Summary

Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992

For a variety of reasons, including local franchising requirements and the extraordinary expense of constructing more than one cable television system to serve a particular geographic area, most cable television subscribers have no opportunity to select between competing cable systems. Without the presence of another multichannel video programming distributor, a cable system faces no local competition. The result is undue market power for the cable operator as compared to that of consumers and video programmers.
Source: Wikisource

Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992

A Government mandate for a substantial societal investment in alternative distribution systems for cable subscribers, such as the 'A/B' input selector antenna system, is not an enduring or feasible method of distribution and is not in the public interest. (19) At the same time, broadcast programming that is carried remains the most popular programming on cable systems, and a substantial portion of the benefits for which consumers pay cable systems is derived from carriage of the signals of network affiliates, independent television stations, and public television stations.
Source: Wikisource

Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992

A cable television system which carries the signal of a local television broadcaster is assisting the broadcaster to increase its viewership, and thereby attract additional advertising revenues that otherwise might be earned by the cable system operator. As a result, there is an economic incentive for cable systems to terminate the retransmission of the broadcast signal, refuse to carry new signals, or reposition a broadcast signal to a disadvantageous channel position.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature