dmq6899@tamsun.TAMU.EDU (Dave Querin) (06/27/91)
TCA Cable Company, based in Tyler, Texas, has announced that they are dropping the MTV network from their cable service. It seems that MTV was unwilling to negotiate a programming change for TCA (a relatively small cable provider, servicing four states, Lousiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Arkansas). TCA finds MTV's programming offensive. There was no public opinion polling done on behalf of TCA (aside from the phone calls they received from unsatisfied subscribers). Now, with fewer than 7 days to go before the cancellation, they make the news public. Is this not a scandal? The customer service rep I spoke with said the programming is too negatively influential to the public's children (she said it with a smaller vocabulary). I need to make noise, and big noise about this (I feel). Anyone have any suggestions about how to make an impact in this unruly decision? Thank you much. -David Querin dmq6899@tamsun.tamu.edu /* * The opinions expressed definately do not reflect on my employer or the * university i attend. If I upset you, take it up with me not them. */
dpassage@soda.berkeley.edu (David G. Paschich) (06/27/91)
In article <2153@tamsun.TAMU.EDU> dmq6899@tamsun.TAMU.EDU (Dave
Querin) complains that his cable company is going to drop MTV because
it doesn't like the programming.
What I would do is call the cable company and tell them that you'd
like to cancel your service because of their actions with respect to
MTV. And get all your friends to do it, too. And then write letters
to whatever government body in your area handed out the cable
franchise (city, county, whatever), the FCC, and your congressperson,
complaining about the lack of competition in the cable industry and
the stupid definition of competition that the FCC uses when deciding
whether or not to regulate a cable company. (They define competition
as at least 5 broadcast stations in your area. That doesn't even
compare with the dozens that you get on cable.)
--
David G. Paschich Open Computing Facility UC Berkeley
dpassage@ocf.berkeley.edu
Go Colorado Rockies -- Opening Day, Mile High Stadium, April 1993mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) (06/27/91)
So why is any cable company morally obligated to carry any programming at all? It would only be "censorship" if some outside authority imposed a restriction on them. -- ------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Covington | Artificial Intelligence Programs The University of Georgia | Athens, GA 30602 U.S.A. -------------------------------------------------------
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.235525.2474@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
So why is any cable company morally obligated to carry any programming
at all?
They are not "morally obligated," nor did the original poster say they
were. He said that he wanted to do something about this. He is
apparently a customer of theirs and they are changing his service in a
way he objects to, without consulting him or any of their other
customers. Since cable companies often (always?) have a monopoly in
their area, he does not have the option of switching to another company.
It would only be "censorship" if some outside authority imposed a
restriction on them.
An outside authority *is* imposing a restriction. The cable company is
restricting what the viewers can see (see my point about no alternate
providers). Here's a definition of a censor from the office dictionary:
1. n. a person empowered to suppress publications or excise any matter
in them thought to be immoral, seditious or otherwise undesirable.
So, the company is acting in the role of a censor by eliminating things
on the basis of their own judgement that it is "undesirable" (and
probably "immoral"). Censoring is not done only by governments.
Now, certainly, the company can carry whatever channels they please.
However, it makes perfect sense for a customer to object to having the
service changed and want to try to get it changed back. Why you brought
up the red herring of "moral obligation," I don't know. It's simply
business.
Muffybagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Bagchi) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.235525.2474@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: > >So why is any cable company morally obligated to carry any programming >at all? > >It would only be "censorship" if some outside authority imposed a >restriction on them. > It's censorship because those who want their MTV can't do anything because cable companies are exempt from normal competition. I would say, because consumers have no input on the programming carried that yes, a cable company is morally obligated to carry all available programming. If they think that MTV costs too much to carry, why not make some form of a premium? Cable is all about freedom of viewing choice. And the standard arguments apply. Customers who don't like MTV don't have to hit the magic buttons to watch it. In fact, they can block it out of the boxes most of the time, so they can't even watch it by mistake. -rj -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ranjan Bagchi - asleep...... | v,i,j,k,l,s,a[99]; bagchi@eecs.umich.edu | main() { ------------------------------- for(scanf("%d",&s);*a-s;v=a[j*=v]-a[i],k=i<s,j+=(v=j<s&&(!k&&!!printf(2+"\n\n%c"-(!l<<!j)," #Q"[l^v?(l^j)&1:2])&&++l||a[i]<s&&v&&v-i+j&&v+i-j))&&!(l%=s),v||(i==j?a[i+=k]=0:++a[i])>=s*k&&++a[--i]) ; } /* Osovlanski and Nissenbaum */ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stokes@cs.utexas.edu (Perry Stokes) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.235525.2474@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >So why is any cable company morally obligated to carry any programming >at all? I saw something regarding this on the news last night. They said that the cable company is turning off MTV in ALL the homes, and will turn it back on if the customer requests they do. Can anyone here confirm this? Perry -- Perry Stokes | stokes@cs.utexas.edu | Support the Free Software Foundation stokes@gnu.ai.mit.edu |
FVEST@DUCVAX.AUBURN.EDU (Floyd Vest) (06/27/91)
[26 Jun 91 21:21:24 GMT] dpassage@soda.berkeley.edu (David G. Paschich) wrote: >In article <2153@tamsun.TAMU.EDU> dmq6899@tamsun.TAMU.EDU (Dave >Querin) complains that his cable company is going to drop MTV because >it doesn't like the programming. >What I would do is call the cable company and tell them that you'd >like to cancel your service because of their actions with respect to The cable company here carries local advertisement. If the cable company there does, contact the advertisers. Put the pressure there. College Station *is* Texas A&M. Mention to the advertisers the possibility of a student boycott. You can be much more effective using economic pressure than you can ever hope to be appealling to the cable companies sense of what is right. Don't be belligerent and don't make idle threats. Why punish yourself by cancelling your service (assuming there are other channels that you still want)? Your $10-20 means very little to the cable company--they are a monopoly without competetion--you can't take your business elsewhere. Your business does mean more to their advertisers--you can take your business elsewhere...and so can they. -- Floyd Vest <fvest@ducvax.auburn.edu> <fvest@auducvax.bitnet> Manager, Administrative Systems--Auburn University, Alabama USA Voice: +1 205 844 4512 BBS: +1 205 745 3989 FIDO: 1:3613/3
tnixon@hayes.uucp (06/27/91)
In article <BAGCHI.91Jun26212644@hastings.eecs.umich.edu>, bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Bagchi) writes: > If they think that MTV costs too > much to carry, why not make some form of a premium? Cable is all > about freedom of viewing choice. That is, in fact, what is happening. Some folks apparently don't have the whole story. What I've read is that the company is simply moving MTV from "basic cable" to being a part of a premium package that costs a little bit more a month (not $10/month per channel like HBO, but a little bit more for a package of channels). Based on speculation, I suppose, but I think this is more a matter of this cable company not wanting to eat an MTV per-subscriber rate increase, so they're moving it to a premium service so that the subscribers who actually want it pay for it, and those that don't will not have to pay higher basic cable rates to subsidize those who do. Personally, I think it's fine. A good business decision. I never watch MTV; if my cable system said "we're having to raise everybody's rates because MTV is raising their rate to us", that's when _I'd_ get mad. All of this nonsense about "censoring" MTV because of near-nudity and eroticism in the videos is just that -- nonsense. The kids will still be able to watch it, because most of those homes probably already take the premium package anyway. -- Toby tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net
brendan@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe) (06/27/91)
I personally would get the town council, or city council, or whatever,
that originally agreed to TCA's bid for providing cable to the area,
and make sure they realize that TCA has very possibly gone outside the
bounds of the contract that they signed with the town/city.
Better Cable TV of Waterville, ME, provided the Playboy Channel to its
area (including South China, ME, of ~4000 people) until enough people
complained that they took it off the air. Inversely, enough people
complained about them not carrying the local Fox station, that they
finally gave in and carried Channel 9 out of Boston, so they could
kill two birds with one stone -- get Fox programming (my younger
brother is now going hog-wild over the Simpsons & Beverly Hills
90210), and they get Celtics basketball [the pre-requisite to
everything in Waterville].
Anyway, my point is, if you get enough people complaining or writing
letters to the owner of the company, there's bound to be more
attention payed to it than a cursory 5-day advance notice that's
blindly followed through.
--
Brendan Kehoe - Widener Sun Network Manager - brendan@cs.widener.edu
Widener University in Chester, PA A Bloody Sun-Dec War Zone
Top Ten Surprises in Rocky V -- Number 5, Loveable Character Chewbacca Dieswcs) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun26.235525.2474@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: > So why is any cable company morally obligated to carry any programming > at all? > It would only be "censorship" if some outside authority imposed a > restriction on them. There are two kinds of cable tv companies - businesses engaged in free, honest competition - businesses that get the government to grant them a monopoly, which forbids any other company from offering competing service. If the first kind of business decides not to carry MTV, you can buy cable service from someone else, or start your own company. If the second kind of business decides not to carry MTV, NOBODY ELSE CAN SELL IT TO YOU EITHER, and the government will arrest them for doing so. That's censorship. It's just like the government saying that only one newspaper can be sold in your town, and they'll arrest anyone who sells any other newspaper - that's censorship. If this cable company is in an area without a government monopoly, then it's not censorship, it's just bad service, and if you can get MTV by satellite, buy a dish, and maybe split the cost with your neighbors and run a cable over to their houses too. You can't do that here in New Jersey. -- Pray for peace; Bill # Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ # No, that's covered by the Drug Exception to the Fourth Amendment. # You can read it here in the fine print.
jmason2@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Jamie Mason) (06/28/91)
In article <20877@cs.utexas.edu> stokes@cs.utexas.edu (Perry Stokes) writes: >They said that the cable company is turning off MTV in ALL the homes, and will >turn it back on if the customer requests they do. That *still* stinks. They are not the parents of the kids who they feel are endangered. They have *no business whatsoever* making and executing such moral judgments *at all*! The cable company is a *utility*. (or at least it should be, that is how it is used. Maybe it isn't, legally... yet) How would the public react if the phone company decided what kind of phone calls they thought were good? Or even blocked all 900 / 976 numbers *without* asking then demanded that customers call to reactivate them? How about if the electric company decided not to supply power to appliances which they thought were offenisve?? That cable company has made a BIG mistake. Their *only* job is to provide *all* the channels they can get their hands on. Anything else, and they are stepping out of line. I hope Roger's cable (of Toronto) buys them out, or steals their business when all their customers cancel service. Rogers already owns a lot of cable franchise in Texas. Jamie ... Lurker in the Process Table Written On Thursday, June 27, 1991 at 02:53:40pm EDT
paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) (06/28/91)
In article <MUFFY.91Jun26180609@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >An outside authority *is* imposing a restriction. The cable company is >restricting what the viewers can see (see my point about no alternate >providers). By your definition, every information provider is a censor, since they select how best to use their (limited) bandwidth. CATV (which stands for Community Access TeleVision, commonly distorted to CAble TV) is just that; and by the existing laws and interpretations of the First Amendment, are subject to Community Standards. So frankly, if you don't like the communtity resource, go buy a dish -- it's cheaper in the long run, and you have access to anything you can pay for. On a related note, a far more insidious act of censorship occurred last year with American Exxxtasy. AE broadcast NC-17 type material using a satellite transponder to home dish owners. The channel was of course encrypted using the GI VideoCipher II. However, the existence of said channel offended religious officials in a Bible Belt state, who then filed suit against AE and the uplink company, which proptly stopped uplinking AE. The suit was settled after six months of haggling, in which AE agreed never to operate in the NC-17 domain ever again. -- -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail." ->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | - Henry L. Stimson (1929)
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun28.002632.27854@neon.Stanford.EDU> paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes: In article <MUFFY.91Jun26180609@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >An outside authority *is* imposing a restriction. The cable company is >restricting what the viewers can see (see my point about no alternate >providers). By your definition, every information provider is a censor, since they select how best to use their (limited) bandwidth. Read the thread. This is *not* my definition, it was Michael Covington's definition. My definition (or, at least, the one I grabbed out of the dictionary, which is kind of close to mine) is the restriction of material due to its "immorality," etc. That means that if I run a library and I can't carry every book, it is not censorship. However, if I say, well, I *could* carry this book, but I think it's immoral, so I won't, then that *is* censorship. I don't understand why people can't understand what censorship is. It is not only the restricting of views you agree with (and therefore think ought to be expressed). It is *any* restrictions. Although I wasn't there at the time, I have always had the impression that "freedom of speech" was meant to include *all* views, not just the ones that "society" approved of. Have you ever noticed, by the way, that society's standards change? And how is that change effected? Amazingly enough, it often comes about because people do things which are not approved of by society. I am not saying that it is illegal (or "immoral") for a company to restrict the information that it provides. However, just because it is "legal" and "business" does not mean it is not "censorship." Not all lack of information is censorship CATV (which stands for Community Access TeleVision, commonly distorted to CAble TV) is just that; and by the existing laws and interpretations of the First Amendment, are subject to Community Standards. So frankly, if you don't like the communtity resource, go buy a dish -- it's cheaper in the long run, and you have access to anything you can pay for. I hardly even watch TV, so why would I want a dish? Frankly, you're making several unwarranted assumptions. By the way, whose "Community Standards" are we talking about here? The original poster said that none of the subscribers were asked about the change - so, that's hardly listening to the "community," eh? (By the way, the newest information indicates that all the company is doing is charging for MTV instead of offering it free. If that is the case, it is not censorship, although it may be undesirable from the point of view of the customers.) Muffy
cjackso@uswnvg.UUCP (Clay Jackson) (06/28/91)
In article <2153@tamsun.TAMU.EDU> dmq6899@tamsun.TAMU.EDU (Dave Querin) writes: >have any suggestions about how to make an impact in this unruly >decision? Thank you much. Well - first, good luck! Since DeReg, the cable companies are hardly regulated at all, unless they do something REALLY awful (and while cancelling MTV may seem horrible to you, in the overall scheme of things it's small potatoes), like a negative option deal that TCI tried to pull here in Washington State. Anyway - CATV companies are regulated by the municipality (city, county, whatever) that issues them their exclusive franchise. Somewhere in your local area there should be something like an "Office of Cable Communications" (or some other such title), to whom you can complain as loudly as you want. It may or may not do any good, depends on how sympathetic the "public servant" on the other end of the line is with your cause. The final thing you can do is wait (sometimes a LOOOONG wait, like 10 years) until the cable company's franchise is up for renewal, at which point a (public) hearing (ask your Cable Communications people to tell you when the franchise comes up for renewal, and then, about 3-4 months prior to that, start digging around in your local govt to find out what body will hold the hearing - typically a city/town or county council. There will typically be NO widespread notice of a hearing, so you'll have to find it on your own!) will be held at which you (and as many friends as you can muster) can get up and tell the council (or whoever is holding the hearing) what scumbags the cable tv operators are, and why they should not get a new franchise (or at least why they should be forced to do things differently). -- Clay Jackson - N7QNM US WEST NewVector Group, Inc clayj@cjsysv.wa.com | ...uunet!uswnvg!cjackso
paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) (06/29/91)
In article <MUFFY.91Jun28000314@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: >Read the thread. This is *not* my definition, it was Michael >Covington's definition. My definition (or, at least, the one I grabbed >out of the dictionary, which is kind of close to mine) is the >restriction of material due to its "immorality," etc. Then you don't think that attempting to stop the publication of the Pentagon Papers was censorship? Clearly this is a very limited view of the problem. Dictionary definitions (and since we are discussing a point of Law here, leave Webster's out of it) aside, now that more facts have become available, it appears that this is censorship in a wider context. >I don't understand why people can't understand what censorship is. It >is not only the restricting of views you agree with (and therefore think >ought to be expressed). It is *any* restrictions. This is a contradiction. A moment ago you were ranting that my defintion of censorship was overbroad. Now it's any restriction at all? > Although I wasn't >there at the time, I have always had the impression that "freedom of >speech" was meant to include *all* views, not just the ones that >"society" approved of. Wrong. As with all freedoms, there are limitations based on the rights of others. For example, kiddie porn is illegal in the US because the vast majority of people find it patently offensive. Existing obscenity statutes are based on the concept of "community standards", where the very definition of obscenity is tied with geography. The legal fiction is that if you don't like the moral standards of a community, you shouldn't live there. > Have you ever noticed, by the way, that >society's standards change? Of course they do. But not necessarily to the Left. > And how is that change effected? Amazingly >enough, it often comes about because people do things which are not >approved of by society. This is a byproduct of the legal system, which requires that a party must be in jeopardy to have standing for litigation. Sometimes they win. Sometimes, they don't. >I hardly even watch TV, so why would I want a dish? That was a rhetorical suggestion. If you don't like your local cable system, you can always buy a dish. > Frankly, you're >making several unwarranted assumptions. Would you mind listing a few? > By the way, whose "Community >Standards" are we talking about here? The original poster said that >none of the subscribers were asked about the change - so, that's hardly >listening to the "community," eh? I honestly doubt that "none of the subscribers were asked about the change". More likely than not, subscribers wrote to request the change, and the company decided to perform the change *without* further public comment. That's not the same thing as you're claiming. If you'd like to read up on the "community standards" doctrine, I'd be happy to forward some reading suggestions. Followups to alt.censorship, where this really belongs. We now return you to the CPSR vs EFF flame wars... -- -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail." ->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | - Henry L. Stimson (1929)
bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) (06/29/91)
dmq6899@tamsun.TAMU.EDU (Dave Querin) writes: > TCA Cable Company, based in Tyler, Texas, has announced that > they are dropping the MTV network from their cable service. > Anyone > have any suggestions about how to make an impact in this unruly > decision? Thank you much. Dropping a satellite (as opposed to a DE broadcast) channel doesn't need to be run past most public utility comissions, unless it would affect the cable company's rate structure. If you only get twenty channels and one is dropped (and isn't replaced with a service of similar stripe) then a rate challenge may be possible. Your town council may have had a separate committee that evaluated the cable company's franchise agreement, or it may have formed one later. In some cases, (like mine!) expressing interest in participating in its work can get you on the comittee. If there isn't one, raise the issue at the next town council meeting, and start a referendum to form one if necessary. Petitions in front of supermarkets (permits applied for if necessary) and in the library, and in a public area near the cable company's main and/or billing office. If the cable company inserts local commercials into ESPN or other programming, produce a commercial and buy time for it. Make it akin to a public interest issue, not a rant at the company. When they turn it down for air, or schedule it at 3 in the morning, tell the local paper. A quick call to Austin's cable sales line shows that a spot can air in prime time on one of ten channels (CNN, ESPN, CNN2, MTV, TNN, USA, Lifetime, The Home Shopping Channel or Nickelodeon) for $35, with a fifteen percent discount if you get them a ready-to-air tape. (Cost-of-living note: I caught the traffic manager instead of an ad taker, and she said that a fourth-quarter rate increase of $10 to $20 is in the wind. Whether this is an across the board increase, she didn't say.) The cheapest rate she gave was $10 for a pre-emptible spot running between 6 PM and midnight. I'm awaiting a call back that'll tell me whether the rates that they gave are for single or multiple plays of the spot. TCA's rates, depending upon the number of homes served (there are no Arbitrons or Nielsens for all cable companies, not yet,) may be lower. When is TCA's franchise up for renewal in Tyler, anyway? That can be a nervous time for a cable company, particularly if increased operating expenses (like a local access channel for the town and/or community college or high school) are demands put on the table. Anyway, there's lots of things that a creative public-interest guerilla could think of to do... Good luck! -- Bob Opinions expressed in this message are those of its author, except where messages by others are included with attribution. Bob Izenberg [ ] bei@dogface.austin.tx.us home: 512 346 7019 [ ] CIS: 76615.1413@compuserve.com
bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) (06/29/91)
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: > So why is any cable company morally obligated to carry any programming > at all? Because that's what you're being billed for? ;-) -- Bob Opinions expressed in this message are those of its author, except where messages by others are included with attribution. Bob Izenberg [ ] bei@dogface.austin.tx.us home: 512 346 7019 [ ] CIS: 76615.1413@compuserve.com
bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) (06/30/91)
paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes: > So frankly, if you > don't like the communtity resource, go buy a dish -- it's cheaper in the > long run, and you have access to anything you can pay for. Is it cheaper? I have a few (non-rhetorical) questions about this. Do any of the satellite channels that you receive scramble their signal? If so, what costs are associated with receiving the signal in your home? What's the period of time that you would receive the same channels through your cable company (if you didn't have the dish)? How much would you have paid to the cable company, assuming constant rates, over that period? > However, the existence of said > channel offended religious officials in a Bible Belt state, who then > filed suit against AE and the uplink company, which proptly stopped uplinking > AE. Boy, what a terrible precedent! The satellite channel reached a few more places than the community or communities in which the offended clerics resided. Instead of regulating the reception of the signal in their region, they felt that they were justified to decide the fitness of the company's programming for everyone who could possibly receive it, whether they shared the same views and/or geography as the officials or not. If I'm offended by some of the screamin' Jesus money machines that plague the satellites and get them cut off at their uplinks, I doubt that my use of the same tactics would seem fair to those who filed the suit. -- Bob Opinions expressed in this message are those of its author, except where messages by others are included with attribution. Bob Izenberg [ ] bei@dogface.austin.tx.us home: 512 346 7019 [ ] CIS: 76615.1413@compuserve.com
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) (07/01/91)
In article <05ec51w164w@dogface.austin.tx.us> bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) writes: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) writes: > So frankly, if you > don't like the communtity resource, go buy a dish -- it's cheaper in the > long run, and you have access to anything you can pay for. Is it cheaper? I have a few (non-rhetorical) questions about this. Another non-rhetorical question is where to set it up. I doubt if it works well in the living room. For people who do not own a house with a yard (or some other place where they can set it up), there is the additional cost of buying such a house. I doubt that most apartment managers/owners would appreciate a bunch of tenants setting up satellite dishes on the roof. Muffy