HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: 28 Sep 92 22:25:59 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart) writes:

}In article <a8C903nq8e7c00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
}>
}>Yeah, I get it all right.  This is just another case of a person assuming
}>that YOUR definitions of "profanity", "nudity", "graphic violence", etc.
}>are shared by all, are somehow not subjective, and are easily quantifiable.
}>Sorry, but it just doesn't wash.  What YOU may find objectionable and
}>something that you don't want your children to see may be something that
}>your neighbor has no problem with and wouldn't care if his children watched.
}>You just can't "quantify" and "be specific" about what are clearly individual
}>matters of personal judgement.

}No, I'm not sure you did get it.  The original content of this thread was
}discussing a hypothetical method of encoding some sort of content "rating"
}information into television broadcasts so that parents could program their
}TVs to _automatically_ filter out certain programming.

Right.  So what did I say that indicates I didn't get that?

}I don't think anyone has implied that THEIR definitions of "profanity", 
}"nudity", etc., are shared by all.  Of course it's subjective and, no, it's
}not easily quantifiable.  It will never be possible to classify content 
}according to everyone's definitions of these things.     

The poster I was responding to indicated that such ratings were easy to
do.  All you need do is "be specific".  I was simply pointing out that
you can be as specific as you like, but you are still not going to arrive
at a consensus as to what is or is not "profanity" or "too much" nudity.

}_I_ happen to like watching nudity, a certain amount of violence, etc.  The
}whole purpose of this hypothetical "ratings" encoding was to avoid censorship
}while still giving parents some sort of AUTOMATIC method of dealing with the
}vast amounts of information and entertainment programming coming into their
}homes.  If the neighbors don't care if their kids watch nude boxers cursing
}each other as the blood squirts and oozes from their cuts, they simply would
}elect not to filter such material from their reception.

}Such a system wouldn't completely take the place of personal judgement.  It
}would, however, be a useful tool, imperfect as it might be.

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
From: tony@scotty.dccs.upenn.edu (Anthony Olejnik)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Q: What's the deal on de-scrambler sales?
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:25:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

I just got my cable hookup.
I opted for the basic service (ie. no HBO, Showtime, etc.).
SInce I have a cable ready TV, I have the actual wire going directly to my TV.
(I'm assuming that if I didn't have a cable ready TV, I would need a
 converter box, am I right?)

I see in the back of some magazines, cable  TV converters (de-scramblers)?
What's the deal on these?

If I needed a converter, would I normally just rent the converter from the
cable TV company?  Couldn't one just buy one?  Is it OK (legal) to
buy one?  If its legal, why doesn't everyone just buy their own converter
instead of renting them (just like why doesn't everyone buy their own
phone instead of renting them).

Are there different types of converters?
If so, how do you determine which one works on your system?

I also get the impression that some converters (that you can buy in the
back of some magazines) not only allow you to receive the channels you
paid for, but for channels you didn't pay for (ie, HBO, showtime, etc.).
Is this true?  (I understand the legality of the issue, so please no
flames, I'm just curious as to what all the fuss is about).

Also,  there's a pay-per-view channel, that requires me to have not
only a converter, but a code number as well.  Is this typical?  
Since I have a cable ready TV (and thus, don't have the convertor box),
I'm unable to pay for the movies (which, in some cases, I would like to).

Could I just buy a convertor box from the back of a magazine, connected
it to my TV/cable feed and then pay for the show?  If so, how is
the code number obtained?  Is it something specific to the converter box?
If so, then it seems like I *MUST* rent the converter box from the cable
company.  If not, how can I get the code number (is it something that is
assigned to me by my cable TV company)?

Thanks in advance.

--tony
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Max number of channels on cable?
Date: 1 Oct 92 02:58:54 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <16871E824.JWEST@r3vm.dsd.trw.com> JWEST@r3vm.dsd.trw.com (Judson West) writes:
< 
<My cable (American Cablevision) goes from 2-53 and then skips to 99.
<A friend of mine, living in Farifax Co. Virginia, has a cable system
<that goes from 2-110 (non-stop). They have channels that show them the
<arrival status of planes into Dulles and National Airports. A real-time
<weather radar map from the National Weather Service, and obviously lots
<of other locally-originated stuff. He said that it has won some awards
<for its service.

I'll bet that 99 is really a channel somewhere between 2 and 53, probably A-1
or A-2.
-- 
      harvard\                          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
      rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
                                   brown@wi.extrel.com
From: dbsgrm@Arco.COM (Gary R Meyers(214)754-4191)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Disabled Converter Remote
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:36:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: Arco.1992Sep29.173656.16073
Distribution: usa
Organization: ARCO Oil and Gas Company

Uh, standard apology if this item has been discussed recently on this group,

Due to rising costs of cable, I decided
to pursue cheaper options. The local company was not able to help with a _reduced_ level of subscription, but they do offer their cable as an "antenna" option. 

(Apparently there is a local warning system carried over cable-that is the
only reason, I think, they offer this option) Anyhoo, for a one-time charge, 
the cable company came out and set traps on the pole so that I only get _regular_ channels - vhf, uhf, cspan, plus the weather channel,plus a few more.

They left the converter box (Zenith, model ST1085, I think), but took the remote. I then got a _Universal Remote_, so that I could take advantage of the
converter box's channel changing, remote volume, etc. But the remote won't
work on the box.

The company office manager
told me yesterday they took the remote because it would have enabled me to 
receive channels which I should not.

Also, she said that the box was basically un-reusable by them because the 
service guy had epoxied ..something.. and they would have to throw it away 
when I moved,
and that I would not be able to use the universal remote because of the 
epoxy stuff.

Okay-- I DONT want channels to which I have no right. I DO want to be able to use a remote.

So, what did they epoxy? (The infrared window is still clear).Can I bypass this? And, if the box is not operable with a remote, a mail order Zenith converter box will work, right? Will other brands work too?

Once again, I am not looking to break laws, just to have a way for the remote
to work.

Once again, apologies if this is in a FAQ, or recently discussed.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Converter Disabled
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: ARCO Oil and Gas Company
Keywords: 

-- 
*    Gary Meyers        dbsgrm@Arco.COM
*  ARCO Exploration & 
*  Production Technology 
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1608 misc.consumers:17160 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:423
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Status (WAS: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992)
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 05:16:17 GMT

In article <ddebry.717974114@itchy> David DeBry <ddebry@dsd.es.com>  writes:
>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.

Oops, I blew it.... the deadline is Midnight Saturday...

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

Unfortunately I know that is the reason....  Maybe this Clinton/Bush
debate conference... and the H.R. 'I'm back again' Perot thing will 
make Georgie forget about the deadline......
(right, and Danny is a rocket scientist)

>
>>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.
>

At least we now don't have to worry about a Senat fillibuster on the 
Family Leave bill which might prevent the Cable bill from going to an
override vote...

>
>	I hate election year politics.
I hate plain old politics of any kind.

       tweek@netcom.com  tweek@tweekco.uucp  WWIVNet 5@5058  4@5056 
          I'd rather get my cable service from the phone company,
                than my phone service from the cable company.
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Max number of channels on cable?
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:01:17 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

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. :-)

It is possible.  Maybe they used amps that only went to 350 MHz.
-- 
      harvard\                          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
      rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
                                   brown@wi.extrel.com
From: larrow@novell.com (Les Arrow)
Subject: Cable Picture Help Needed
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia
Distribution: usa 
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:42:17 GMT

Here's my scenario:

The cable comes from the wall into my converter box. The out of my converter
box goes to the antenna in of my VCR (Mitsubishi U51). The vid/aud outs
of the VCR go to the external channel of one of my TVs. The antenna out
of my VCR goes to another TV (an older Zenith with the VHF->Cable adapter).

Here my problem. When the VCR is off, I get a great picture on the Zenith.
When the VCR is on, though, the picture on the Zenith wavers and tends
not to vertically hold. What can I do to rectify the situation. Do I need
an amplifier? Why should the picture degenerate just because the VCR is
turned on? Isn't the same signal being output through the antenna out of
the VCR regardless of whether it is on or off?

Thanks.

--Les

Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1710 misc.consumers:17466 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:472
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
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 13:58:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BvpDID.A3q
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


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...

And was promptly overridden.

So now that the bill is law, when does it take effect? When will we
actually SEE the results?
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: ppa@col.hp.com (Paul Austgen)
Subject: Re: Disabled Converter Remote
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:15:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
 What kind of descrambler box are you using?  Some systems have
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

Paul

Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1719 misc.consumers:17491 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:481
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
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 22:43:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: clark.1992Oct6.224328.25424
Distribution: usa
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA

In article <1992Oct6.151102.17176@cbnews.cb.att.com> webdw@cbnews.cb.att.com (bruce.d.woods) writes:
>
>>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!

Does anybody actually have the complete text of the new law....sorry if this
is an FAQ.

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Max number of channels on cable?
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 05:42:09 GMT

Several recent postings have discussed maximum channel capacity possible
in a cable system.  It is true that 300 Mhz systems will generally carry
35 channels.  There are also 330Mhz systems that will carry 41 channels.
It is not necessarily true that a "rebuild" is needed or amplifier re-
spacking required to upgrade the channel capacity of any given system.
Electronics upgrades can be done without moving the amplifiers.  The
original design of the system is critical when considering this type of
upgrade.  If designed at 300Mhz and upgrade to 330 Mhz might be possible.
Generally one to 450Mhz will not.  TKhe considerations involved are more
detailed than this rough overview and can take lliterally months of 
planning and design work in large systems, sometimes only to find that 
they are not really cost effective.

There are also amplifiers (high gain or feedforward) which can amplify
more with the same distortions as older amps which can sometimes be
used to upgrade channel capacity without re-spacing.  Sometimes only
segements of a system need to be re-spaced.  The whole continum of
possibilities simply exhibit higher and higher costs for more and more
bandwidth.  The engineering trick is to pick out the most cost effective
upgrade path.  This is partly a marketing issue.

To get straight to the point-for a cable system that is at its full 
channel capacity to upgrade in ANY form to add say for instance the
Sci-Fi channel is usually not a smart move.  The channel has no proven
track record.  If it turns out to be poorly funded, it could easily fold
in six months.  (There are probably about 100 previous examples over the
years.)  Even if it is well funded, the public may find that it does not
like their programs or gets bored with them quickly.  If it flops, for
whatever reason, the cable company is left holding what may be the bag
of a several million dollar rebuild and getting no return to help pay for it.
If the channel is a success the cable co still has no significant revenue
increase to offset the upgrade cost.  And I'll bet most subscribers would
not want an across the board rate increase, of even 50cents/month to pay
for a channel.
Bob Vogel
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: mxl@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (marc.a.levy)
Subject: Universal Descrambler
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:33:46 GMT

After MANY requests, I am posting the list of fixes I have
for the Universal Descrambler that was in the May 1990 issue
of Radio Electronics. 


Pin 6 or IC3 should be grounded

R32 (1K) should go to +12V

Pin 8 of IC6 should be grounded

Pin 3 of IC7 should be connected to Pin 2 of IC8, NOT pin 12

Remove C25 from the board and solder it directly between pin's
5 and 7 on the CA3126 (IC 5)  

I found that if wires are run from ground points across to
other ground points also help the lockup.  The board it routed
poorly.

Replace C11 and C12 with larger caps.  (this was supposed
to fix picture quality, I dont see it!)


The following fix is where there is some argument:

1: remove R45 

2: solder 10Uf cape in place of R45, with the negitive side to
   IC3, pin 12

3: cut trace between positive end and C41

4: Solder a wire from the positive lead on 10Uf cap to IC2,
   pin 15.

5: add a .01 cap across R4.


This fix WILL help the lockup, but also hurts the color
quality.  Alan Peterman reccomended this:

Remove the above fix (or dont even try it)
instead.....

Ground crystal case to C22 Ground

Change C21 to 1ufd

change C30 to 100 pf

Add a "Hot Shot" a momentary switch from IC6 pin 10 to
ground.




I have tried most of the fixes with little or no luck, so if
anyone can shed MORE light on the subject, I think we would
all love it!

Marc.

Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1722 misc.consumers:17494 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:483
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
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 20:46:04 GMT
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems, Moraga, CA

dchuk@netcom.com (Denise Chuk) writes:

> webdw@cbnews.cb.att.com (bruce.d.woods) writes:
> 
> >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?)
> 

The Congressional set of priorities reflects the priorities of the
American voter. The cable issue is something that a larger cross section
of voters is angry about and more united on than most other issues,
with the exception of a few people on this newsgroup, nobody likes being
screwed by their cable companies, regardless of sex, ethnic group, 
religion, stand on abortion, or political party. 

In other words, this shows that the system actually worked for once. Any
other topic on which the voters are similarly united will get equally
positive action by Congress. Whether Bush likes it or not. Of course,
the next issue might be making Elvis' birthday a national holiday, but
this is the nature of democracy.
A.Lizard
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Signal Loss Detection
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:32:29 GMT
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES

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).
>
>I have spent the day checking out the local electronics stores for such
>a device - to no avail. I would be very gratefull to any kind soul who
>could provide help/suggestions with this. Thanks!
>
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)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Jonathan N. Deitch)
Subject: Re: Cable Re-Regulation Veto Override
Organization: Georgia State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:50:49 GMT

sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>The US Senate just voted to OVERRIDE the Bushman's
>veto of the cable re-regulation bill.

>The House will be voting to override in a few hours.

And, about 10 to 10, it *did* override the veto.

>Maybe, the Cable-TV industry will FINALLY get
>a SMALL PORTION of what they deserve!

Amen to that ... despite the problems with this bill -- and there are plenty --
the cable industry really needs a good reeming out.  Any company that charges
$2.95 a month for the privelige of using your *own* remote control for a cable
box deserves anything it gets.

- Jonathan
-- 
 ** Please be sure to use the address below rather than the reply address **

 Internet: jdeitch@gisatl.fidonet.org   Fidonet: Jonathan Deitch@1:133/411.7
           musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu      Bellnet: 1 - (404) - 261 - 3665           
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta 1996 !!! | Go Braves !! | Play Pinball !! | "I hate it when I can't
--------------------------------------------------| trust my own technology!"
"Thrills!  Chills!  Magic!  Prizes!" -- Hurricane |    -- Geordi LaForge

Gene Roddenberry, Isaac Asimov, Jim Henson, Dr. Seuss, Mel Blanc ... Sigh ...