems adopt the same philosophy regarding a D-mark and inturnal wiring. Every time we have had trouble outside, and they want to come check it out, I have to scuttle like a rat under the house and put their drop back on their single outlet so that the splitter won't show up. When they leave, I duck back under and fix things like they were. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ
whs70@taichi.bellcore.com (24460-W. H. Sohl(L145)) (03/20/91)
In article <telecom11.215.7@eecs.nwu.edu> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes: > In article <telecom11.209.6@eecs.nwu.edu> John Kennedy <johnk@opel. > com> writes: >> subscriber for each piece of equipment connected to the cable. It >> seems that cable legislation is a few years behind that for the >> telephone industry. >> Is there legislation afoot anywhere that is attempting to modernize >> this? > Yes, Senate Bill 12 for 1991. Ask your senator to mail you a copy, > then bug him to support it if you agree with it. Hearings were held > on S.12 last week, but the issues were not covered by CNN. Is this federal legislation or is it legislation within one state? I have always found it ironic that here in New Jersey, most (possibly all) cable tariffs allow the addition of an "inline" VCR at no cost while still requiring an indivisual extra charge for each additional TV added. The irony of that is, of course, that I can video tape another channel while watching something else and then play it back on a separate TV and VCR not connected at all to the cable. I once spoke to a Board of Public Utilities (NJ) "expert" about why should extra TVs be charged for. His position (and presumably that of the cable companies) is that multiple TV's mean you are getting greater value from the cable at any point in time, since you can be watching channel X on one TV while another family member is watching channel Y in another room on another set. I gave him the point about no charge for a VCR and he claimed it really wasn't the same thing. 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. Bill Sohl K2UNK || email Bellcore, Morristown, NJ || UUCP bcr!taichi!whs70 (Bell Communications Research) || or 201-829-2879 Weekdays || Internet whs70@taichi.cc.bellcore.com
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (03/22/91)
In article <telecom11.222.5@eecs.nwu.edu> "24460-W. H. Sohl" <whs70@ taichi.bellcore.com> writes: > 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. 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. I don't mean that cable companies aren't greedy and self-righteous, but let's not ignore the economic realities from their side completely. [Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago, both Commonwealth Edison and People's Gas charge a monthly 'service fee' for the presence of the meter on your premises and the services of the person who comes to read it every month (or two months in the case of gas). This fee has no bearing on the amount energy you consume. The fee is constant. PAT]
bhaynes@gatech.edu (Brad Haynes) (03/24/91)
In article <telecom11.215.7@eecs.nwu.edu> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes: > Yes, Senate Bill 12 for 1991. Ask your senator to mail you a copy, > then bug him to support it if you agree with it. Hearings were held > on S.12 last week, but the issues were not covered by CNN. This is an issue that I have been supporting for quite some time. I live in an apartment complex in Metro Atlanta that contracted with Maxtel Cable to provide CATV services. We signed up as soon as we moved in. The installation guy was the most unprofessional person I have ever dealt with. He knocked over stuff in every room trying to tone out each of the outlets in the apartment. The choice of premium stations was pretty poor and the local station signals were worse than having and indoor antenna. This was really frustrating since the local city cable provider has a great reputation, better selection and pricing. We were stuck. After griping at Maxtel for a while, I solved the problem by disconnecting their service and living without. As far as wiring, I have wanted to do some creative things with the TV/CATV/VCR connections in every place I have lived. In each case, each outlet was run back to the provider's box. Very annoying. I guess the point to all this is to support the Senate Bill! Brad Haynes; AT&T Tridom; bhaynes%tridom.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu
whs70@taichi.bellcore.com (24460-W. H. Sohl(L145) (03/25/91)
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
barefoot@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Heath Roberts) (03/26/91)
>>> 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. This isn't a very good argument ... telephone signals _can_ be billed as measured service. Often they're not, but the more resource- intensive calls (long distance) always are. Long distance is the service that costs the most to provide. Electrical, water, and gas are almost always billed by unit actually used, instead of a flat rate. They're easily measurable, and no one would pay a flat rate -- it's too expensive. Also doesn't provide an incentive to be efficient in energy/water use. Cable utility, on the other hand, comes from the number of hours one can watch. With one television, this is always 24 hours per day (assuming no service interruptions), whether you have a VCR or not. Even if you watch and tape shows for twelve hours a day, and then watch the shows you taped, you can only watch twenty four hours of program materials per day. Unless you have two televisions ... then you can watch more. (yes, I realize that you _could_ have a TV and VCR with cable, and a TV and VCR without, and tape shows then move to the other TV, but this is a little ridiculous.) For those who use the most system resources (premium channels), there's an extra charge. So billing per outlet is, overall, a fair way to charge for cable service. Unlike a telephone line, where you're limited to one conversation per line, no matter how many instruments, you could connect additional TV's and gain more utility were cable services connected the way telephones are. The ideal solution is to have everyone pay based on the number of hours they "consume" and the relative cost to the supplier (home shopping network is much cheaper than HBO for the cable company to provide). I suspect that this will happen once the technology becomes available cheaply enough to be practical. It will definitely be a capability of FiberWorld (NT's vision of telecommunications in the year 2000 and beyond), if that system is ever widely implemented. Heath Roberts NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program barefoot@catt.ncsu.edu
RAF@cu.nih.gov (Roger Fajman) (03/27/91)
> Cable utility, on the other hand, comes from the number of hours one > can watch. With one television, this is always 24 hours per day > (assuming no service interruptions), whether you have a VCR or not. Well, our cable system here charges by the TV too. Trouble with this argument is that, while we have more than two TVs, there are only two of us living in the house (not counting the cats, who don't watch much TV at all :-). Since the TVs are in different rooms, it is quite impossible for us to watch more than two at a time, but we are billed for all. We have only one converter box, as all the TVs but one are cable ready and we have no premium channels (so no unscrambling is necessary). Under those conditions, the converter boxes just get in the way (and they charge for remote controls for them too -- even if you supply your own programmable unit). The cable company installed the inside wiring for free (they will not connect to your wiring) and is now in the process of recovering the cost of that few hours of work forvever. The cable company just announced that the basic service is being divided into three tiers. Initially, the total for all three tiers is the same as before, but I'm sure the price increases won't be long in coming (there have already been two in one year). Of course, many of the channels we like (old movies, CNN) are in the upper tiers. The lowest tier gets you primarily the local broadcast stations and the community service stations. I've never understood the logic of granting an exclusive franchise and deregulating prices at the same time. Of course, we don't have to have cable TV, but that's no reason for allowing a monopoly without price controls. It seems to me that competition should have been the quid pro quo for deregulating prices. I'll bet that the telephone companies wish they could have gotten the deal that the cable companies did.
zellich@stl-07sima.army.mil (Rich Zellich) (03/29/91)
Here in the St. Louis and St. Louis County areas, I have no idea what the various local laws or franchise agreements allow the cable companies to do, but they only charge for the basic entry F-connector (or for the box, if one is connected); they charge for each _box_, not for each internally-connected TV or VCR, and also for each remote control unit (and they're optional, but at least the old city company would give it to you free for the balance of the first year, to get you used to having/using it). I'm not positive, but I think they will also install a second input jack for no extra installation or monthly charge; the only charge is for the converters (city anyway, have no idea about the various StL County cable companies). I've recently had a new house built in the county, and had it prewired for both video and phone. I had a separate jack installed for the future cable input, and it terminates on the other end in a four-foot piece of cable without an F-connector on it; according to the Communications Prewires, Inc. installer, the cable company will drill a hole into my basement and connect to my pre-wired cable on request. They've finally laid the feeder cables up and down our street over the last week, and we're now waiting for them to recontact us to see if we want our house connected to the two-house jack sticking out of a cylinder in my front yard. When they do connect, I will have to buy a few more short video cables and three more Y-adapters to hook up both the raw cable and the output of their converter box to a pair of amplified Radio Schlock switch boxes. These boxes each take four TV and one computer/game inputs, and feed two TV's and a VCR; since I have two of them, and have (or will have) the attic antenna, one of the VCR's, and both cable outputs Y-ed into both of them, I can feed four TV jacks and two VCRs (I currently have two TV sets and two VCRs connected to the switches, with two pre-installed jacks unused in the living room and spare bedroom). The back of my TV/stereo cabinet is an unholy mess of wires and cables, of course, since not only is all the video cable connected every way imaginable, but the TV stereo output (a separate box, more cabling) also feeds into the stereo system, which itself is fed every which way it can possibly be. If I had a cable company that insisted on making me pay for each TV connected, I'd just let them put in their one jack and converter box, and then just cheat and after-wire everything the same way, anyway. The RS boxes are about $40 for the un-amplified one with only one TV and one VCR output, and about $70 or $80 for the amplified version with two TV and one VCR output capability. If you want both raw cable input and premium-channel converter-box input, then all you need do is add a couple of extra short cables and a $3 Y-splitter. Cheers, Rich
ryan@cs.umb.edu (Daniel Guilderson) (03/30/91)
> The ideal solution is to have everyone pay based on the number of > hours they "consume" and the relative cost to the supplier (home > shopping network is much cheaper than HBO for the cable company to > provide). I doubt the cable companies would ever submit to this "solution" because they are operating on fixed costs. It doesn't matter if you aren't watching TV during the month of March, they still have to maintain a working connection to your residence. By the same token, it doesn't cost them anything more if you have 100 TV sets hooked up as opposed to one. For a broadcast type service such as cable television, the amount charged to customers should be based on the cost to make and maintain the physical connection. It's different for phone companies because some calls take up more resources than others. Which makes me wonder about how a computer network could be billed. I figure a TCP/IP (or some kind of ISO based protocol) network would be a highly desirable thing for a lot of people. I don't think it's good enough to limit it to SLIP because then the only time your connected to the network is when you call it up. I would want something that's always connected. I figure the fairest way to bill this kind of network would be to only charge for packets that originate from your node. What do you think? Daniel Guilderson ryan@cs.umb.edu
whs70@taichi.bellcore.com (W. H. Sohl) (03/30/91)
In article <telecom11.243.10@eecs.nwu.edu> RAF@cu.nih.gov (Roger Fajman) writes: > Well, our cable system here charges by the TV too. Trouble with this > argument is that, while we have more than two TVs, there are only two > of us living in the house (not counting the cats, who don't watch much > TV at all :-). Since the TVs are in different rooms, it is quite > impossible for us to watch more than two at a time, but we are billed > for all. > We have only one converter box, as all the TVs but one are cable ready > and we have no premium channels (so no unscrambling is necessary). > Under those conditions, the converter boxes just get in the way (and > they charge for remote controls for them too -- even if you supply > your own programmable unit). > The cable company just announced that the basic service is being > divided into three tiers. Initially, the total for all three tiers is > the same as before, but I'm sure the price increases won't be long in > coming (there have already been two in one year). Of course, many of > the channels we like (old movies, CNN) are in the upper tiers. The > lowest tier gets you primarily the local broadcast stations and the > community service stations. While pricing for all three tiers is NOW the same as the basic package was before, IF they break out the pricing and you then need to subscribe to each tier separately, you can bet that that will lead to the scambling of the channels in tiers two and three. Once that is done, you are then forced to use a cable company converter box for each separate TV to descramble tiers two and three. If that happens, the remote control functionality of your existing cable ready TV sets becomes useless for those channels that are scrambled, thus forcing you to opt for the cable company's remote control features at additional cost. > I've never understood the logic of granting an exclusive franchise and > deregulating prices at the same time. Of course, we don't have to > have cable TV, but that's no reason for allowing a monopoly without > price controls. It seems to me that competition should have been the > quid pro quo for deregulating prices. Here in NJ, the cable company is granted a franchise, but that is not an exclusive monopoly franchise. The economic reality, however, is that no other cable company is likely to want to expend the capital costs associated with cableing an already cabled area on a competitive basis. The deregulation of cable as I recall was done by federal action, so I don't know what, if any, local concerns were addressed during the discussion of the legislation before it became law. These are my personnel viewpoints, and not my employer's. Bill Sohl || email Bellcore, Morristown, NJ || UUCP bcr!taichi!whs70 (Bell Communications Research) || or 201-829-2879 Weekdays || Internet whs70@taichi.cc.bellcore.com
kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) (03/31/91)
In article <telecom11.242.4@eecs.nwu.edu> barefoot@garfield.catt. ncsu.edu (Heath Roberts) writes: >> 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. [If the owner so desires.] > The ideal solution is to have everyone pay based on the number of > hours they "consume" and the relative cost to the supplier (home ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ These are the right words, now if we can just put them into the proper perspective ... I supplied ALL the hardware to extend my cable service throughout my house. The cost to the cable company to provide my service is not one cent higher if I watch a thousand hours a month than it is if I watch one hour. It is not one cent higher if five members on my family watch five different sets than it is if nobody watches anything. I expect to pay the cable company a fair price for the service that they provide, including a reasonable rate of profit. I do NOT expect to pay extra for things that do not cost the supplier any extra. This is predatory pricing based on their monopoly position. The price I pay for electricity is not related to the number of outlets that I have, the price I pay for water is not related to the number of faucets and the sewer fees I pay is not related to the number of drains and toilets that I have connected. Cable rates should not be based on the number of outlets either unless the building owner has ASKED the cable company to install and maintain the wiring. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965
RAF@cu.nih.gov (Roger Fajman) (03/31/91)
> While pricing for all three tiers is NOW the same as the basic package > was before, IF they break out the pricing and you then need to > subscribe to each tier separately, you can bet that that will lead to > the scambling of the channels in tiers two and three. Once that is > done, you are then forced to use a cable company converter box for > each separate TV to descramble tiers two and three. That sounds logical, but does not appear to be what is happening. For the month of March, subscribers to the first two tiers have to use a converter box, but not subscribers to the highest tier. As of April 1, they are renumbering the channels and converter boxes will not be required for those not subscribing to the premium channels (HBO, etc.). The strange thing is that there is no obvious relationship between the new channel numbers and the tiers. Changing tiers requires a visit from the cable company, which suggests that they are doing something in their boxes on the poles.
Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) (03/31/91)
In article <telecom11.252.1@eecs.nwu.edu>, zellich@stl-07sima.army.mil (Rich Zellich) writes: > If I had a cable company that insisted on making me pay for each TV > connected, I'd just let them put in their one jack and converter box, > and then just cheat and after-wire everything the same way, anyway. Around here EVERYTHING is scrambled. Cheat all you want, but they have BIG $ class clout and have it all set up that you WILL be prosecuted for theft of service (just like any old phone phreak) if caught. What we all really need to do is find which politicians now have Florida condos financed by out of state banks under terms the politician could hardly refuse, and that were not available to him before cable came to town. If enough citizens fought hard enough, they would not be able to get their license renewed without more reasonable terms.
dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) (03/31/91)
In article <telecom11.253.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, ryan@cs.umb.edu (Daniel Guilderson) writes: > The ideal solution is to have everyone pay based on the number of > hours they "consume" and the relative cost to the supplier (home > shopping network is much cheaper than HBO for the cable company to > provide). I agree. This is why I like the concept of pay-per-view cable. The local cable company here is offering one or two pay-per-view channels. These are usually filled with boxing, and other sports events I don't care to watch. I much prefer to have them offered on that basis, where I don't pay for them unless I want to watch them. Different events carry different prices, but the idea is exactly what Danial seems to want. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857
carroll@ssc-vax.uucp (Jeff Carroll) (04/02/91)
In article <telecom11.253.5@eecs.nwu.edu> ryan@cs.umb.edu (Daniel Guilderson) writes: > It's different for phone companies because some calls take up more > resources than others. Which makes me wonder about how a computer > network could be billed. I figure a TCP/IP (or some kind of ISO based > protocol) network would be a highly desirable thing for a lot of > people. I don't think it's good enough to limit it to SLIP because > then the only time your connected to the network is when you call it > up. I would want something that's always connected. I figure the > fairest way to bill this kind of network would be to only charge for > packets that originate from your node. What do you think? This topic is discussed rather heavily in the comp.protocols.* newsgroups by people far better qualified than I; but I'll offer my 0.16 bits. My feeling is that the additional overhead involved in per-packet accounting would result in unnecessarily high costs to everyone. I'd advocate flat-fee billing to all but those who impose significant burdens on the network, who could be charged by some coarse measurement of bandwidth consumed. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com
RAF@cu.nih.gov (Roger Fajman) (04/02/91)
> As of April 1, they are renumbering the channels and converter > boxes will not be required for those not subscribing to the premium > channels (HBO, etc.). I got an additional piece of information today. The channel numbering with converter boxes is still going to be different than without a converter box. Can anyone say why this is done? It's confusing when you have some sets with converters and some without.