HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@thd.tv.tek.com (William K. McFadden)
Subject: Re: DMX box
Organization: Tektronix TV Products
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:11:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.015157.16525@news.acns.nwu.edu> gilmore@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Kevin Gilmore) writes:
>In addition the sound is
>not as good as advertised, probably because they take the feed off of
>satellite in dual narrow band fm, then digitally encode it ala cd's
>But the bit rate is less than the 44khz and its only 14 bits instead
>of 16. So when they say same as cd quality they lie... 

I spoke to one of the engineers at Scientific Atlanta, and he told me that
the signal is sent digitally from the original CD all the way to the DMX
decoder.  No analog intermediate steps are involved.  BTW, they copy the
selections onto recordable CDs (WORM type) and play them through CD
jukeboxes.

As to the "CD quality" claim, the encoding is such that no compression of the
44.1 kHz 16-bit signal occurs unless the high frequency content reaches an
extremely high level.  Then the system momentarily reverts to a block
floating point scheme similar to NICAM.  However, this happens very rarely in
music and usually only occurs on test signals.  The engineer said that they
had done extensive analysis and listening tests and could not detect any
degradation.

That said, I have heard what sounded like distortion on some selections.  In
each case in which I had the CD of a selection, I found that the distortion
was actually in the source material.

I can describe the encoding algorithm in greater detail if there is
sufficient interest.

-- 
Bill McFadden    Tektronix, Inc.  P.O. Box 500  MS 58-639  Beaverton, OR  97077
bill@tv.tv.tek.com, ...!tektronix!tv.tv.tek.com!bill      Phone: (503) 627-6920
How can I prove I am not crazy to people who are?
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,rec.video.satellite,rec.video
From: jem@cup.hp.com (Jim McCauley)
Subject: Re: TCI announces 500 channels on its systems in 2 years?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:29:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Bill Stasior (wstasior@mustard.lcs.mit.edu) wrote:

: Yes but the transmission is digital so the received signal should be 
: identical to the one that was sent.

That is to say, the artifacts present in the compressed signal at the
cable system's head end will be the same as the artifacts in the
signal received by the viewer.

Visibility of compression artifacts will be as much a function of
viewer practices as of compression technology.  If the cable system
chooses a compression methodology which is basically invisible for
real-time playback, viewers may still complain if they record a live
sports event and then play sections of the tape in slow motion, which
would tend to expose certain classes of artifacts.

: Also, while it may be the case that sporting events achieve lower
: compression ratios than movies, I believe that the primary distinction
: between movies and sports events is that movies don't have to be
: compressed in real time.  Interframe compression techniques typically
: take much, much longer than decompression techniques.  

All the current competitive technologies for digital compression of
NTSC use interframe compression, even for live broadcasts.  The
buffering and signal-processing requirements are pretty amazing.  At
least one of the systems (I can't recall which) has two standard bit
rates; one for prerecorded programs and the other for live broadcasts.

In an earlier posting, I mentioned "packet video" technology, in which
programs are transmitted in small portions (perhaps a dozen fields at
a time).  This video-on-demand technology would allow the user
VCR-like control over the received program.  It occurs to me that the
same technique could be applied to a live broadcast, which could be
"archived" by the cable service as it is received.  Viewers could
"break" from the live program to review previous portions at any
desired speed (including freeze-frame) and in forward or reverse
order.  Obviously, this would be a pay-per-view service -- who would
sit through the commercials?

Jim McCauley, Learning Products Engineer    **   I do not speak for   **
(that means that I write documentation)     ** Hewlett-Packard in any **
jem@cup.hp.com                              **   official capacity.   **
From: "jason hibbard" <jason.hibbard@channel1.com>
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: a/b vs. vcr programmi
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:01:55 EST
Reply-To: "jason hibbard" <jason.hibbard@channel1.com>
Distribution: rec
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

On Dec 8, Perry Caro wrote: 

PA>Beg pardon if this is the most annoying FAQ of all time.

PA>Does anyone have a relatively painless solution to the A/B cable vs.
PA>VCR programming problem?
PA>Details: Some cable companies, like TCI in San Jose, distribute their
PA>cable programming on two physical cables: like 36 channels on A, and 32
PA>channels on B.  TCI happens to provide a control/descrambler box which
PA>allows changing channels by number and letter (you can go from channel
PA>12A to 26B, etc.) via IR remote control.

PA>The problem is that my VCR doesn't know from A/B.  It only has one RF
PA>input.  If I only want to time-shift tape one program, no problem.  Set
PA>the channel on the control/descrambler, set the VCR to channel 3 along
PA>with start and stop time.   Or, if I want to tape multiple channels on
PA>the same cable (say 13A at 2:00, then 27A at 4:30), I just bypass the
PA>descrambler and put cable A directly into the VCR (fortunately, TCI San
PA>Jose provides a bypass switch for free).

PA>The problem occurs if you want to tape two or more shows, where at
PA>least one of the programs is on the opposite cable.  For example, tape
PA>12A at 3:00, and then 29B at 5:00.

PA>No can do?

PA>VCRPlus+ doesn't help as it does not do A/B switching.  Getting another
PA>VCR is out of the question.  Apparently, the Mitsubishi U82 has A/B
PA>RF inputs, but I don't know if you can program them, and besides,
PA>it's too expensive anyway.

PA>Help?

PA>Perry

  Hi Perry, This may be a long-shot but... what kind of converter (cable box)
does the cable system use in your area? If it is General Instruments DPV-7
you are in luck. These converters have an option called TCP (Time Controlled
Programming). This option allows you to program your cable box to:
 1. Turn on at the appointed time.
 2. Turn on to the channel(s), A or B, that you specify (up to 7 events a day)
 3. Turn off when through.
Like I said it may be a long-shot, but this is what is used in my system and it 
works like a charm. Good luck,  - Jason - 

 jason.hibbard@channel1.com
---
  DeLuxe 1.25 #12266  
--
Channel 1 (R)   Cambridge, MA

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: roberts@triton.unm.edu (Robert Smathers)
Subject: Re: How to listen to cordless phone on AM/FM radio???
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 01:50:52 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

I know this thread belongs on a different newsgroup, but...

In article <1ghg0qINN5go@mirror.digex.com> tjones@access.digex.com (Tom Jones) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.180116.1@oread.cc.ukans.edu>
> dseaman@oread.cc.ukans.edu (Derek Seaman) writes:
>>Does anyone know how to receive cordless phone transmissions on an
>>AM/FM radio? There was an article in my school newspaper that said it
>
>When I had an antique cordless in a dorm, my next-door neighbor pointed
>out that my conversations were being broadcast on three distinct spots 
>on the standard AM dial.  I *presume* that the newer cordless models
>(which I recall are advertising that they have new frequencies) don't
>have this problem.

the older cordless phones (some of them -- I am not sure if all older phones
were similar)...they'd broadcast at about 1.6 or 1.7 MHz (upper end of the
AM radio band and you'd have to have you AM radio band extend beyond 1610
kHz to get them).  

I'm sure none of the newer models broadcast at 1.6 or 1.7 MHz -- as I haven't
found any on my AM radio since years ago (neighbors probably quit using
cordless phones).

Robert
roberts@triton.unm.edu


Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: jennings@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com (Tim Jennings)
Subject: Re: How to listen to cordless phone on AM/F
Reply-To: jennings@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola, Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:49:52 GMT

In article 1gihhdINNh0c@network.ucsd.edu, carllr@sluggo.sdsc.edu (Rich Carll) writes:
$$$
$$$
$$$
$$$Cordless phone conversations are held on only 10 channels. The handsets all
$$$talk in the 46mhz range and the base units in the 49mhz range. All obtainable
$$$via police scanners. Unknown how you would do it on a fm radio.
$$$
$$$I'm sure you know this is illegal, of course. And will put a get deal of
$$$mistrust between you and your friends if they know you can hang outside
$$$their house and listen to their conversations! <commentary.h>
$$$
$$$Rich
$$$

I don't know about other states but in Arizona it is legal. It is illegal to 
listen to cellular phones (which can be picked up) but it is still legal to 
listen to cordless.


---
----------------------
Timothy J. Jennings 			"I Yam What I Yam."
Motorola SSDT Division			--Popeye
email: jennings@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: ang@theory.lcs.mit.edu (William S. Ang)
Subject: power line interference
Organization: MIT Lab for Computer Science
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:35:03 GMT

Hello,

I recently have cable installed and the lower channels have  interference.
The cable installer claims that it is not their problem but the elctric
company's fault.  Aside from trying to get either of them fix the problem,
is there anything that I could do myself (like line filter, etc...)?

  William

  
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rlm@sei.cmu.edu (Richard Murphy)
Subject: Sharing FM and TV Cable
Followup-To: usa
Organization: The Software Engineering Institute
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:53:12 EST


Is it feasible to "share" video co-ax cable with FM and TV signals?  Problem
is my need to locate an FM antenna high in my house and get signal down to
lower room.  Is there a way to share the cable?  I want to avoid another cable
run if possible.
From: carllr@sluggo.sdsc.edu (Rich Carll)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: How to listen to cordless phone on AM/FM radio???
Date: 14 Dec 1992 17:50:37 GMT
Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: sluggo.sdsc.edu




Cordless phone conversations are held on only 10 channels. The handsets all
talk in the 46mhz range and the base units in the 49mhz range. All obtainable
via police scanners. Unknown how you would do it on a fm radio.

I'm sure you know this is illegal, of course. And will put a get deal of
mistrust between you and your friends if they know you can hang outside
their house and listen to their conversations! <commentary.h>

Rich

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: mxl@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (marc.a.levy)
Subject: Re: How to listen to cordless phone on AM/FM radio???
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:57:52 GMT

In article <yy-rqm+@lynx.unm.edu> roberts@triton.unm.edu (Robert Smathers) writes:
>I know this thread belongs on a different newsgroup, but...
>
>In article <1ghg0qINN5go@mirror.digex.com> tjones@access.digex.com (Tom Jones) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.180116.1@oread.cc.ukans.edu>
>> dseaman@oread.cc.ukans.edu (Derek Seaman) writes:
>>>Does anyone know how to receive cordless phone transmissions on an
>>>AM/FM radio? There was an article in my school newspaper that said it
>>
>>When I had an antique cordless in a dorm, my next-door neighbor pointed
>>out that my conversations were being broadcast on three distinct spots 
>>on the standard AM dial.  I *presume* that the newer cordless models
>>(which I recall are advertising that they have new frequencies) don't
>>have this problem.
>
>the older cordless phones (some of them -- I am not sure if all older phones
>were similar)...they'd broadcast at about 1.6 or 1.7 MHz (upper end of the
>AM radio band and you'd have to have you AM radio band extend beyond 1610
>kHz to get them).  
>
>I'm sure none of the newer models broadcast at 1.6 or 1.7 MHz -- as I haven't
>found any on my AM radio since years ago (neighbors probably quit using
>cordless phones).
>

Either way, all current model cordless phones are NOT private.
Anyone with a scanner, or any other type of 50Mhs FM receiver
can listen to every word you soy.  Never give any private
information over a cordless phone.. Like Credit Card Numbers,
or Vacation Plans, ect.....  I sometimes (When there is
nothing good on TV) will flip on my scanner and listen to some
of my neighbors (Yes, it's legal!) and hear some REAL good
stuff.. Wife on phone with loverboy, while husband is
sleeping..   Teenagers talking about thier "first time"... And
otehr fun stuff..\

Marc

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Bob Vogel)
Subject: Re: power line interference
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Distribution: rec
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:56:53 GMT

In article <ANG.92Dec18163503@theory.lcs.mit.edu>, ang@theory.lcs.mit.e
du (William S. Ang) writes:
>Hello,
>
>I recently have cable installed and the lower channels have  interference.
>The cable installer claims that it is not their problem but the elctric
>company's fault.  Aside from trying to get either of them fix the problem,
>is there anything that I could do myself (like line filter, etc...)?
>
>  William

Yes there a good bit you can do.
First question/test-Did you have or see this interference before you hooked up
to cable??  If not, try disconnecting the cable input and use an antenna to get
in some picture, preferably a ch 3-6 picture, if available off-air.  If you
still have the interference, even if it looks slightly different or is stronger
or weaker, the chanches are very high that it is power (or something other than
from within the cable) generated.  Check with your neighbors.  If some of them
have the same problem, try caling the power company; most have peole who deal
with such issues.
If it is completely gone without cable and no neighbors have problems, call the
cable company and request a service call.  If they cannot resolve the problem
on the first visit, ask the tech who comes out who you need to talk to (chief
engineer, plant manager whatever) to get more srious consideration.
If you neighbor's don't have the problem and it doesn't seem to belong to
cable, you might want to try shutting off each of your electrical panel circuit
breakers, one at a time and see if it goes away.  (This will work most reliably
with a problem that is not very intermittent)  If and when it oes disappear,
the you try shutting off each individual item on that circuit until you
discover the culprit.  
It is possible to have electrical interference that did not and does not show
up without the cable, that non the same, is not coming from the cable.  The
cable connection changes the grounding arrangements of your TV setup and can
make more clear problems that have always existed, but that you just couldn't
see.
Possible causes of electrical interferenceinclude fish tank motors, outdoor
lights (esp sodium vapor/mercury vapor types) refigerators, virtually any
motor, bad loose missing grounds or almost any electrical connection, light
dimmer switches---the list goes on and on.
If you can describe what the interference looks like and its frequency of
occurance, that might provide some other ideas on what to look for.  CB and ham
radio (fire, police, or business radios too) can all cause interference.  It
looks different than typical electrical interference.  Electrical interference
can come from one of your neighbors and can travel either through the
electrical wires or radiate (propogate is perhaps the better word) through the
air.  Hope this helps.  Good Luck.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: lud@wam.umd.edu ()
Subject: Help-Jerrold Cable box on the fritz
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:09:21 GMT

In my apartment complex the cable signal is given for free so a friend of mine
who had an extra Jerrold box gave it to me to use. It worked fine for about
three weeks although the channels wer completely mismapped.  Then, all of a 
sudden it stopped working altogether.  Here are some symptoms:

1) When it is turned on, it tunes some channel, but as soon as you change
the channel nothing works and I can never get back the original channel.  The
channel that it tunes on start-uo is always the same

2) If the cable box is not turned on and the signal is sent through the box
   no signal is sent to the t.v..  (If the cable is hooked directly to the t.v.   without the cable box many channels show up including the special apartment
   channels..

3) The box is from a local cable company, but not the one in my apartment are.

    



Any help would be appreciated!!
Have I been hit by a bullet?

Thanks in advance...
(lud@wam.umd.edu)
.
   
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rll@frieda.mitre.org (Roberto L. Landrau)
Subject: Re: How to listen to cordless phone on AM/FM radio???
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:05:48 GMT

In rec.video.cable-tv carllr@sluggo.sdsc.edu (Rich Carll) wrote:
>
>
>
>Cordless phone conversations are held on only 10 channels. The handsets all
>talk in the 46mhz range and the base units in the 49mhz range. All obtainable
>via police scanners. Unknown how you would do it on a fm radio.
>
>I'm sure you know this is illegal, of course. And will put a get deal of
>mistrust between you and your friends if they know you can hang outside
>their house and listen to their conversations! <commentary.h>
>
>Rich
>

THIS IS NOT ILLEGAL.  You may be thinking of listening to CELLULAR
phone conversations (~800 MHz), which was declared illegal a few years
ago.  There is nothing illegal about listening to other frequencies,
though.  The moral of the story is: if you don't want others to listen
to your conversations, don't get a cordless phone!



--
The opinions stated above are not necessarily my employer's.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto L. Landrau    KC1YP    landrau@mitre.org  rll@linus.mitre.org
The MITRE Corporation  Bedford, MA 01730          rll@linus.UUCP
From: peterli@welchgate.welch.jhu.edu (Peter Li)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Sharing FM and TV Cable
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:02:37 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins Univ. Welch Medical Library

In article <4614@vidiot.UUCP> brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes:
>
>The cable-FM frequencies are NEVER the same as the over-the-air frequencies.
>Think about it for a moment...yep, that's right, interference.  If you put on
>cable the same frequency as the over-the-air frequency you can end up with
>crap.  They will interfere with each other.  So, cable-FM always uses a
>different frequency.  If you notice, you can still pick up the over-the-air
>frequency as well as the cable-FM frequency.
>-- 
>      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

Another naive question:

Why would cable-FM signal interfere with over-the-air signal if the only
signal a FM tuner sees is the one from the cable feed ?
Of course, I am assuming the cable company keeps its lines 100% shielded
so that it won't act as an antenna and let over-the-air signal sneak in.
Or is this an improper assumption of cable-tv's line quality ?

Peter Li
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,rec.video.satellite,rec.video
From: jem@cup.hp.com (Jim McCauley)
Subject: Re: TCI announces 500 channels on its systems in 2 years?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:11:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Bill Stasior (wstasior@lcs.mit.edu) wrote:

: In this scenario the cable is pretty much a computer network with the
: cable company acting as a giant file server.

Yup -- but not just one physical server, or necessarily one company;
see below.

: Even though the bandwidth
: may be high enough (which I actually doubt)...

As I recall, the state of the art for fiber-to-the-curb delivery
offers 100 mbit/sec now, with gigabit rates Real Soon Now.
Optoelectronic interfacing techniques (to be available soon after the
turn of the century) will offer terabit-level throughput.

Compression techniques are also making enormous strides.  Current
technologies are based on and optimized for constant channel bandwidth
and synchronous delivery; the next wave of compression technologies
will almost certainly include methods optimized for delivery over
"bursty" channels like LANs, and these will be well suited to the use
we are discussing here.

: ... it seems unlikely to me that
: a server capable of serving tens of thousands of asynchronous video clients 
: will be economically feasible anytime soon. 

Gosh, I guess everyone will have to use our very fast HP servers :-)

Note that there doesn't have to be just one physical (or even logical)
server.  Given sufficient bandwidth, multiple servers (perhaps from
multiple entities) might participate in the network.

: I imagine that the cable companies will continue to act as a broadcaster, sending
: the same signal synchronously to many users.

Very likely.

: The capability that you describe
: would be achieved by having smart receivers which buffer the video digitally and
: allow one to control what one sees locally.

This might also be a value-added service provided by an entity other
than the "synchronous" provider.  The "broadcaster" might license the
right to provide asynchronous service (for viewers so equipped) to a
value-added provider on the same physical network.  The marketability
of such a service would depend on the cost of adding local buffering
for home users' equipment versus the costs of (1) the asynchronous
(and unbuffered) "user box" designed to make use of the network's
random-access servers and (2) the bandwidth overhead required to
provide random-access services.

Jim McCauley, Learning Products Engineer    **   I do not speak for   **
(that means that I write documentation)     ** Hewlett-Packard in any **
jem@cup.hp.com                              **   official capacity.   **

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,rec.video.production
From: vle@engws8.ic.sunysb.edu (Vincent Le)
Subject: Re: TV/film database
Keywords: database, bulletin boards, productions, programs, rights
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 04:54:20 GMT

In article <bonnie.724006402@indy> bonnie@indy.life.uiuc.edu (Bonnie L. Maidak) writes:
>If anyone can provide any information for this question from a work colleague,
>please send email to me, bonnie@indy.life.uiuc.edu. Thanks, very much, in advance.
>
>	Net readers, 
>	   I have heard of a database/bulletin board where it's possible to 
>	trade films, TV productions and rights from day to day. For example,
>	a seller can post a description of his production, perhaps with a 
>	price tag on it; potential buyers (like TV networks) can then browse, 
>	put in bids or buy notifications. Can anyone tell me how to access 
>	it or find information? 
>	                                    Sincerely, Niels Larsen
>	                                         (larsen@biobase.aau.dk)
>	
>
>Regards,
>-Bonnie Maidak
>bonnie@indy.life.uiuc.edu

Hi All,

I would like to get the same information above. Please Post or Email to

      vle@ic.sunysb.edu

Thank you in advance.

--Anthony
-- 
        ----------------------------------------------------------
  vle@ic.sunysb.edu   P.O. Box 743 E. Setauket, NY 11733   (516) 696-1006
 
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv