HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ramsey@spot.Colorado.EDU (L. Ron Hubbard)
Subject: Re: surrond a sound
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:36:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep21.164446.20418@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com> puter@no1home.nashvil.ingr.com (PuterDude) writes:
>In article <jy.4@eng.ufl.edu> jy@eng.ufl.edu (jim yousse) writes:
>>I'm considering purchasing a hi-fi vcr and have a question I hope someone 
>>can clear up.  If I was to record a moive (coming off a sattelite dish), 
>>which has surround a sound encoded in it, would the playback retain the 
>>surround a sound?  Has anyone tried this?  Thank for your help.
>
>	First, I only have cable, not satellite. I have a stereo vcr
>with a surround sound stereo. There is an option on my vcr labeled
>"SAP", which enables my vcr to record in stereo. I have recorded
>movies with it, and they sound just as real as if I was playing it
>in my vcr.

SAP means Second Audio Program.  You'll notice some channels like HBO might
have an "In Spanish where available" thing for some movies.

It is completely up to the cable company as to whether or not they'll do
that.  TCI in Denver doesn't, but in Kansas City they did.  Go figure.

There oughta be a mono/stereo/sap switch somewhere.  Dolby is encoded in the
stereo info so it'll be there so long as you record in stereo.  Saturday
Night Live sounds kooky in Dolby.  The audience comes from the rear channel
during the monologue.  Odd.

Anyway, if your cable company won't retransmit the supplied SAP stuff (spanish
and other wacky stuff), you'll usually just get the stereo broadcast on it.

Mad Poo
From: petec@splat.dell.com (Pete Cruz)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Cable reception
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:14:10 GMT
Organization: Dell Computer Co

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?

Any ideas on how to improve reception would be greatly appreceated.

Thanks
 
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: JWEST@r3vm.dsd.trw.com (Judson West)
Subject: Re: Max number of channels on cable?
Organization: TRW Electronic Systems Group
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:30:26 GMT

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?
 
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Judson West                          Phone:     (310) 812-4394            |
| IBM Operating Systems                Internet:  JWEST@r3vm.dsd.trw.com    |
| TRW Electronic systems Group         IBMMail:   IBMMAIL(USTRW001)         |
|                ========================================                   |
| Definition of Stress:                                                     |
|       That confusion that results when the mind overrides the body's      |
|       desire to choke the living shit out of some asshole who             |
|       desperately needs it.                                               |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
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
	<1992Sep23.073100.16750@Unibase.SK.CA> <BCR.92Sep23140644@hpl3sn02.cern.ch>
	<1992Sep24.202510.28652@Unibase.SK.CA>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 10:07:04 GMT

>If I hire you to murder me, or assist in my murder (a la Kevorkian), there
>should be no prosecution, as the event is consensual (presuming sanity).

>Cock fighting is a different issue, since the combatants are animals, and
>unable to consent.  I'm personally of the belief that such activities
>should be illegal.

Obcourse you are right that logic alone is sufficent for justifying most violent
acts being illegal.  However, the two examples above are perfect examples
of moral issues.  I personaly feel just the opposite as you do in both these
cases.  However, both are sufficently are in the gray area that they should
be decided by democratic means. 

Take for example if you hired someone to kill you.  If you were someone
I loved, I would feel not only justified, but morally obligated to taking
ANY action required to protect your life.  That is why such cases are currently
illegal.  Think about it.  A hires B to kill him/her.  C ends up resorting to
killing B to protect A.  In C's trial A testifies that s/he is thankful C saved
him/her (maybe it is the truth, maybe it is a lie since A could also loves C.)
So no reasonable jury would convict C if C had tried all other available methods
of stoping B first.  What have we ended up with?  Justifyable homoside that
could have been avioded simply by allowing legal methods of stoping B from
killing A.

                                  Bill


Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1668 misc.consumers:17344 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:449
From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:34:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography

In article <FSF.92Oct1120920@hpic006.mentorg.com> fsf@hpic006.mentorg.com (Rick Farnbach) writes:
>A couple of points:
>  1) This thread is going nowhere.  Let it die.

If you thought this was true, you would not be continuing this thread
yourself.

>  5) It is inconsistent to claim that the Bible does not address sex on TV
>     because the Bible doesn't talk about TV and then to claim that the
>     constitution supports it.  The constitution doesn't mention TV, either.

I have not seen the claim that the Bible does not address sex on TV. I
certainly haven't said that. However, the Constitution comes much closer
to mentioning TV when it refers to "the press" than anything in the
Bible.

>  6) Good parents do not necessarily insist that they be present whenever
>     their child watches TV.  How many of those advocating this approach were
>     dealt with this way when they were growing up?

I do not recall anyone advocating this approach. Knowing and limiting a
child's television viewing does not mandate being present when they are
watching. And yes, my parents knew what I was watching and prohibited
certain shows. 

>  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.

No. There is no "right" for one person to tell another what they cannot
watch. Nobody is telling anyone that they must watch. The choice is, and
should always remain, the viewer's. Nobody has said that Group A MUST
throw their TV's away. They MUST exercise their own decision making
ability with regards to what they choose to watch, and if they wind up
choosing to watch nothing that is their choice. 

Key words: their choice. Just like it is my choice to watch what I
watch. Nobody forces me to watch programs I find offensive, so I don't
watch programs I find offensive. Nobody is forcing Group A to watch
programs that they find offensive, so, if they watch programs that they
find offensive, that is their choice. 

Now, we can let this die.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer)
Subject: Re: Pocket Veto
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:38:19 GMT

musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Jonathan N. Deitch) writes:

>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.

Unless in the interim Congress has ended it's session, in which case the
bill dies. THAT's a pocket veto.

-- 
Nick Sayer <mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us> | "...You can act like a policeman
N6QQQ @ N0ARY.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NOAM     | or a soldier, but not both."
37 19 49 N / 121 57 36 W             | 
+1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'   |   -- Tom Clancy, "Patriot Games"
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: fvest@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: Max number of channels on cable?
Organization: Auburn University, AL
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:26:36 GMT


[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
From: ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Christian Broadcasters Take Issue with Bush on Cable Legislation
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:11:10 GMT
Followup-To: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Oct2.000758.13933@samba.oit.unc.edu>,
Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) wrote:
>    Religious broadcasters have long argued that many cable operators
> arbitrarily exclude Christian stations from cable systems and
> seriously undercut their audience and viability.  Today privately
> owned cable monopolies can legally choose which local televisions
> they carry, even though every local station is a federal licensee.
> The pending cable bill corrects this problem.  Under its provisions,
> local stations that choose the "must carry" option would
> automatically be carried on cable systems, but they woud forgo all
> rights to any compensation for their signals through the bill's
> "retransmission consent" provision.

True, since I switched over to cable I lost all Christian TV-channels
minus one. Bliss! Hmm, maybe I should support Bush in the cable-veto?

Cheers,
Kent

	Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to	investigate. -F.M.
Knowles
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:00:34 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

(Justin Leavens) writes:

>   I still don't get it. Why can't parents take responsibility for raising
>their children instead of blaming everyone else for their lack of parenting?
>If you don't want nude bleeding boxers on your screen, don't put that channel
>on! Instill in children the same things you believe in and eventually they'll
>change the channel themselves.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Justin Leavens                       | University of Southern California
>Microcomputer Specialist             | leavens@mizar.usc.edu
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

 
 Justin, you edited out the sentence where I said (more or less):
 "...this doesn't take the place of personal judgement.  But, imperfect or not,
     it would still be a valuable tool.

 I don't have kids yet.  When I do, I'll try my best to personally supervise
 what they see (until they're old enough to think for themselves) as you 
 suggest.  I've already said that somewhere way back there on this gawdawfully
 long thread. I also happen to think that technology can be used to ultimately
 solve (or at least, alleviate) a technological problem.  Why not?

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Andrew Hart                   |  CompuTrac, Inc.                 |
|   (214) 235-7161 x 5320         |  222 Municipal Drive             |
|   andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org      |  Richardson, TX  75080           |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: patrickd@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Lazer)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Most-wanted Cable Channels
Date: 30 Sep 1992 02:53:55 GMT
Organization: Gizmonic Institute
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
Summary: My vote
Keywords: CABLE

In article <1992Sep30.005848.9174@unixland.natick.ma.us> fybush@unixland.natick.ma.us (Scott Fybush) writes:
>TCI has never asked me, but I thought it might be interesting to post
>the cable channels I'd most like to see added to my local (Waltham MA)
>system.  I'd be interested to see what other channels people most want
>added to their systems.

I have Cablevision in Lewiston/Auburn, Maine.  It BITES!  Here's what *I*
want to see!!!

1. Comedy Central
2. Sci-Fi

I'd like to LOSE:
The TWO French stations from Canada
The TWO Home Shopping Channels
MTV and VH1 (but keep them or we'll have riots)
CNBC
ESPN and NESN (not a sports fan)
The Nashville Network (I'm in MAINE...no one watches THIS!)
Lifetime
ETWN (or is it EWTN?)
and a few more...

One TERRIBLE thing our company does is squeeze TWO channels onto ONE!  It
has C-SPAN on in the day and Playboy at night (so you get a clear station
during the day and static at night!)
They do the same with NESN and VH1!

-- 
-Lazer (Patrick Delahanty)    |WARNING!: MST3K, Apple ][, Macintosh, Back to
InterNet: patrickd@wpi.wpi.edu|          the Future fan and co-sysop L/A Blues!
          lazer@lablues.UUCP  |Call L/A Blues BBS at (207) 777-3465 for IBM
    * I HATE MICROSOFT! *     |Mac, & Apple ][ files, TradeWars 2002, & USENET!
From: akmal@hades.wpd.sgi.com (Akmal Khan)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Signal Loss Detection
Date: 27 Sep 1992 07:55:00 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: akmal@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: hades.wpd.sgi.com



So, I received a visit from a Viacom technician this morning. Apparently,
I was losing signals to the air. Given that I have over six sets wired
across my house through multiple splitters and amplifiers, and much
of the cabling was installed in-wall before I purchased the house, it is
quite feasible that there is a problem with one or more of these cables.

The Viacom guy made me disconnect all but one of the connections and the
problem apparently went away. I would like to reconnect those sets again
once I have eliminated the cause of the signal loss.

Visual inspection is impractical.

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!




		---- Akmal Khan
		     akmal@sgi.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: CABLE BILL VETO OVERRIDDEN
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:05:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.131134.21983@ultb.isc.rit.edu> rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>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.

No.  The protests will be directed at the local government agencies
who will now have SOME control over cable rates.  Right now, our
protests are directed at the local cable company, who toss them into
the dumpster.

>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

I am envious of you if you have received channel additions in the
past few years.  My local cable company has added nothing.
Or, to be precise, every channel addition has come at the
expense of a different channel deletion.

We have been asking our local cable co. when they are planning 
to add channels beyond the current 36 (yes, I know that this
requires hardware updates).  Seven years ago, their answer
was "in a few years"; today, their answer is "in a few years".

Ninety-eight percent of households currently served
by cable tv do not have any choice in provider.
Today, there is at least some hope of successful
regulation of the cable monopoly.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1708 misc.consumers:17464 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:471
From: andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: An end to the cable-tv religious war?
Summary: censorship cable-tv religion flame
Date: 6 Oct 92 07:27:04 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX


 
 Well, this is absolutely my last post to this thread.  It's been very
 interesting.  From now on, when I post to cable-tv it will be to inquire
 about macrovision, de-scramblers and the like.

 BUT!  I read an interesting book once called "Holy War" in which the 
 author put forth the fascinating argument that the advent of monotheism
 was the source of much religious intolerance and bloodshed.  (As opposed
 to polytheism where people were much more tolerant of religious diffs, 
 because, hey!  You didn't want to get someone else's god angry at you.)

 But I think I'll take this to alt.religion or wherever such things should
 be discussed.

 Jack, when you get back from wherever it is you're going, show up with
 your brass knucks.  :)    (it's a joke, it's a joke!)

 And GUESS WHAT, SAM?   I CHANGED THE SUBJECT LINE!  hee hee.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott)
Subject: Fiber optics vs. number of channels
Organization: Sony Microsystems, San Jose, CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 00:43:24 GMT


In article <trussell.718412121@cwis>, trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) writes:
|>     I bet it is.  I would imagine that if you haven't had a hardware upgrade
|> by now, you won't get one until your cable company either can afford to go
|> to fiber optics or gets bought up by a company that can afford it.  Cox
|> Cable here in Omaha has been slowly upgrading the system to fiber.  Unfor-
|> tunately I haven't seen the boxes yet or checked out the video quality.
|> I do know that they're running network connections both over the cable
|> and the fiber, because our university has been experimenting with them.

Just because a company goes to fiber doesn't mean they'll have more
channels on that fiber.

One of the really annoying things about cable in San Jose, CA is that
there are two cables, each with around 34 channels.  Even though they
advertise that they have fiber, they don't have a way to send all
channels on one line (even though neighboring Sunnyvale changed over
years ago).

This is annoying to people who want to use their VCR programming
capabilities to tape shows when they aren't at home.  You either need
2 VCRs or a VCR that can deal with two sets of channels.

The cable bill seems to require that they change this, though it's
hard to say if it will happen.

--
...David Elliott
...dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce
...(408)944-4073
..."I take my arms and I wrap them around my art." - F
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1620 misc.consumers:17224 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:429