HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Bob Vogel)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Why is cable so bad?
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:38:09 GMT
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

Mike Andrews posts: "The new cable legislation which the cable cos fought so
hard is supposed to mandate that they unscramble the premium channels for
cable ready TV's"  {paraphrased slightly}

A perhaps minor, but important point--all the cable bill does is direct the
FCC to EXAMINE (also read research, study, send out a request for comments)
the problem created by scrambled channels vs. cable COMPATIBLE tv's.
What the FCC will find is that the cable operator has a legitimate interest
in protecting their programming from theft (pretty closely analglous to a 
store putting a plain clothes person in thestore to guard against shoplifitng)and that any change they make in the present system has large and significant
economic impact on either TV mfgs, cable operators, or consumers.  i.e. If
TV makers mustput in plugs for descramblers prices for TV sets go up--by the
time it could be implemented digital sets may be needed and all would be for
naught.  If cable ops put scrambled channels in the clear they have only two
viable options at present for signal security, traps at each house {which willincrease their expense significantly because they will have to send out a truck
for every change of service (new movie channels) or addressable taps which
generally will require a rebuild of the whole system (millions of $$$).
Leaving things the way they are impacts the consumer in ways which you are
all pretty familiar with by reducing their remote options etc.

If one were to guess now the likely outcome of the FCC proceedings, the best
we are likely tosee is a requirement that newer (poss digital) TV's are
required to have a descrambler jack universal for the cable companies to
plug in their smart card/descrambler or whatever and that is likely 10 years
or so in the implementation.

If someone sees a way to overcome the above problems while maintianing a
decent picture quality, they could problably make some money.
Bob Vogel
From: dudley@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (D U D L E Y)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: cable rumors
Date: 5 Jan 1993 16:00:57 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.ksu.ksu.edu

From the wireless cable FAQ:

# +++ With a new compression technology (made by Zenith) that will soon be
# +++ available, almost 300 channels would be available.  I haven't heard much
# +++ about the quality of this new compression, but it sounds promising.

I heard rumor that TCI cable was slated to bring 500 channels online by
January of '94. I was wondering how this would be possible if true. My
guess would be compression, and from the above-quoted text, this rumor
seems to have a bit of strength.

So what all does anyone know about this? Is it gonna be closer to 300 or
500 channels? What type of tech changes will be involved?

Currently TCI offers DMX (Digital Music Express) which ... from memory ...
boasts of CD quality music stations (30 or so). Along with the normal 36
or so channels, there's gotta some hefty compression going on there.

-- 
                                                    John "Dudley" Hunkins
                                                  dudley@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: heape@rtsg.mot.com (Robert P. Heape)
Subject: CATV Operator Dropping MTS Signal
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:21:19 GMT


Here in Chicagoland, my cable operator drops the MTS Encoded
Stereo signal for the public channels (ABC/NBC/CBS etc.).

In other markets, such as St. Louis, all public channels that
broadcast in stereo, are transmitted to the subscriber with the
MTS signal in-tact.

As an alternative, the operator provides stereo for SOME channels
by broadcasting the channel's stereo signal on FM channels.

I hate this, has anyone else complained to their operators about
this? Or do most people not care about being cheated out of MTS that
a non-CATV viewer can receive?

Regards,

Rob Heape

heape@oscar.rtsg.mot.com

Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, I represent ONLY myself.
From: milst1@cislabs.pitt.edu (Martin I Lewison)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: cable rumors
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:56:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1id0epINNfpi@sam.ksu.ksu.edu> dudley@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (D U D L E Y) writes:
>From the wireless cable FAQ:
>
>I heard rumor that TCI cable was slated to bring 500 channels online by
>January of '94. I was wondering how this would be possible if true. My
>guess would be compression, and from the above-quoted text, this rumor
>seems to have a bit of strength.
>
>                                                    John "Dudley" Hunkins
>                                                  dudley@matt.ksu.ksu.edu


I'm pretty sure it'll be closer to 500 than 300.  Compression is correct.
I think that currently, a cable system can have 45 channels.  The digital
compression technology enables them to squeeze 10 channels onto one,
so if 45 is correct, you've got 450 after digital compression.

-Martin
From: rcrandall@sc9.intel.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: CATV Operator Dropping MTS Signal
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:51:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intel CTD


>> -stuff deleted-

> However, in the case of satellite-fed services (e.g. HBO, TBS, Lifetime, etc.)
> the stereo signal is encoded as (in most cases) discrete channels or (in some
> cases) a matrix format.  Either way, a stereo signal comes off the satellite
> but it is NOT in MTS format; rather the cable company needs a MTS encoder at
> the head end for EACH channel it wants to pass along to subscribers in MTS
> stereo.  This is why most cable companies only encode pay channels like HBO
> and Showtime and very popular music channels like MTV and VH-1.  I've come
> across painfully few cable carriers that bother to pass along stereo feeds for
> most "basic" services (e.g. TBS, WGN, Lifetime, A&E, etc.)  Yet another reason
> to get yourself a dish...
> -- 
> | William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed herein
> | Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, NOT those
> | Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
> | President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club        | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"


At least you get MTV in stereo, not me here!  I know it would not cost very
much to add an MTS encoder to all the signals.  I cannot figure these guys out,
they must be extremely cheap.  What will this cable regulation thingy do for
this situation?  I would like to see something that says .."the signal must be
transmitted with all of its components intact with no signal degredation beyond
nominal"
That will make them squirm...

Rob.
From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Wm. L. Ranck)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable tuner with A/V output
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:29:53 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Jim Duncan (duncan@ravel.ati.com) wrote:
: In article <eric.179.0@hup.ucla.edu> eric@hup.ucla.edu (Eric J. Splaver) writes:
: >I've been looking for a tuner with channels 1-99 which has A/V output. 
:   Does anybody have any ideas of where I could find one new or used?
: 
: was able to buy  a full feature 'Stargate 550AV Excellerator Series"
: converter for $139.95 from M.D. Electronics 800-624-1150.  It works
: fine as has everything else I've bought from them in the past. The box
: has a remote control, A/V jacks, 83 channel capacity, etc., etc..
: Sounds like just what you need.    

Does it have *stereo* audio outputs?  I keep trying to find one but I 
haven't so far.  
--

*******************************************************************************
* Bill Ranck                                          ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu *
* Computing Center at Virginia Tech, not Vermont ----------------------^^     *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright)
Subject: Re: Why is cable so bad?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:26:08 GMT

Almost all cable companies operate under a franchise agreement with a
local gov.  Many of these agreements have technical quality requirements.
 
If the cable operator can not supply a signal that meets the requirements,
then you can put them is hot water with their franchisor.

In practice, complain, complain, complain.  Most operators send a shaved
ape out on the first complaint.  A good operator will escilate(sp) to
more qualified techs on re-calls on the complaint.  Most operators rallxxx
really want to fix problems.  If they don't, complain to City Hall!

(Those folks in Central Square can be responsive.  -- Cambridge remarke)

-- 
		Jim Ebright (james.ebright@osu.edu) 
    "Spam, eggs, sausage and spam - that's not got much spam in it."
    Fax # 614-785-0292.  Tel # 614-785-0282.  Beeper # 614-646-1093
     >>>    All kids can be educated -- even yours and mine.    <<<
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: CATV Operator Dropping MTS Signal
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:44:50 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <2362@hsdndev.UUCP> nhmas@gauss.med.harvard.edu (Mark Shneyder) writes:
<>In article <1993Jan4.152119.24886@rtsg.mot.com>, Robert P. Heape writes:
<>> Here in Chicagoland, my cable operator drops the MTS Encoded
<>> Stereo signal for the public channels (ABC/NBC/CBS etc.).
<>
<
<Actually,Cablevision of Boston/Brookline did 180-degree turn regarding
<carrying MTS signal for many of its channels couple weeks before X-Mas.
<They now transmit local FOX affiliate in stereo(even with SAP).Also
<music channels such as VH-1,TNN,CMT are now in full stereo sound. All
<premium channels(HBO,HBO2,Cinemax,Showtime,Showtime2,MC,Bravo,AMC,etc) and
<PPV channels were upgraded to have stereo sound as well. They also
<completely eliminated any type of ghosting on all local broadcast channels
<and the reception is the best it's ever been.I assume they actually wisely 
<spent some of the subscriber-generated revenue to invest into some technology
<to improve the quality of service.

Sounds like the clean-up of the local feeds was a result of adding direct
back-feed connections from each of the stations.  That direct feed has the
MTS and SAP encoded at the station end.
-- 
      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
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,rec.video.satellite
From: dleon@seas.smu.edu (David Leon)
Subject: Re: Universal Sync Restorer for sale
Organization: SMU - School of Engineering & Applied Science - Dallas
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:10:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.135432.27326@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mxl@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (marc.a.levy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.013633.6781@seas.smu.edu> dleon@seas.smu.edu (David Leon) writes:
>>For sale:
>>
>>Universal Sync Restorer.  Strips & corrects all incoming vertical &
>>horizontal sync pulses from distorted analogue video formats.  RCA 
>>type plugs for testing any standard equipment also good for weak signal 
>>correction $195 firm.  RF i/o unit $225 firm. 
>>
>
>What??  Are you just selling YOURS that you paied too much
>for? or are you going into business to make a profit?
>
>The unit itself is worth about $35 in parts, if it works
>correctly, MABy someone would pay $75 or so for it..   As for
>a RF converter, you can get this for $2 from many surplus
>catalogs, if your RF unit includes a tuner, then maby it is
>worth $100 NEW.... All of this equipment is used, I would
>value all of this at $125 for everything.... Not that I am
>looking to buy, I have my own updated version of this device,
>I re-layed out the board, and changed a few things around.
>
>Just trying to worn the readers who may not be fimiliar with
>this type of electronic device.  If we are not talking about
>the same item (and I doubt it, because I only know of 1
>"Universal Sync Restorer") Then I am sorry...
>
>Marc
>
>

Actually, you are incorrect on both counts.  I took in a few of these units
brand new as a trade for some debts owed to me.  The box is in completed form,
not just a bunch of parts for someone to peice together as your message seems
to imply.  If the RF converter is truly worth $2, then someone could purchase
the previous unit and seave a couple of dollars, true.  However, there are
some people who would rather pay a few extra dollars to not have to deal with
putting together electronic parts (not everyone on the net is comfortable 
hacking devices to hang off of the television sets).  You argument is like
saying "$28,000 for a car! But the parts are only worth etk $5,000 and I put
one together myself!"  If you are unhappy about the price, then make a counter
offer, or offer a trade.  (Actually, this is for the other netters, since
you said you were not interested in purchasing) I am unsure what you are 
trying to "worn" people against, as I said if it my price, then counteroffer.

David

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright)
Subject: Re: Why is cable so bad?
Summary: Outage determination by cable co
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:00:40 GMT

Cable needs a series of amplifiers between you and the head-in (where the
dishes are!).  When one amp goes, everyone downstream goes too.

Some amps have transponders that will tell the head-in they have power and
are working.  With these, the cable company knows almost immediately when
there is an outage and where it is.

Those companies which do not have transponders rely on the following method
to determine when and where they have trouble:
1) Put a map of your network up on the wall.
2) Mark the location of the amps.
3) Wait for the subscribers to call in trouble reports.
4) Mark the subscriber location on the map.
5) See where the subscriber calls start in relation to the network amps.
6) Dispatch to first non-working amp.

High tech, eh?
-- 
		Jim Ebright (james.ebright@osu.edu) 
    "Spam, eggs, sausage and spam - that's not got much spam in it."
    Fax # 614-785-0292.  Tel # 614-785-0282.  Beeper # 614-646-1093
     >>>    All kids can be educated -- even yours and mine.    <<<
From: duncan@ravel.ati.com (Jim Duncan)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable tuner with A/V output
Date: 5 Jan 93 05:25:35 GMT
Reply-To: duncan@ravel.ati.com (Jim Duncan)
Organization: K-FOX 94.5 Classic Rock (KUFX, Gilroy-San Jose, CA)

In article <eric.179.0@hup.ucla.edu> eric@hup.ucla.edu (Eric J. Splaver) writes:

>I've been looking for a tuner with channels 1-99 which has A/V output. 
  Does anybody have any ideas of where I could find one new or used?
>
Many cable converter boxes sport A/V outputs.  These are handy.

The Jerrold converter I got from my cable company has both a channel 3
output and the A/V jacks.  This looks like an expensive gadget, but I
was able to buy  a full feature 'Stargate 550AV Excellerator Series"
converter for $139.95 from M.D. Electronics 800-624-1150.  It works
fine as has everything else I've bought from them in the past. The box
has a remote control, A/V jacks, 83 channel capacity, etc., etc..
Sounds like just what you need.    

-- 
K-FOX|      w  ["]                            | WA6MBV      
94.5 |...   |___|_____..duncan@ravel.ati.com  | Jim Duncan  
KUFX |          H                             | 408.297.5977   
********  \_____I_____/  37 3 10N/121 59 10W  ************** 
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: cable rumors
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:34:40 GMT

In article <1id0epINNfpi@sam.ksu.ksu.edu> dudley@sam.ksu.ksu.edu (D U D L E Y) writes:
>From the wireless cable FAQ:
>
># +++ With a new compression technology (made by Zenith) that will soon be
># +++ available, almost 300 channels would be available.  I haven't heard much
># +++ about the quality of this new compression, but it sounds promising.
>
>Currently TCI offers DMX (Digital Music Express) which ... from memory ...
>boasts of CD quality music stations (30 or so). Along with the normal 36
>or so channels, there's gotta some hefty compression going on there.

Not really.  One single video channel occupies 6 mhz of bandwidth.  One
standard FM radio channel occupies about 100khz.  Infact, the entire FM
broadcast band (88-108mhz) occupies the space of just slightly more than
four video channels. 


Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,rec.video.satellite
From: mxl@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (marc.a.levy)
Subject: Re: Universal Sync Restorer for sale
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:54:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.013633.6781@seas.smu.edu> dleon@seas.smu.edu (David Leon) writes:
>For sale:
>
>Universal Sync Restorer.  Strips & corrects all incoming vertical &
>horizontal sync pulses from distorted analogue video formats.  RCA 
>type plugs for testing any standard equipment also good for weak signal 
>correction $195 firm.  RF i/o unit $225 firm. 
>

What??  Are you just selling YOURS that you paied too much
for? or are you going into business to make a profit?

The unit itself is worth about $35 in parts, if it works
correctly, MABy someone would pay $75 or so for it..   As for
a RF converter, you can get this for $2 from many surplus
catalogs, if your RF unit includes a tuner, then maby it is
worth $100 NEW.... All of this equipment is used, I would
value all of this at $125 for everything.... Not that I am
looking to buy, I have my own updated version of this device,
I re-layed out the board, and changed a few things around.

Just trying to worn the readers who may not be fimiliar with
this type of electronic device.  If we are not talking about
the same item (and I doubt it, because I only know of 1
"Universal Sync Restorer") Then I am sorry...

Marc
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: cable rumors
From: gallaghe@vax.sonoma.edu (mycal)
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:21:53 -0800
 <1993Jan8.075549.22953@gagme.chi.il.us> <1993Jan8.161537.9290@netcom.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sonoma State University

In article <1993Jan8.161537.9290@netcom.com>, tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.075549.22953@gagme.chi.il.us> wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.233440.13746@netcom.com> tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield) writes:
>>
>>>Not really.  One single video channel occupies 6 mhz of bandwidth.  One
>>>standard FM radio channel occupies about 100khz.  
>>                                          ^^^^^^
>>BZZZT! Wrong answer MIKE.  An FM channel uses 200khz, which is why
>>FM is spaced out on only 'odd' number steps (I.E 92.1 92.3 92.5 92.7...).
>>You will not see a 92.2 or 92.4 in the USA anyway.
> 

Well most stations that I've seen that run just strait stereo have a bandwidth
of about 40Khz.  Closer to 100Khz with a subcarrier.  200Khz is the channel
spacing and is the max bandwidth centered on the actual operating frequency.

Hope this helps

mycal

> 
> 
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rsilvers@nynexst.com (Robert Silvers)
Subject: Re: Why is cable so bad?
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 19:43:54 GMT

In article <2369@hsdndev.UUCP> nhmas@gauss.med.harvard.edu (Mark Shneyder) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.161044.29164@nynexst.com> rsilvers@cirrus.nynexst.com (Robert Silvers) writes:
>>
>Rob,
>
>Three weeks ago they finally got their asses in gear and solved all the reception,
>picture problems,added stereo sound to a bunch of channels by,what I assume,
>investing some money into the existing system. Maybe it was the fear of
>the Cable Act or maybe Cablevision of Boston/Brookline came to their
>senses and realized that a loyal subscriber deserves to be somewhat
>satisfied with the product.

We need competition, like two cable companies in the same area.  Or the
phone company providing video service (notice I work for NYNEX).  We are now
doing a video trial and are using fiber for distribution to a given building
then coax to each unit.  This should result in good quality.

						--Rob.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Bob Vogel)
Subject: Re: Why is cable so bad?
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 04:21:35 GMT

A few brief thoughts re: Bill Vermillion's recent post describing his  conversations with ATC officials to get his intermittent cable problem fixed.
First, There are still a number of small systems who simply don't have a Denver or corporate office that you can call.  Probably most on this net do, but some
smalll operators still exist.
Second, the call to the chief tech SHOULD {well at least in theory} have 
produced esentially the same results as he eventually got.  That's the reason
I suggest asking for that person specifically and just requesting a call back
if he/she is no in.
Third, cable or any other business where you get  a rep who feels they have
to defend, filter etc. about that which they know not is a universal 
frustrater.  An electronic circuit that would get through such folks or jump
the phonecall direct to their supervisor would make someone a fortune.
Fourth, his analysis of the problem is probably quite correct.  Both the shield ad/or the center conductor can pull out in the cold and cause such problems.
It could also have been a defective amplifier module affected by cold.
Finally, cable cos are like people; sometimes they are having a good day,
sometimes not.  Some have good phone people, some don't.  This group is
actually probably a pretty good place to share the ways that have worked best
for any of us to get fixed those intermittent or more severe than usual problems.
I think what we want is a good picture that we can enjoy when we want and a
quick repair when it's not.
Bob Vogel
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: chou@cs.washington.edu (Pai Hsiang Chou)
Subject: Re: CATV Operator Dropping MTS Signal
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 22:47:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan06.023109.28115@n8emr.cmhnet.org> gws@n8emr.cmhnet.org (Gary Sanders) writes:
>Few if any cable companys provide stereo encoding on TV signals.
>usually they provide stereo services as a stereo FM signal on the
>FM broadcast band.
>
>Many Satellite services (HBO,TMC,etc) are available in stereo, but
>its very expensive to remodulate a TV signal stereo signal over cable. 
>

Here in Seattle, Viacom cable transmits MTS stereo
for most channels, including local stereo ones and
cable (MTV, HBO, Showtime, TMC, USA, Nick...).
The cablebox remodulates the MTS signals too, so
that I get MTS stereo with or without the box.

Pai
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv