HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Summary: Not true
Organization: VideOcart Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:05:58 GMT

In article <BuI7HM.GB9@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>
>In most cases, there is no "government" imposed monopoly. It is an
>economic one. It doesn't matter why the monopoly formed -- the result
>is a captive consumer base and unresponsive service providers.

Not true.  The monopoly exists in many cases because local governments grant
"exclusive" franchises to a single company.  This, taken to extreme in an
area, leads to monopoly and no choice.

The answer is open competition and guaranteed equal-access to the rights of
way needed to install equipment and physical plant.  If the prices get too
high, or service too poor, SOMEONE will step in with a free market solution.

-- 
Karl Denninger 		Inet:  kdenning@hq.videocart.com
VideOcart Inc.		Voice: (312) 987-5022

Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies: Survey commissioned
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 01:49:13 GMT
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES
Summary: Is this the survey that created the DOC estimate?
Distribution: usa
Keywords: Deopartment of Commerce TCI DOC NCTA CABLE estimate


Well, it looks like we need subtitles on this CABLEVISION LIES thread.

Last night on KGO RADIO, the host Michael Krasney had as a guest, Silvia
Siegal (formerly of T.U.R.N - Toward Utility Rate Normalization) currently
of Consumer Action Group - Consumer Cable Cops.  This lady had in the past
done some wonderful things in changing the way the electric and phone
companies in California deal with their customers.

After she retired from TURN a few years ago, turned her sights on CABLE.

Heres some interesting stuff: 

She was mentioning the cable industry estimate that if the bill passed, it
would cost cable customers $2-$6 a month more.

She also said "Thats a flat out lie"

She said that that data came from a "phoney" study that TCI out of
Colorado commissioned.  That data has a confidence interval of +/- 50%
according to Monthly Channel News.

Sounds like the Cable companies are saying that it is a likely to go up
as it is to go down.  I wonder if this is the same data to which the 
Cable industry has attributed to US Dept of Commerce.  The numbers
sound the same.  I don't know what the meaning of "Confidence Interval" is,
but to me, it sounds like they are saying that the rates also might go down
2-6 dollars a month.  It sounds like they just don't know.

***************************************
Another Topic:  It has been 6 days since the local newspaper ran a 
commentary written by the local TCI owned Televents general manager.  Up
to and including this mornings paper, I have not seen on mention in their
paper in either an article, column, commentary, or letter to the editor 
showing the consumer side of the arguement.  Sounds like somewhere, there
is negligence in reporting and editing, or maybe someone is in someones
back pocket.  Thats how it appears to me.  They had my letter since 8am
last Wednesday morning, and have yet to run a rebuttal of any sort in
response to the pro-cable commentary.
From: tsv@dbrus.Unify.Com (Tim Vannaman)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Cablevision lies
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:08:39 GMT
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization


I was watching a commercial about how we should write our congressmen and tell
them to stop the new cable bill.  I said that rates would raise because of it.
The picture was a guy  standing w/ an unbrella over his head and getting rained
on it.

At the end, some words were flashed real quick.  It looked like the commerical
was paid for by the cable industry.  Are they trying to pull a fast one on us
by misleading us to pressure our gov't to drop a bill that would really limit
them?

Has anyone seen this commerical?

Tim.

--
Tim Vannaman, Premium Technical Support Engineer   Phone: (916) 928-6433
Unify Corporation, Sacramento, California    Fax: (916) 928-6403
tsv@unify.Com  or  {{ucdavis,csun,lll-crg}!csusac,pyramid,sequent}!unify!tsv
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 07:07:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep13.171823.27941@panix.com> habs@panix.com (Harry Shapiro) writes:
>I am sure that such an event as depicted above could happen by
>a hard ball playing cable operator. I would be interested in
>learning if it happened priro to 1984.
>
>The Time-Warner lawyer was rather clear in his presentation
>that a city would be able take over the cable system intact
>and sell/lease it to an other operator. (Previous operator
>getting paid fair value for the plant.)
>
>I don't see how a company could 1) get away with dismantling
>the system, 2) turning off subscribers who have paid for
>a service. without 1) violating the terms of their fran. agreement
>and 2) getting hit (rather fast) with an injunction that would
>assert the local towns control over the system or at least 
>place a judge in control.

I was talking reality rather than law.  The City Attorney
said that it was clear that TCI had repeatedly and knowingly
violated the contract and that the contract called for the
City to be able to close it down.  The reality, however,
is that TCI would take them to court for violation of their
first amendment rights (etc.) stalling for quite a long time.

Most contracts call for the cable company to either convert or
sell their assets (the cable), but this can take quite a long time
to finalize.  This whole thing was said in a situation where
the franchise agreement was violated, and the City was taking
action.

No, the cable company would not be hit with any injunction
for taking their time to sell off the system.  Nothing says they
couldn't just shutoff at the end of a month and not charge
any subscribers because there would be no cable.

Please understand that the real world is very different than
what the words on the paper say...


-- 
Glenn Tenney AA6ER
voice: (415) 574-3420 fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Frank Fujita)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:03:05 GMT

amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>Thank you for this remarkably candid admission.  Violence is the last
>resort of those who have run out of ideas.

I believe Issac Asimov, through one of his fictional characters in the
Foundation  Trillogy says "Violence is the last resort of the
incompetent."  In his books, violence is indeed the last resort, but it
is not compelling (i.e. the non-voilent types win).

Frank Fujita
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1345 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:184
From: speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 10:05:33 EDT
Organization: Dan's Domain, Randolph, New Jersey

bc338569@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Brian Catlin) writes:

> Actually, it does cost the cable company extra.  (A _very_ little extra).
> When adding several sets, the cable company must supply you with a stronger
> signal, which also takes some of the signal away from the rest of the people
> farther down the distribution cable.  If you get enough people connecting ext
> sets when the tap-off is only made for one, then the signal will be below
> acceptable limits by the time it reaches the next amplifier or the end of the
> line.

   As I understand it, the signal from the tap is already strong
enough for several TV sets.  So NO additional power is required.
When you tell the Cable co that you want 3 TV hookups, they come
in with three BOXes, put on the one tap (if it wasn't already done),
and take your wallet (three times).


Dan Speers                                       (speers@micro-c.mcds.com)
Sysop & Dictater - err - Ruler - Hmm.. - How bout BOSS - no - King!
                no - Alright then, Super Genius! - TOO Much... What
                about, Dan The GREAT! - No huh? - ok, what about
                System Guru?  That's good.  Hey Sarah!  Don't touch
                that keyoluboaidkla;lkj,mn.,amnsdklga;lk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan's Domain - THE Best BBS Period! (Ok, semicolon...)
(201) 366-5018 - We use a Telebit T3000 (among other things...)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:42:35 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Sep8.133942.24771@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl) writes:
>In article <yJFqqB3w165w@micro-c.mcds.com> speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) writes:
>>   As I understand it, the signal from the tap is already strong
>>enough for several TV sets.  So NO additional power is required.
>>When you tell the Cable co that you want 3 TV hookups, they come
>>in with three BOXes, put on the one tap (if it wasn't already done),
>>and take your wallet (three times).
>
>That is true...or that is the way it should be (power level at the tap,
>not the triple charge).  If the signal level of the incoming primary
>feed is so low that adding a second (or third) set reduced the level
>that much that the picture quality suffered, then either the signal
>level is not sufficent to begin with or the TV sets you have are
>junk.  I suspect the cable level would the prime suspect unless
>all the TV's were fairly old.
>

as i recall...if you split the line within your house you only affect your
own sets signals...as in 100% in split in half does not give each set 50%...
but maybe only 40% each...you lose some signal power in the split...but 
that only affects your house so if you are happy who cares.
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Extending Cable throught house
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:30:37 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <BuFFMA.Gr9@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
<In article <3865@cvbnetPrime.COM> fdeming@cvbnet@prime.com (Frank Deming {x6088}) writes:
<>channels(Disney, Showtime, MovieChannel). The cable company installed in the
<>basement a 1-1 splitter(probably to at least attempt to prevent my own expansion).
<
<Since that would not prevent your own "expansion", it is unlikely that
<they did it for that reason.

I'd like to know what a 1-1 splitter is.  Sounds like a barrel connector to me.
-- 
      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,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:49:09 GMT

thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush) writes:

>	Wrong Solution: Introduce yet another government agency to
>		regulate this monopoly industry in an attempt to 
>		have the federal government determine what fair 
>		prices and good service are.
[...]
>	Better Solution: Ensure that no government body limit the 
>		ability of additional firms to enter the cable market.
[...]

These solutions are not incompatible. The Re-Regulation Bill only
regulates service in a market until competition arrives. (It doesn't
give government protection to the monopolies.)

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Date: 5 Sep 92 06:38:41 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <1992Sep4.064810.28800@dde.dk> phn@dde.dk (Per H. Nielsen) writes:
<brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes:
<
<>In article <1992Sep2.110003.2351@dde.dk> phn@dde.dk (Per H. Nielsen) writes:
<><
<><Because the descrambler needs a pure baseband video signal to operate.
<
<>Wrong.  Many cable-tv descramblers are of the IF type.
<
<When I referred to the descrambler here, I meant the core descrambler
<circuit surrounded by other circuits such as tuner and modulator.
<
<Yes I know that there exist scrambling methods that works by putting in an
<interfering frequency on the tv-signal. The problem with this method
<is that it is very easy make your own pirat decoder, all that is required
<is a filter, that blocks the interfering frequency. These descramblers don't
<have a channel selector at all and are not relevant in this particular
<discussion.

No, IF = Intermediate Frequency.   Common term used in receivers, referring
to a section of the tuner that is at a constant frequency.

There are descramblers that do not work at baseband.  The one used here in
Madison, WI, is a prime example.  The sine-wave is injected at IF and the
anti-sine-wave is injected at IF.  BTW, because it is done at IF, a perfectly
black screen will have gain-riding noise left on the screen.  It really looks
bad on the screen.  I refuse to have one of those boxes in my house.
-- 
      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,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:36:40 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

  Thanks for the info, Eric.   It all sounds pretty good, but the 
  part about the cable company deciding standards for what can be tranmitted
  (family values) raises the hair on my neck a little bit.

  Call your senator and congressman to voice support.

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Andrew Hart                   |  CompuTrac, Inc.                 |
|   (214) 235-7161 x 5320         |  222 Municipal Drive             |
|   andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org      |  Richardson, TX  75080           |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: decoder facts needed
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:30:18 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <1992Sep9.100308.1@sc9.intel.com> rcrandall@sc9.intel.com writes:
<Is there anyone out there in the south bay area that knows what kind of 
<scrambling system is used on South Bay Cablevision?  I need to know because
<I want to buy a box so I don't have to rent it every month.  Of course I would
<pay for the service.  I was hoping to get a box with audio and video out,
<perhaps the super-vhs jack for better picture.  I cannot just know the model
<number of the box I have from the cable company, but need to know the details.

The chances are that your cable company will not allow you to use your own box
on the cable system.  Check with them before you go buy anything.
-- 
      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,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 11:34:22 GMT

jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:

>But as it is, I have NO WAY to get better cable service.  I have
>NO WAY to get a channel that the one-and-only company available to me
>decides not to carry.  I have basically no say in the matter whatsoever.

Sure you do. You can unsubscribe, or move.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1445 misc.consumers:16618 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:308
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Anti/Pro-cable reg ads
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:11:09 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout


In the Sunday Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, WI), there appeared both
ads regarding the cable bill.

Big deal you say, but what was interesting is that the pro cable bill was
a full page ad on the left page and on the right page was the full page
anti cable bill ad.

Someone at the paper must has a sense of humor.
-- 
      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
From: roberts@triton.unm.edu (Robert Smathers)
Subject: MOR Music TV
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 00:24:13 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: na


I am curious about something...

Does anyone receive MOR MUSIC TV (Middle-of-the-road music) 
on their cable system?

Robert
roberts@triton.unm.edu
From: fdeming@cvbnet@prime.com (Frank Deming {x6088})
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Extending Cable throught house
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:56:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computervision, A Prime Computer Company, Bedford, MA, USA


  I have in last month moved into a new house I had built. I had Cable wires
run throughout the house to 4 locations for TV sets(present and future). In the
den our local cable company(Nashoba Cable) installed their box. I have 3 pay
channels(Disney, Showtime, MovieChannel). The cable company installed in the
basement a 1-1 splitter(probably to at least attempt to prevent my own expansion).

  I have now tried to hook in my other TV sets to Cable. 
  1st I installed a 1-4 splitter to replace their 1-1.(Can they now claim I am
  tampering with their equipment?). I hooked up the cable-ready TV in my 
  Master Bedroom. I get cable channels 3-12, then nothing after this except
  an occasional channel. 13 is the Disney channel. There is about 3 ranges
  of channels that should be pay-extra, all the rest should be viewable. Much to
  my annoyance, all of the local stations are above 13 and not viewable upstairs,
  without their box. 

  I wouldn't mind not getting pay-extra stations at my other locations in the 
  house, but this interference on the basic service stations annoys me. I really
  don't like the idea of taking the pay-extra stations with some of the
  descramblers on the market, but what other choice do I have? The cable company
  wants an extra $8/mo for each additional box. I would consider $3. Does anyone
  have an idea other than a descrambling box.

  Additionally, what do I need to hook up a non-cable-ready TV.

 
  Thank You
  Frank Deming
  fdeming@aecmail.prime.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: pzs@ficus.webo.dg.com (Peter Z. Simpson)
Subject: Jerrold Converter numbering scheme?
Date: 10 Sep 92 08:35:23
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corp., Westboro, MA


    Can anyone provide an explanation of the General
Instrument/Jerrold converter numbering scheme? I'm talking about
converters with part numbers like:

    DRZD-3A-5   (A "Jerrold 450" with internal descrambler)

    All I've figured out so far is that the "Z" means 450 Mhz ("X" is
400), the "3" might mean channel 3 output and the "A" might mean
"addressable". Any more information about things like "DIC" suffixes,
etc (and ideally, a complete list of all possible part numbers and
their "features") would be interesting to see...

    ...inquiring minds want to know :-)

    Pete

--
  Peter Simpson, KA1AXY       (508) 870-9837  fax: (508) 898-4212
  Data General Corp.  E236    pzs@ficus.webo.dg.com [128.221.228.82]
  Westboro, MA  01580         #include  <std_disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:36:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.011533.22927@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>Thank god city hall doesn't grant operating rights to grocery stores.

Thank God that grocery stores don't need to string their cables all over
the city using public rights-of-way. Thank God that grocery stores don't
leak their vegetables all over the public airwaves.

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: 59u = CATV ??
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 02:20:08 GMT

Re:  RG-59 wire to run your cable TV
Yes you may get both the cable company and the FCC's attention if you
use "leaky" cable.  The FCC can fine you cable company $25,000 per occurance
for such violations.  They are responsible regardless of who put in the 
coax if it is hooked up to the cable system.  (This actually only applies
if they have frequencies in the aeronautical bands.  Almost all cable systems
do.)
PLEASE call your cable company first.  Some will provide you their cable for
free when you are building or remodling, or just to wall fish.  RADIO SHACK
CABLE GENERALLY HAS INSUFFICIENT SHIELDING!  There are about 20 different varieiltes of "coax" which vary from 40% braid (no foil, real leaky) to Quad shield,
bonded foil (that's two layers of foil with two layers of braid-the foil
is glued together).  Many cable co's now use RG-6, basically the same
cable electrically but less loss and slightly bigger.  Even if they charge
for the cable, it may be cheaper than other sources.
Bob Vogel
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: eric@tfs.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: TFS
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:07:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.174713.1995@craycos.com> ewv@craycos.com (Eric Varsanyi) writes:
>you could get cable from one of two companies. The newer one had much lower
>rates and better service. Then the evil one bought them and over a couple
>of years adjusted the rates up and service down to match the rest of the
>system. They couldn't compete fairly so they just went in and nuked them.

But if the evil company bought the good company, they had to pay for it.
That means they were rewarding its owners for their good work in building
up the new company.  That reward will motivate other companies to do the
same thing.  And if the evil company then proceeded to destroy the value
of the good company, they wasted that money, and will eventually go broke
from that habit.

It just takes time for these things to work themselves out.  Free markets,
like all good things in life, need patience.  Quick-fix solutions are
short sighted and destructive, just like all destructive actions that
result from lack of patience.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate