Well there you have it. Many of the poor clearly are not buying new sets that have closed-captioning. Meanwhile, we all pay for it when we buy new sets and VCRs.
High added cost does not follow. We (actually my wife as a Christmas present) bought the cc box because none of our sets were new enough. I suspect that the cc decode capability could be integrated into the existing video decoder chips at no additional cost (other than what is needed to turn it on and off & that is done electronically) - suspect that if you look at trade (e.g. hotel/motel) set prices before cc was added and after that you will will see little difference (any body here know ? I have not followed this. V-chip could be similarly integrated just by having the signal cause the video to lose sync.
A hidden tax, that does not benefit those in need.
Depends on the quanta. I suspect that like cc, in the long run it will have little or no effect on set prices. BTW, anyone know under what juristiction the regulation requiring cc devices was issued ? ADA ? - if so would not work for V-chip.
ObCypherpunks: A truly surprising number of people on this list are on the one hand lambasting the government for thievery, incompetence, corruption, and violation of their rights, while on the other hand explaining why they think some particular intrusion is justified.
Think I have been consistant - am FOR things which add to my choices and AGAINST those which reduce the choices available. In general I do not mind paying a delta for increased choice so long as it is small
People need to think about the powerful implications of strong crypto, and decide if they are _for_ access to strong crypto by citizens, or _against_ it. All things follow from this decision.
Am FOR choices. Citizens *have* access to strong crypto. Do not believe use of crypto in this country can be regulated between two citizens or on public networks. (Note, I say *public*. On *private* networks, the owner can enforce any rules he/she/it/other likes.) Gov has right to define communications with and between itself. Gov does have the right (in fact the duty) to regulate communications between citizens and non-citizens/sites in other lands (and if you do not think communications with sites such as anon.penet.fi are inside the charter of the NSA, I have this prime Florida land - we're in the dry season now 8*). Warmly, Padgett