HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bc338569@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Brian J. Catlin)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Appropriate place for a new FAQ?
Date: 1 Oct 92 06:24:22 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University - Electrical Engineering

Yes, its the "wireless" guy again.

I just made up a wireless cable FAQ and with some of the questions that have
been placed here, I would like to know if anyone would be opposed to me
posting the FAQ here every once in a while.  (Once every one or two months)

I am definitely not an expert on this subject, but I have collected a fairly
large amount of FAQ material.  Since there is no specific group for this, I
thought that this would be the next best place.

Please e-mail me with your comments/suggestions.

Thanks,
B. J. Catlin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----  Brian J. Catlin                    * Colorado State University  -----
-----  bc338569@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu * Electrical Engineering     -----
-----  (303) 495-2762                     * Fort Collins, Colorado     -----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: CABLE BILL VETO OVERRIDDEN
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:11:34 GMT

I suspect that most of the followers of this topic, at least in the US, 
are aware (possibly from watching CNN) that the House and Senate have late 
yesterday overridden Bush's veto of the cable bill.  It is his first veto
override ears.
I hope those of you who supported this bill will observe its effect carefully
over the next two-three years.  Since FCC rulemaking on most issue won't go
into effect for from 3 months to 1year, you won't be able to judge its
effects much before then.  I will go out on a limb and predict that your 
cable rates will continue to rise, but that protests that might otherwise 
have been directed at the cable operator for rate increases will not occur
because the public will feel "protected" by this legislation.  Those rates
will rise largely because of the provisions of this bill and its attendant
regulatory costs.  While consumers have gotten at least some new channels
along with their rate increases over the past few years, they will see
less channel additions, if any, in future rate increases and won't even
realize that anything was lost because there will be no comparative
framework or point of reference to com.
Bob Vogel
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Jonathan N. Deitch)
Subject: Pocket Veto
Summary: What is a pocket veto ?
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:08:03 GMT

A pocket veto is the following :

The president refuses to sign a bill and lets it sit on his desk without
signing it.  After a period of time (10 days?) the bill automatically becomes
law.

As an aside, did Bush promise to veto the cable bill or did he just announce
that he's going to refuse to sign it ?

All in all, it looks like we'll be stuck with it for better or for worse.

- Jonathan

jdeitch@gisatl.fidonet.org
musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1666 misc.consumers:17341 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:447
From: andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 04:42:37 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX


>andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart) writes:
>        [some stuff deleted]
>  }...not easily quantifiable.  It will never be possible to classify content 
>  }according to everyone's definitions of these things.     

In article <c3vd03lH96mh00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:

>The point still is:  Who decides on the ratings?  You yourself say that
>you like watching a "certain amount" of violence.  So do these ratings
>use your definition of a "certain amount" or do they use my definition
>of a "certain amount"?  Or do we just average the two?
>
>--James Preston


  Refer to the excerpt above from my original posting.  I didn't say that
  it was easily quantifiable or possible to satisfy everyone's definition
  of what constitutes offensive material.

  I advocate NO CENSORSHIP AT ALL  unless it it censorship directly determined
  by the parent or individual.  If y'all think this is an issue now, just wait
  another 50 years.  Information glut is upon us and if you and I wish to 
  preserve our rights to view whatever we wish, it's in our interest to assist
  those who wish to censor themselves.

  I really don't care if the ratings or content classification is imperfect, 
  having been defined by a committee of imperfect humans.  Any system that
  allowed individuals to effectively censor themselves would squelch those
  that think they need to censor me in the process.  
  
  I don't think it's necessary to count bare breasts like a Joe Bob Briggs 
  movie review. I _do_ think it should not be that difficult to say:  
  (nudity OR no_nudity), (violence OR no_violence).  Yeah, some violent 
  cartoons with Betty Boop showing a little too much leg for the kiddies 
  might slip through.  Perhaps this _hypothetical_ system allows for that...  
  the individual enters a "mask" for that specific program to screen it in 
  the future if he finds it objectionable.
  
  Once again.  Any system, imperfect or not, would still be a useful tool.
  You know there are those who would censor YOU along with THEM.  Can you
  argue with the statement that if they can censor themselves, their argument
  for censoring you is weaker? 
  
  I guess we could take away their TVs or dot their eyes out with a stick, 
  but then we'd be censoring them.  :)

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Andrew Hart                   |  CompuTrac, Inc.                 |
|   (214) 235-7161 x 5320         |  222 Municipal Drive             |
|   andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org      |  Richardson, TX  75080           |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: sam@rmtc.Central.Sun.COM (Sam Falkner)
Subject: program/channel lockout
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 16:39:28 GMT

i have absolutely nothing to add to this thread, other than this:

GET A MEANINGFUL SUBJECT LINE!!!

(please!)

if you want to continue to talk about locking out channels or even
individual programs, either follow up to this article (and thus interit
its subject line), or change the subject line to something that at
least tries to describe the contents of the article!

if you want to keep the now beloved

Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992

subject, then talk about the cable tv consumer protection act of 1992!

thus, you let innocent newsreaders like me `lock out' a thread that i
don't want to follow, while allowing me to follow threads that i do
want to follow.  oops, i said i wasn't going to talk about this...  :-)

- sam
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: steveb@inst-sun1.tmc.edu (Steve Bednarczyk)
Subject: Re: Signal Loss Detection
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:49:02 GMT

In article <pv#pn__.tweek@netcom.com> tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield) writes:
>In article <1a3pckINN91d@fido.asd.sgi.com> akmal@sgi.com writes:
>>
>>The Viacom technician had a hand-held device that resembled a power meter
>>with a 6" antenae attached. He claimed that this device was set to
>>detect signals in the Channel 17 frequency and made an audible sound
>>when it did. Such a device would probably be a big help to me in debugging
>>the problem location(s).
>>
>A Field Strength Meter is what it sounds like.  One thing you can do,
>although it will not be as sophisticated, is to take a handheld police
>scanner and set it for somewhere around 138-146 Mhz.  (cable channels 17
>or 18).  Remove the rubber duck antenna and use a very short piece of wire
>as one instead (you may have to experiment) so that you get a weak signal
>when near the cable, and as you move away, the signal disappears from the
>scanner.  You won't have a meter to judge the strength of the signal, but
>the method will still work (provided there are no other major signal leaks
>nearby.)
>The reason why the cable techs meter might have been looking for channel
>17 signal, is that channel 17 is at the top edge of the aircraft band of
>frequencies, and it seems that the FCC goes after leaks in this band much
>more quickly than those in other bands like the ham bands (channel 18
  In addition, the Amplifier should be placed as close to the cable entry
point as possible.  Splitters that have unused ports should be terminated
with 75 ohm loads.  Better yet, go to Radio Shack or some other electronics
store and get one of the cable TV installation/information books so you
do it right.  I'm an amateur radio operator/EE and like to do weak signal
work on the 2 meter band. You wouldn't believe the cr*p that's reradiated
from leaky cable installations in this band. Another source of RF
garbage is 12 Mhz computers, but that's another story.

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Most-wanted Cable Channels
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:18:38 GMT

Re: C-SpanII (isn't this free to cable companies?)

NO and emphatically NO!  The cable companies pay the operating costs
of C-Span 1 & 2 as apublic service and its not a cheap one.  Note the
convention coverage you received from Broadcast TV this year.  Whether
those who carry it support it by per subscriber fees and whether those
cable cos who do not pay can carry it, I'm not sure, but will check and
post.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: webdw@cbnews.cb.att.com (bruce.d.woods)
Subject: Re: Update on Status of Cable TV Re-Regulation Bill
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:11:02 GMT

In article <BvpDID.A3q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>
>>Bush went ahead and vetoed the bill last night...
>
>And was promptly overridden.
>

By a Congress that really has a sense of national priorities!
(Did anyone notice that wasteful defense spending abroad or
out of control "entitlements" were addressed by these yahoos?
Did the truly terrifying deficit problem get more than lip
service by more than a handful of congresscritters?)

>So now that the bill is law, when does it take effect? When will we
>actually SEE the results?
>

The FCC will look into it and will sometime in 1993 publish some
new compendium of confusing, uneven and likely unfair regulations.
Cheer up!  This will provide even more employment for the lawyers
and the lobbyists!  Regulation, the dream & hope of mankind!

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: ddebry@itchy.dsd.es.com (David DeBry)
Subject: Re: Status (WAS: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992)
Description: Tall, skinny, kinda goofy looking
Uucp: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!ddebry 
Reply-To: David DeBry <ddebry@dsd.es.com> 
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Design Systems Division 
Date:  1 Oct 92 21:15:14 GMT
Irc: Z-Grue (Zorkian Grue) 
Detailed-Info: finger ddebry@cc.utah.edu 
Day-Phone: (801) 582-5847 x4721 
Internet: ddebry@dsd.es.com 

In <1992Oct1.153021.4908@netcom.com> tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield) writes:
>I called Rep George Millers office yesterday to find out the status of this
>bill.  It is still sitting on the Presidents desk waiting for his veto (or
>signature???.)  Come Friday, the ten days is up for the President to consider
>his action on this bill and act upon it.

	Bush has vowed to veto the bill.  He's stalling.  Reason
explained below.

>1) If Congress is still in session, the bill automaticaly becomes law.
>(Congress is in session till Monday)
>2) If Congress is out of session, the bill dies for good.

	He'll probably veto it the last day.  This gives him two advantages:

1] No bill that Bush has vetoed [sp?] has ever been overridden.

2] If he vetoes [sp?] it this late in the session, chances are that
	the force needed to override it won't be mustered in time.


	I hate election year politics.



--
\\\ "Jane, you ignorant slut."                                        \\\
\\\        - Dan Ackroyd in Count-PointerCount, "Saturday Night Live" \\\
\\\                                                                   \\\
\\ ddebry@dsd.es.com \ debry@peruvian.utah.edu \ Email either address. \\
\\\ David DeBry \\ `finger debry@peruvian.utah.edu` for contact info. \\\
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate,talk.religion.misc
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
	<BCR.92Sep24153139@hpl3sn02.cern.ch> <1686C9D83.M02449@mwvm.mitre.org>
	<BCR.92Sep25095416@hpl3sn03.cern.ch>
	<1992Sep29.2028c@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 09:26:42 GMT

Sorry, I forgot to include my disclaimer for the humerious imparred.  Please add the
following to the copy of my post, you now have hanging on the wall.

(- NOTE for the humor impared.  All items in this post that are inclosed in ( ) are
intended for humorous purposes.  Please do not take such items seriously.  If you
don't get the joke, ask me if I care. -)

                                       Bill
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Max number of channels on cable?
From: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 15:47:22 GMT
Organization: Northern Bytes BBS - Sault Ste. Marie, MI U.S.A.

In article <is80779@pro-amber.cts.com> dated Mon, 28 Sep 92 22:19:55 PDT,
rsopicki@pro-amber.cts.com (Randy Sopicki) wrote:

 > Just to throw my two cents in. Cox Cable in San Diego, Ca is in the final
 > year of a full system upgrade. Once finished all subscribers will have 60
 > or so channels with the ability to add many more.

One thing to keep in mind is that now that many systems are installing fiber
optics, future upgrades will be far less expensive, since the fiber optic
cables themselves will not have to be replaced, only the amplifiers and other
associated equipment. The fiber itself has almost unlimited bandwidth; it's
just a matter of developing the amplifiers that can use more of the available
spectrum.

Jack

Jack Decker                               | No, I don't own an Amiga; I just
Internet address: jack@myamiga.mixcom.com | get Internet mail via a gateway
Fidonet address:  1:154/8                 | system that runs on an Amiga.
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1622 misc.consumers:17227 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:431
From: raible@cbmvax.commodore.com (Bob Raible - LSI Design)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Max number of channels on cable?
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:54:00 GMT
Organization: Commodore

In article <1992Sep30.002636.1@ducvax.auburn.edu> fvest@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>
>[29 Sep 92 00:39:33 GMT] brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) wrote:
>>In article <rmhz1!p@rpi.edu> Matt Garretson writes:
>><This seems like a FAQ-type question, but I haven't seen a FAQ list here
>><lately.  So, here goes:  I called up my cable co. to ask if they were going
>><to be getting the Sci Fi channel. They said "no", because their channel
>><capacity was used up.  Now, they offer channels 0-35, plus a few extra
>><premium and PPV channels. My TV can tune up to channel 73. What happened
>><to the 40's 50's and 60's?
>
>>Not in the bandwidth of the cable system.  A cable system built to go to channel
>>36 (300 MHz upper frequency) cannot go any higher than that without being
>>rebuilt.  The amplifiers have to be moved from 2000 feet apart to 1600 feet
>>apart and the bandwidth of the amps have to be changed.
>
>>The next higher cable system is 54 channels (400 MHz upper frequency).
>
>
>The local cable system here now has 44 channels in use & have announced
>that they are at capacity....could they be lying?  naaaaaaaw. :-)
>
>Floyd
>
>-- 
>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

It depends on how you define "capacity". Undoubtedly they have no spare
ESRO transponders lying around and therefore are at the capacity limit of
their current equipment. With an infusion of capital they could add more 
transponders and thus add capacity.
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Robert J. Raible		EMAIL:raible@cbmvax.commodore.com
VLSI Program Manager		 or: {uunet|rutgers|pyramid}!cbmvax!raible
Commodore Business Machines     "my comments, not Commodore's, ok ?"
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: robert@triton.jpl.nasa.gov (Robert Angelino)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Reply-To: robert@triton.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:06:11 GMT

I haven't been keeping up on this bill (and I just got cable), did
it pass????  Also, is there a FAQ for this newgroup???  Could
someone post it??


thanks much..

-robert
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: elmquist@pez.ssesco.com (Chris Elmquist)
Subject: Re: Cable reception
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:47:21 GMT

In article <petec.718042450@splat> petec@splat.dell.com (Pete Cruz) writes:
>I just bought a 46" TV and have now noticed fairly bad reception from my
>cable company. I had a 27" TV before which "appeared" fine, now I notice 
>quite a bit of detail difference. And channels very in quality also.
>
>Before I complain to the local cable company, I was wondering if this is
>common or am I just getting poor service?
I think it's common *and* you're getting poor service.  I have the same
problem but *amazingly* have been able to work with the cable company to
try to find the cause of the problem.  I called and asked to speak to
the engineer-in-charge of the headend that serves my neighborhood. I was
amazed when I actually got to talk to him... and even more amazed when he
seemed generally interested in the problem. He and several others that work
for him have come out to the house and actually seen the problem.  Your
mileage may vary.

For me, I get herringbone interference on channels 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42.
The herringbone is very visible on larger screened monitors like 27" and less
noticeable on a 19" and not at all objectionable on a 13".

When the Cable Co. comes out to make measurements... they bring a portable 9"
TV so that they run it on batteries in the bright sunlight out in the yard.
For some reason (?? what could it be ??) they have never seen the herringbone
on the 9" but admit to seeing it on my 27".  

Currently, we are trying to get past the idea that my 27" Toshiba is broken
because it shows a problem and their TV doesn't...  they can't explain
why I get a very good picture on broadcast or cable channels other than
those listed above...

>
>Any ideas on how to improve reception would be greatly appreceated.
Do not give up!  Call them for service on a weekly basis.  Even though
I have not fixed my problem completely..  they have replaced several
runs of drop, feeder *and* trunk line...  connectors, amps, most of the
system between me and the headend :-)  They are probably doing this to
get me to shut up... I am quite certain that the problem is in the
headend--  something dorked with the modulators on these channels... but
I'm letting them upgrade the whole path between me and them before 
pursuing these details.  Their easter-egging of all the other components
has improved picture quality on other channels so it's all a plus for
me.

I have had some success in getting a discount because of poor signal
quality.  They have to come out and see the problem first.  I had an
A/B switch set up so that I could show them that broadcast reception
was infinitely better than cable reception.

Good luck! Don't give up--  get your money's worth.


Chris Elmquist, N0JCF
elmquist@SSESCO.com
73267.2711@Compuserve.com
(612)342-0003@work (8am-5pm CST6CDT)
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1704 misc.consumers:17458 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:468
From: yoshi@agora.rain.com (Katherine Stewart)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Update on Status of Cable TV Re-Regulation Bill
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:20:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Open Communications Forum

In article <1992Oct4.193352.5490@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ron Carter) writes:
>
>Bush went ahead and vetoed the bill last night...
>--
>Ron Carter | Director | Center for the Study of Creative Intelligence
>"A ... mind stretched by a new idea can never | Denver, Colorado, USA
>go back to its original dimensions."  -Holmes | rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu



I was watching C-Span today and Congress overrode the Veto! 

-- 
Starguard 		yoshi@agora.rain.com 
"I can't change my mind, I only have one."
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Wireless cable
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:07:58 GMT

re: "Would you buy a Ginzu knife you saw advertised on TV?"
Well, yes I would and I did, about 2 or 3 years ago.  Got two for the
price of one (about $19.95).  They are still sharp today.  They performed
basically as advertised (much to my surprise). And I am seriously
considering the now advertised Ginsu2, bigger, better and can slide 
hard to cut tomatoes right after a thrashing on ROCK HARD MARBLE.

While you might think the above tongue-in-cheek, it isn't.  Im serious.
However the original post was really about investing in wireless cable
companies and the caution suggested is really a good idea.  One way to
help spot the phonies is to invest in an on-going operation.  Some have
been in business for several years and no they are probably not soliciting
for investors.  USE CAUTION!
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1701 misc.consumers:17454 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:465
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:35:56 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

fsf@hpic006.mentorg.com (Rick Farnbach) writes:

}  7) Telling group A that they must throw their TV's away so that group B can
}     watch whatever they want is as much forcing one's view on another as
}     group A telling group B that they cannot watch what they want on TV so
}     that group A can also watch TV.  Both sides are seeking to force their
}     rights on the other.

I was right with you up until this point.  No one, certainly not me, has
ever told any person or group that they "must" throw their TV's away so that
I or any group can watch whatever we want.  This is simply the most gross
distortion of the facts that I have yet seen on this thread.

All I have done is to SUGGEST that people get rid of their TVs.  And I make
this suggestion in response to the person's own stated dilemma:  That the
viewing of even a second of a "steamy sex scene" can be profoundly disturbing
to the person (or the person's children), and that there is such an
abundance of such scenes on TV today that it is very difficult to switch
channels without encountering such a scene.  Logic alone indicates that
a reasonable solution to that problem is to get rid of the TV.  That has
absolutely NOTHING to say about my desire to watch such scenes.  And it
is most certainly not "forcing one's view on another".

--James Preston

Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1705 misc.consumers:17460 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:469