[net.followup] Re 1st amendment rights, and access to communications

robert1 (09/27/82)

	----------------------------------------------------------
	In yet another chapter in the saga of Bluffdale, Utah that
	restricted the introduction of cable on the basis that they would have
	no control over the content of the transmissions ...
	----------------------------------------------------------

Re Walt Haas' recent differentiation of cable transmission and broadcast
TV - showing availability, cost, special access to be different:

	I wonder if the use of encoded broadcast TV doesn't
blur the distinction somewhat in the broadcast vs. transmission distinction
for the previously presented case of:

		TV broadcast  =   mass access =  FCC restrictions
		Cable transmission  =  personal correspondence = uncensored

	So now we have a third category in between "commercial" (read
public,free, and FCC restricted) TV, and that snake in the garden, cable TV
[just a little metaphor, folks, not intended to express my opinion or
those of the authors, etc. ].  I would expect the breakdown of access
vs restrictions to go more like this:

		-----------------------------------------------------------
		Broadcast	    mass access		  FCC restrictions
		-----------------------------------------------------------
		city-owned	    public		local interpretation
		  cable		    access 		
		-----------------------------------------------------------
		Encoded broadcast   subscription access	  unscensored
		-----------------------------------------------------------
		Any independent,    subscription	  unscensored
		privte facility	       access 
		-----------------------------------------------------------

Examples of the last category, added for completeness, include alternative 
carriers of 1st class mail, electronic mail, and netnews [Oops, maybe I am
going too far on that last one, I know that's a big can of worms]

	To extend the analogy previously made to distinguish between
broadcast and transmission, where transmission (subscription access) is 
likened to 1st class mail: this new class of encoded broadcasts
is readily accesible, but only available through subscription, much as
magazines.  How are such materials restricted in content?  Isn't the
private distribution (mailings) of these magazines unrestricted?  In
contrast, the public offerings (via news stands, which are analogous
to the public broadcasts) are restricted by 'local' definitions of acceptable 
content (e.g., pornography).

	This seems to imply that cable access, as a communications medium
only, can be restricted by the city to the extent that it refuses to enter
into contract with a company.  Further, the city can refuse to allow a cable
company to have access to 'its' properties, in order to prevent communications
facilities that it does not desire!  This is (in principle) by public
demand, and is subject to change - if the majority of the people want it,
they can use their votes to get it.

	As to encoded broadcasts, *I* can see no way that the city can
legislate to avoid broadcasts entering their city's airspace and being
received by residents with decoder boxes on their TVs.  The intent of other,
previous cities in Utah, as it was (properly?) presented to the net, was to 
restrict the cable in order to be able to avoid the presentation of 
objectionable material to its citizens.  This seems applicable only in the 
public domain; I see no reason that alternate (private) access could not provide
the same results, by avoiding the need for public approval and public 
facilities.  This is essentialy what encoded TV does: it bypasses the need for
public facilities, and allows individual access by subscription only. It is a
broadcast medium, but due to its encoding it is not available for public
access, therefore it is not restricted as such.

	On the other hand, maybe this is just another uninformed
speculation at truth.  Hopefully I haven't overextended myself, in lieu
of informed speculation.

	For what it's worth, it seems to be a question of:
To what degree can the local govt. allow/disallow access to a specific
communications medium {cable,TV,encoded TV,DEMS,radio,etc.}, as originally
stated.  The answer is: To the degree that the local populace can choose to
assert their collective rights: to allow public facilities to be used, and
to define what is objectionable for public bisemination.  Sounds democratic
to me.

	Surely you wouldn't sign this name,

		Robert Duncan
		early one Monday morning
		Bell Labs, Chicago
		ihuxx!robert1

alc (09/27/82)

I see no difference, in regard to censorship, between encoded and plain
unencoded (if that is a word) cable. What have I missed.
	whuxg!beal