Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
472802214
label
Cable Letters (JAB and RGD) [James A. Baker]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
472802214
contentType
document
title
Cable Letters (JAB and RGD) [James A. Baker]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
93003-012
collections
Records of the White House Office of the Chief of Staff to the President (George H. W. Bush Administration)
James A. Baker III Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
472802214
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
904dd92dce01e601
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2000-0715-F
2000-0715-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Chief of Staff, White House Office of
Series:
Baker, James A., III, Files
Subseries:
Legislative Files
OA/ID Number:
93003
Folder ID Number:
93003-012
Folder Title:
Cable Letters (JAB and RGD) [James A. Baker]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
0
0
O
o
AnchorMedia
&
11300 Fourth Street North, Suite 349, St. Petersburg, Florida 33716-2922
Telephone (813) 577-1600 FAX (813) 576-3851
Alan Henry
President, CEO
October 6,1992
The Honorable James Baker
Chief of Staff
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Baker:
I'm addressing this to you directly and personally as you are clearly the only
person in the administration that has a wit of common sense.
The President's defeat on the Cable Bill was ordained. It was ordained because it
was a consumer driven bill brought about by consumer out cries. The President's
insensitivity to this was manifested by his veto. Unfortunately the President's
insensitivity in general to the population is what will bring about what I believe,
sadly, is his defeat, in the upcoming election.
I have voted Republican every single election since Eisenhower. I will not vote
Republican this election. That's not my vote, that's ten votes in my family. That
ten votes is very close to the margin between Governor Clinton and President
Bush.
Embracing political idolatry over political reality represents a folly that no
president has a right to embrace. After we got through with Pat Buchanan and Pat
Robertson and the Republican Platform and all of that other hyperbole, we then
had to deal with the President's credibility and his insensitivity to the population.
There is a vacuum, it was never more obvious than in the Cable Bill.
I realize that I am a broadcaster and I realize that I have a preferential view of how
that bill should have gone. I am also an American and I am also, I believe, a
sensible one who understands what a level playing field is all about. The Cable
Bill was brought about because the playing field was unleveled. For the President
to do what he did only invited the end result. What is sad is that I don't believe his
veto, this time, will be lost on the population as a whole relative to their belief as to
his insensitivity to their needs.
Regards,
Alan Henry
AH:lc
AnchorMedia Group:
Television: WLOS-TV
Asheville, NC- Greenville/Spartanburg, SC
WAXA-TV
Anderson, SC
WSYX-TV
Columbus, OH
KOVR-TV
Sacramento/Stockton, CA
Radio: KZRR-FM/KZSS-AM, Albuquerque, NM
KYRK-FM/KORK-AM, Las Vegas, NV
AnchorMedia
V
11300 Fourth Street North, Suite 349
St. Petersburg, Florida 33716-2922
The Honorable James Baker
Chief of Staff
The White House
Washington, DC 20036
SEP-25-92 FRI 16:56 AMERICAN TELECAST
P.01
American Telecasting, Inc.
September 25, 1992
via Facsimile
The Honorable James A. Baker, III
Chief of Staff to the President
Old Executive Office Building
17th Street and Pennsylvanian Avenue
Washington, DC 20503
Dear Mr. Baker:
It was with great satisfaction that I learned that the House
and Senate last week passed their respective versions of the Cable
Reregulation legislation. At the same time, though, I am anxious
that the President, who says he is for competition and against
government regulation of the marketplace, will use his veto power
to nullify this badly needed legislation.
Competitive wireless cable systems across the country have
brought to the marketplace an important alternative choice for
consumers. Subscribers in the 110 cities served by wireless cable
already enjoy a 25-30% price benefit now. This competitive tonic
cannot continue to benefit the TV households of American without
the pro-competitive access to programming that 5.12 provides.
While we have most of the programming today, the terms, prices and
conditions for that programming are sometimes 200-300% greater than
cable distribution's prices, And in TNT's case, NFL and NBA
programming are being completely denied to over 500,000 wireless
cable subscribers across the country.
I speak as an American consumer. Help competition thrive in
the wireless cable marketplace. Please don't veto this
legislation.
Sincerely,
Brian E. gast
Brian E. Gast
President
BEG/mah
812 South Tejon Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Telephone (719) 632-5544
FAX (719) 632-5549
Hold for cable bill
final disposition --
or send to Public Liaison
for approp. action...
Barbara/Mike,
What do you think? Thanks,
csj
9/28
1710 Summer
September 25, 1992.
Burlingson. 2A 52601
The Honorable James A Baker ///
Chief of Staff to the President
19th Street and Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, Qc 20503
Dear Mr. Baker,
This letter is in regards to the passage
of S.12.
& urge you to point out to him that the
with your expertive in counseling The President,
is necessary part of this puce of Cigislation
compet: tous as wordess cable home satellete
programming auch access. This would provide
we need to protect the consumer.
Not monopolies regulated by the government, is what
& etc. the fuel to start running. Competition
Clease do the night thing for all of as.
Don't veto this legislation.
Sincerely
Jaye Vance
824035
DOC
MICROBAND
September 25, 1992
J. Patrick Dugan
President & CEO
Mr. James Baker
Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20050
Dear Mr. Baker:
Re: S.12 The Cable Consumer Protection Bill
I urge you to recommend that President Bush sign S.12. The cable TV industry is an unregulated
monopoly. Period. End of story.
Therefore, a little regulation and a large boost for competitive forces, as in S.12, are exactly what is
needed; even staunch conservatives can't or shouldn't object to this minimal regulation of a monopoly:
(1) The so-called price regulation in S.12 is de minimus; only "basic" channels are covered, thus
leaving the more popular channels such as ESPN, TNT, USA, etc. open to virtually unregulated price increases
by the cable companies, and
(2) The supposed cost to cable TV for retransmission of local off-air channels is a Trojan horse at
best; the cable companies will refuse and the local TV stations will have no choice but to back down. Do you
really believe giant companies like TCI and Time Warner and the others are going to allow any such cost
escalation to happen? I believe they'll just drop the signals from their line-up and let the consumer get them
from "off-the-air" (very easily done in most places, by the way).
On the other hand, the equal access to programming provision, the heart of this legislation, will be a big
boost to satellite cable, private cable, and wireless cable in their efforts to compete with the entrenched CATV
monopoly -- and competition is by far the best way to "regulate."
Accordingly, I urge you to resist the power and influence of the cable TV lobbyists and PACs and support
the consumer's side of this issue by supporting S.12.
Lastly, speaking not as an executive of the wireless cable industry but, rather, as a voter who wants very
much for President Bush to be re-elected, I urge you to not risk, so late in the campaign, the President's first-ever
veto override on this legislation, which will successfully be portrayed by the Democrats (particularly Senator
Gore who spearheaded this legislation in the Senate) as pro-consumer, pro-competition, pro-education, and anti-
CATV monopoly (all of which are true).
Yours truly,
J. Patrick Dugan
THE MICROBAND COMPANIES INCORPORATED
286 ELDRIDGE ROAD
FAIRFIELD, NEW JERSEY 07004
201
227
8700
Township of Union Public Schools
"THE PRESIDENTIAL MODEL SCHOOL DISTRICT"
JAMES M. CAULFIELD, Ed. D.
Superintendent of Schools
September 29, 1992
The Honorable James A. Baker III
Chief of Staff to the President
The White House
Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20004
Dear Jim:
I'm writing to you with respect to the President's decision regarding
S-12. I'm Superintendent of Schools in Union, New Jersey. With the
encouragement of President Reagan, the FCC relaxed its regulations to
permit school districts to lease to wireless cable operators excess time
on its licensed channels. Union receives approximately $100,000 in
revenue from the lease of excess time on its channel here in the greater
metropolitan area.
Throughout the United States, a minimum of $3 million is made available
from wireless cable operators to educational institutions. Approval of
S-12 would enhance wireless cable's ability to compete in the marketplace
by providing equal access to programming at competitive prices. An
increase in the subscriber base of wireless cable operators would increase
the revenue available to educational institutions. Such revenue is,
perhaps, the only steady income from a private sector entity available to
the public schools. We in Union operate our own television studio and
provide a two-year training program in communication arts and sciences.
The revenue referred to above underwrites this entire program, including
staff salaries and studio equipment. Over 60 youngsters are in the
program at this time.
I would ask that you give consideration to this matter as you counsel the
President with respect to S-12. Continued success in your work.
Warm personal regards,
Superintendent JAMES M. CAULFIELD, 2 Ed.D. Calfet
JMC: jb
2369 Morris Avenue, Union, NJ 07083-5712
908-851-6420
Fax 908-851-9688
TOWNSHIP OF UNION SCHOOLS
BOARD OF EDUCATION
2369 MORRIS AVENUE
UNION, UNION COUNTY, N.J. 07083
The Honorable James A. Baker III
Chief of Staff to the President
The White House
Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20004
8163852526
CSC/C·A·C·M·O
P01
CONSUMERS AGAINST CABLE
MONOPOLIES, ORGANIZED
SuzAnne Baechier
Director/Founder
September 25, 1992
ATTEN: James Baker III: Council For The President
As leader of the campaign to re-elect President Bush, the fol.
lowing facts should be seriously considered by you in advising
the President about his support for monopoly Big Business VS the
American constituent consumers.
Our volunteer 5.9 million consumer member organization repre-
sents the concerns of fellow TV viewing consumers against cable
monopoly business practices.
Congress has passed overwhelmingly a cable bill we the consum-
ors support 100%. The cable bill brings & minimum amount of
protection to us from the cable monopolies abuses. The bill
also brings us choice through fair competition, to let us select
what alternative technology delivery medium we choose, to receive
television programming we select, and pay for.
President Bush has made it very clear through the Congress,
press and TV media he will veto this cable bill that brings us
the relief we asked Congress for. It appears the President is so
out of touch with the American consumer he is undware we, the
consumers, dictated to our elected officials in Congress, what we
wanted written in the cable bill. Therefore, we are quite know-
ledgeable about the minimal regulation and competition language
in our cable bill. For the President to threaten. us the consum-
ers, that has will veto our cable bill is suicide to his re-elec-
tion. Congress listened to the consumers and supported us with
the passage of the cable bill we asked for.
As advisor for the President's re-election, we recommend you
suggest to him to not veto our cable bill as in November we will
remember. Assuring you your assistance in this matter would be
appreciated by all parties concerned. Please ask President Bush
to support and sign the cable bill into law.
Respectifully;
P.O. Box 21 Macon, Mo 63552 (816) 385 2221
Emerald Enterprises, Inc.
A Wireless Cable TV Development Company
September 29, 1992
VIA FAX 202 395 3748 No Answer
By Federal Express 10/1
The Honorable James A. Baker III
Chief of Staff to the President
and
The Honorable Richard G. Darman
Director of the Office of Management and Budget
Old Executive Office Building
17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20603
Gentlemen,
I want to express my urgent concern to you, as advisors to
President Bush, that the President not veto S. 12.
My company (my wife and I are owners) are in the new business of
wireless cable television, a business that offers consumers a
choice of cable providers (thus, our dba name, Choice TV). We
have an operation in Fresno, California and expect to start up
several such businesses in the next couple of years.
The access to programming aspects of S. 12 are critical to the
success of our industry and to our ability to provide competition
to the monopoly of the major cable multiple system operators.
Only with programming available to us can we provide consumers
with a choice of cable programming suppliers.
Our industry:
--strongly supports education with latest technology teaching
methods (based on certain FCC rules regarding use of channel
capacity)
--provides competition to an unregulated monopoly
--offers consumers a choice of cable service providers
--is adding jobs every day.
Can you think of a better industry to support with a signature on
a piece of legislation?
Thanks for your consideration.
Best Regards,
Robert D. Hostetler
President
RDH/JJB
22245 Sunset Lane
Elkhart, Indiana 46516
219-294-2522
SENT BY:CCITT III
;10-
7-5:
1:47PM ;
52:# 1
Donald E. Lively 3412 Mc Ellen Ct
Lefayette, CA 94549
(510) 283 6418
2 October 1992
Mr. James Baker - Chief of Staff
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Baker,
The Cable Reregulation Bill is lousy legislation no matter how you cut It. As a long time veteran of
telecommunications.military, common carrier and manufacturing alike, I detest regulation and
the social engineering bureacracy which goes with it. Notwithstanding, I Implore that you urge the
President sign the bill. Two strong reasons.
One, If you do not, Gore gets a golden axe with which to hack him to pleces. A vato will simply
enhance the socialist flakes' opportunity to put Cuomo on the Supreme Court...plus all the other
havoo they'd wreak. Two, despite whatever political debte are owed Malone and the rest of his
cable cabal, the President must not be seen as Identifying with these Hollywood whores and
thugs. Much the free marketer I am, this is the junk bond and sleazy show biz crowd, and they
are not the kinds of entrepeneurs Mr. Bush can beidentified with.
As a former local CATV commissioner, I learned first hand the sort of hard ball they play...they
are ruthless and without scruples when It comes to treating customers fairly in their monopoly
position.
In 1984, my basic cable rate was less than 37 dollars, today it le over $20. I get fewer over the air
stations, channel positions have been corrupted 80 my pre "cable ready" VCR is not able to
receive certain over the air channels, and many basic tier satellite offerings have been subsumed
by pay or premium channels.
I don't know who the senior advisors are that urge a vato, but clearly they do not have a feeling
for the outrage that voters have for the cable Industry. No doubt the "watch my" Issue hangs over
Mr. Bush's head on this matter, his oppositon to regulation and more bureaucracy (which I
devoutly share), and continuing the status quo, hoping for compatition to take hold (especially
given the Brooks MFJ bill), Is whisting In the dark. In ten years, the Telcos will still not be carrying
TV.
Please urge him to sign the bill, go to the people, explain why and pick up some votes that are
sorely needed.
Sincerely,
Lively
SENT BY:CCITT III
;10- 7-5; 1:48PM ;
52:# 2
Donald E. Lively 3412 Mc Ellen Ct
Lafayette, CA 94549
(510) 283 6418
2 October 1992
President George Bush
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Bush,
The Cable Reregulation Bill la lousy legislation no matter how you cut it. As a long time veteran of
telecommunications, military, common carrier and manufacturing alike, I detest regulation and the
social engineering bureacracy which goes with It. Notwithstanding, I Implore that you sign the bill.
Two strong reasons.
One, If you do not, Gora gets a golden exe with which to hack you to pieces. You simply can't
give these socialist flakes the opportunity to put Cuomo on the Supreme Court plus all the other
havoc they'd wreak. Two, despite whatever political debte you owe Malone and the rest of his
cable cabal, you must not be soon as associating with these Hollywood whores and thugs. Much
as a free marketer 1 am, this Is the junk bond and sleazy show biz crowd, and they are not the
kinds of entrepeneurs you identify with.
As a former local CATV commissioner, I learned first hand the sort of hard ball they play...they
position. are ruthless and without scrupies when it comes to treating customers fairly In their monopoly
in 1984, my basic cable rate was less than $7 dollars, today It is over $20. I get fewer over the air
stations, channel positions have been corrupted 30 my pre "cable ready" VCR is not able to
receive certain over the air channels, and many basic tier satellite offerings have been subsumed
by pay or premium channels.
I don't know who your senior advisors are that urge a veto, but clearly they do not have a feeling
for the outrage that voters have for the cable Industry. No doubt the "watch my" Issue hangs over
your head on this matter, your oppositon to regulation and more bureaucracy (which I devoutly
share), but continuing the status quo, hoping for competition to take hold (especially given the
Brooks MFJ bill), in whistling In the dark. In ten years, the Telcos will atill not be carrying TV.
need. Please sign the bill, go to the people, explain why and you will pick up some votes you sorely
Sincerely,
Donald Lively
September 25, 1992
The Honorable James A. Baker, III
Chief of Staff to the President
Old Executive Office Building
17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20503
Dear Mr. Baker:
It was with great satisfaction that I learned that the House
and Senate last week passed their respective versions of the Cable
Reregulation legislation. At the same time, though, I am anxious
that the President, who says he is for competition and against
government regulation of the marketplace, will use his veto power
to nullify this badly needed legislation.
Competitive wireless cable systems across the country have
brought to the marketplace an important alternative choice for
consumers. Subscribers in the 110 cities served by wireless cable
already enjoy a 25-30% price benefit now. This competitive tonic
cannot continue to benefit the TV households of American without
the pro-competitive access to programming that S.12 provides.
While we have most of the programming today, the terms, prices and
conditions for that programming are sometimes 200-300% greater than
cable distribution's prices. And in TNT's case, NFL and NBA
programming are being completely denied to over 500,000 wireless
cable subscribers across the country.
I speak as an American consumer. Help competition thrive in
the wireless cable marketplace.
Please don't veto this
legislation.
Sincerely, Get I MEL
JOHN C. MCLEAN
1610 E. BIJOUST.
Co SPGS. Co. 80909
180 80 29 SEP PM SPOSCO 609
1392
USA
The Honorable James A. Baker, III
Chief of Staff to the President
Old Executive Office Building
17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20503
September 25, 1992
The Honorable James A. Baker, III
Chief of Staff to the President
old Executive Office Building
17th Street and Pennsylvania. Avenue
Washington, DC 20503
Dear Mr. Baker:
It was with great satisfaction that I learned that the House
and Senate last week passed their respective versions of the Cable
Reregulation legislation. At the same time, though, I am anxious
that the President, who says he is for competition and against
government regulation of the marketplace, will use his veto power
to nullify this badly needed legislation.
Competitive wireless cable systems across the country have
brought to the marketplace an important alternative choice for
consumers. Subscribers in the 110 cities served by wireless cable
already enjoy a 25-30% price benefit now. This competitive tonic
cannot continue to benefit the TV households of American without
the pro-competitive access to programming that S.12 provides.
While we have most of the programming today, the terms, prices and
conditions for that programming are sometimes 200-300% greater than
cable distribution's prices. And in TNT's case, NFL and NBA
programming are being completely denied to over 500,000 wireless
cable subscribers across the country.
I speak as an American consumer. Help competition thrive in
the wireless cable marketplace.
Please don't veto this
legislation.
Sincerely,
Daugra W wifoy
6175 MACH-1 DR
CocoRADo SPRUNGS, Co 80918
House
8 29 SEP M SPUSCO SD9
992
29USA
The Honorable James A. Baker, III
Chief of Staff to the President
Old Executive Office Building
17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue
Washingtch, DC 20503
September 25, 1992
The Honorable James A. Baker, III
Chief of Staff to the President
Old Executive Office Building
17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20503
Dear Mr. Baker:
It was with great satisfaction that I learned that the House
and Senate last week passed their respective versions of the Cable
Reregulation legislation. At the same time, though, I am anxious
that the President, who says he is for competition and against
government regulation of the marketplace, will use his veto power
to nullify this badly needed legislation.
Competitive wireless cable systems across the country have
brought to the marketplace an important alternative choice for
consumers. Subscribers in the 110 cities served by wireless cable
already enjoy a 25-30% price benefit now. This competitive tonic
cannot continue to benefit the TV households of American without
the pro-competitive access to programming that S.12 provides.
While we have most of the programming today, the terms, prices and
conditions for that programming are sometimes 200-300% greater than
cable distribution's prices. And in TNT's case, NFL and NBA
programming are being completely denied to over 500,000 wireless
cable subscribers across the country.
I speak as an American consumer. Help competition thrive in
the wireless cable marketplace.
Please don't veto this
legislation.
Sincerely, Wareen
38 N Amherst
Cow Spop Co 80911
The
1792
1992
87 23 PM SEP SUBSCO COS
292
29USA
The Honorable James A. Baker, III
Chief of Staff to the President
Old Executive Office Building
17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20503
September 25, 1992
The Honorable James A. Baker, III
Chief of Staff to the President
Old Executive Office Building
17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20503
Dear Mr. Baker:
It was with great satisfaction that I learned that the House
and Senate last week passed their respective versions of the Cable
Reregulation legislation. At the same time, though, I am anxious
that the President, who says he is for competition and against
government regulation of the marketplace, will use his veto power
to nullify this badly needed legislation.
Competitive wireless cable systems across the country have
brought to the marketplace an important alternative choice for
consumers. Subscribers in the 110 cities served by wireless cable
already enjoy a 25-30% price benefit now. This competitive tonic
cannot continue to benefit the TV households of American without
the pro-competitive access to programming that S.12 provides.
While we have most of the programming today, the terms, prices and
conditions for that programming are sometimes 200-300% greater than
cable distribution's prices. And in TNT's case, NFL and NBA
programming are being completely denied to over 500,000 wireless
cable subscribers across the country.
I speak as an American consumer. Help competition thrive in
the wireless cable marketplace.
Please don't veto this
legislation.
Sincerely,
Jish 12670 VOLLMER RD.
BLACK FOREST, CO. 80908