HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kaplanr@knish.shearson.com (Roger Kaplan)
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:41:18 GMT

In article <4980@news.duke.edu> alan@acpub.duke.edu (Alan M. Gallatin) writes:
>If there is reason that this would not work, please holler...
>Why not simply have a box which was a descrambler ONLY, but not
>a channel selector?  Such a box might work as follows:  CATV from
>wall to cable box.  Cable box will descramble all appropriate channels
>(PPV, etc.) according to authorization and then pass a full array of
>channels out to the TV.  In such a case, the cable ready tuner on the
>TV does everything and the cable box will work more as a behind the
>scenes filter.  Of course, this also makes using a VCR a hell of a lot
>easier since, again, the VCR's tuner will be able to do everything.


Then CATV would have to charge by household, not by TV.

I have heard of cable systems that do this: you pay for the
signal coming out of the wall.

As for the problem with multiple descramblers in the same box: I'm
sure this problem can be licked, even if it means changing the
scrambling method.  

Example: turn the "hidden" box into a SCRAMBLER, with programmable 
filters.  This would work in a situation where it's non-trivial to
run a cable into the home (i.e. a house, not an apartment where one
can just splice into the cable into their hallway and run it the
same way they can [legitimately] run a phone line)

Another example: move the premium signals onto non-standard frequencies,
inaccessible by cable-ready tuners, and have the "magic box" shift
selected signals onto their standard frequencies iff they're paid for.

--
Roger Kaplan          | "There are two types of people in this world... 
Lehman Brothers       |  Those that think there are two types of people,
kaplanr@shearson.com  |  and those that know better."
 ..uunet!roses!kaplanr|    -- Tom Robbins, "Still Life with Woodpecker"
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Cable TV Regulation
Keywords: regulation, congress
Reply-To: sieferme@u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:50:49 GMT

There has not been much discussion lately of the Cable Re-Regulation
Bill currently creeping its way through Congress.  So, here is
the text of a note I received yesterday with my cable bill from
my local cable company (Viacom).  There have also been similar
commercials on TV sponsored by the cable industry, propagating
the same message.  It's truly staggering how many half-truths
(quarter-truths, one-eighth-truths, etc.) can be put into a 
single note.  Enjoy!  This is submitted for discussion; please
don't flame me, since I think that this whole message is
pure drivel.

Note:  I capitalized the parts of the note which were printed
in BOLD print.

----------cut here-------------------------------------------------

CONGRESS WILL ACT ON LEGISLATION IN SEPTEMBER THAT
COULD RAISE, NOT LOWER, YOUR MONTHLY CABLE RATES.

As a cable subscriber, you may be required to fund a billion-dollar
bonanza for network TV broadcasters.  Congress is considering
legislation in September that could force cable companies to pay
broadcast TV stations (ABC, CBS, NBC) as much as $1 billion a year.

What will you get?  The same network programming, the same
commercials - AND THE TAB.  Meanwhile, your neighbors who don't
subscribe to cable will get the networks for free.

Putting the government into cable TV also will increase cable's 
operating and regulatory costs, which could lead to higher cable bills.

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ESTIMATES THIS 
LEGISLATION COULD MEAN INCREASED COSTS OF $23 TO $51 PER YEAR
FOR EACH CABLE SUBSCRIBER.

Stop this bill from becoming law.  Contact your U.S. Senators NOW.

Cable companies recognize there may be a rationale for some rate
guidelines, but this extreme bill is bad for consumers and cable.
THIS BILL WILL SEND YOUR RATES UP, NOT DOWN.

NOW IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO STOP THE CABLE TV BILL.  To contact your
U.S. Senators, call the U.S. Capitol Operator at 1-202-224-3121.  Or
write you Senators in care of:  U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510.

National Cable Television Association.

--------end of text------------------------------------------------




-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |   Edgar Martinez for MVP!              |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |   Dave Fleming for Rookie of the Year! |
| sieferme@u.washington.edu |   Bill Plummer for ... uh ... er ...   |
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 20:42:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.170848.10491@mcc.com> amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>In article <Btxpp4.C98@cmptrc.lonestar.org> andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart) writes:
>>   Do you KNOW that they would like to charge me an ADDITIONAL FIVE DOLLARS
>>   for each TV set hooked up in the house?  No additional services, just
>>   more extensions.
>
>Your position is self-contradictory.  If having cable on more than one
>TV _weren't_ an additional benefit (i.e., service), there would be no
>reason for you to desire it.  And yet you complain about having to pay
>for it.  Do you think you should get free rugs in all your rooms after
>paying for the first one, too?

Ah.. a favorite gripe of mine, I agree with those that believe there should
be a single fee for a single residential home regardless of the number of
sets one has.  Why, because the cable company delivers a single composite
signal and the internal distribution/use of that single shouldn't be any
concern of there's.  The telephone company made the same claims about
extension phones and inside wiring.  Today, no one pays for extensions
and anyone can run there own inside telephone wiring.

I've heard the argument that with 2 or more sets the user is getting
extra benefit.  That's true, but not at any additional cost to the 
cable TV provider.  There are those that say you have only "contracted"
for reception of one channel at a time.  If that is so, then why is there
no additional charge for a VCR that is connected in series so I
can watch channel X and record channel Y.  (I am aware that some
systems apparently want you to pay for a VCR connection also as an 
extra TV fee).  Likewise, what if the user pays for the basic service
plus one or more premium services?  Shouldn't the paying of any extra
premium service fee imply that you should be able to watch at least
2 channels simultaneously (a basic channel on one TV and the premium
on another)?

Food for thought.....

Oh, and the rug example above is not an accurate analogy, in that case
the store that sells you a rug clearly would need to supply additional
material to you to cover additional rooms.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:25:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.035359.6444@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> gerace@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jerry Gerace) writes:
>In article <Btz9L4.KpC@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>Is this really a descrambler, or just a filter? Are the channels they
>>"descramble" truly scrambled, or are they protected by an interfering
>>squealer? 
>>
>
>There are plenty 'nuff systems that can be descrambled using a passive
>inline device.  

Please describe these systems. I know of no scrambling system that
can be overcome by a passive device. I do know of cable systems that
put an interfering signal on the channel, but that is not really
scrambling since there is no change to the video itself.

And that is why I was rather explicit in describing what I meant in my
question above. I wanted to get around the term "scrambling", which
really doesn't apply to passive-filter systems.

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: gerace@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jerry Gerace)
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:53:59 GMT

In article <Btz9L4.KpC@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.115345.7255@bluemtn.COM> gregp@bluemtn.UUCP (Greg Philmon) writes:
>>At least one cable company here in Atlanta offers a small inline device
>>that descrambles only a channel or two.  
>
>Is this really a descrambler, or just a filter? Are the channels they
>"descramble" truly scrambled, or are they protected by an interfering
>squealer? 
>

There are plenty 'nuff systems that can be descrambled using a passive
inline device.  In Pueblo, CO, the Cinemax uses the inline descrambler,
while HBO is unscrambled (a filter is used for non-subscribers) and Showtime
and Disney are scrambled and need an addressable box.  Makes it REAL
confusing believe me.
From: cchapman@matd.gatech.edu (Charles H. Chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Why converter needed w/ cable-rdy TV?
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:53:56 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug25.211502.17@acavax.lynchburg.edu> teague@acavax.lynchburg.edu writes:
>From: teague@acavax.lynchburg.edu
>Subject: Why converter needed w/ cable-rdy TV?
>Date: 26 Aug 92 02:15:02 GMT
>
>My friend is a subscriber to a cable system which requires a converter box
>for reception.  That is, even though he has cable-ready equipment, he cannot,
>for example, tape one channel and watch another (unless of course, he obtains
>a second box).  The converter box is a Scientific Atlanta model, if that is
>significant.  Is he stuck with this situation, or are there alternatives to
>an additional converter box (and associated fee)?  Thanks.
>---

He only needs the box to descramble any premium channels (HBO, Cinemax,
Showtime, etc) that he may be getting.  If he's not getting any premium
channels then he doesn't need the box and the cable company is probably
just trying to rip him off.

Chuck

Charles H. Chapman  (GTRI/MATD)             (404) 528-7588
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:     ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!matd!cchapman
Internet: cchapman@matd.gatech.edu
From: hougen@vision.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 30 Aug 1992 19:29:29 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: vision.csl.uiuc.edu

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

)hougen@uirvlh.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen) writes:

))  As it is now, most cable companies have an exclusive franchise (even
))though it is sometimes called a nonexclusive franchise) to serve a
))particular area and the only thing that is keeping them from raising
))their rates sky high is the fear of rate regulation.
)[...]

)Mr. Bill Rutly (sp?) of Cablevision of CU volunteered that they don't
)have an exclusive franchise. But on reflection, I thought, so what:

)  - you have a monopoly in all but a few markets
)  - your industry is working hard to abort any future competition from
)       fiber and satellite
)  - a few big companies (TCI, Time-Warner) own most franchises.

I talked to Mr. Rutly before, and he admitted that even though they
don't have an exclusive franchise, another company that wants to
compete in our area must have its application approved by some local
board.  The board is supposed to assess the need for another cable
company in our area.  If the new company cannot prove a need exists,
they can`t get a franchise and bang! they are excluded from the local
market.  I don't know who sits on the board, but I wouldn't be
surprised if it was someone that had a vested interest in reducing
competition in our area along with some people that don't really
understand the issues involved.  I also don't know how the law is
written and how hard it is to prove need.  However, the fact that 97%
of the local cable affiliates in this country have no competition
tells me that something is fishy.

The local city council certainly has no reason to promote competition.
Afterall, they collect a hefty franchising fee from the cable company,
allowing them "enhance their revenue".  You should have read the
remarks of one local city council member gloating over how the city of
Urbana was going to milk the cable company the next time their
franchise renewal came around.  He was quoted in the DI last spring
but I don't know if I still have the article.  If many companies were
allowed to operate in the area, it would probably be much harder to
collect large franchising fees because the companies would have
smaller profit margins in the short run.  However, competition would
bring efficiency and eventually larger profits.  Unfortunately, I'm
afraid that most city council members are not that far sighted.

Darrell
From: gregp@bluemtn.COM (Greg Philmon)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:53:45 GMT
Reply-To: gregp@bluemtn.UUCP (Greg Philmon)
Organization: blue mountain software

>Why not simply have a box which was a descrambler ONLY, but not
>a channel selector?  [ ... ]

At least one cable company here in Atlanta offers a small inline device
that descrambles only a channel or two.  If you want more than one or two
premimum channels, however, you've got to get a box.

-- 
A fly can't bird but a bird can fly -    | Greg Richter
Ask me a question and I reply,           | greg@bluemtn.com
Cottleston Cottleston Cottleston Pie!    | ...!emory!bluemtn!greg
   - Winnie the Pooh                     | blue mountain software 404/393-1100
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: jennings@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Tim Jennings)
Subject: Re: Cable Trouble
Originator: root@mogate.sps.mot.com
Reply-To: jennings@chdasic.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola SPS ASIC, Chandler, AZ
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:03:44 GMT

In article 27AUG199221481032@jane.uh.edu, vpaf5@jane.uh.edu (Kal) writes:
> Yesterday, the cable company that services this apartment complex upgraded
> us from 18 channels to 55 (wheee!!). I have two "cable-ready" TV's. A 
> coax cable comes out from the wall outlet and screws into the back of
> each TV. No cable boxes. The problem is, although one TV gets all 55 channels,
> The other one, a Sony Trinitron, only gets up to channel 36. Every channel
> above that is blank. The TV has a "NORMAL - CATV" slide switch, which is
> in the CATV position. The TV is supposed to be cable-ready. The channel
> display reads up to 99. Why am I not getting all those other channels?
> Can anybody please help? This may be in some FAQ somewhere but I'm at
> 1200 baud and can't really go through all those messages to find the FAQ,
> if one exists. If you can help me, please respond thru E-mail and I will
> summarize and post the solutions for the benefit of everybody.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Kal.
> 
> vpaf5@jane.uh.edu


Your problem is that your TV can only receive 110 channels (?!). This is what is
advertised when you buy your tv.  The problem is that the channels between 13 and
84 don't carry TV signals.  Your TV won't get any channels above 36 (unless you can
reset the tuner). If you only have a N-C switch then you probably are stuck. Get a
tuner box if you want more channels.

---
----------------------
Timothy J. Jennings 			"I Yam What I Yam."
Motorola ASIC Division			--Popeye
email: jennings@chdasic.sps.mot.com


Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: gerace@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Jerry Gerace)
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:03:05 GMT

In article <3974@vidiot.UUCP> 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.

That gets me thinking.  If a descrambler works with the IF signal, then
the box would have some circuitry telling it when to descramble, based on
what channel you are on and your authorizations.  Anyways...lets say you
tune your box to Showtime, which you pay for.  The box's descrambler would
start doing it's stuff on the IF signal coming into it right?  

So (the point), what if you remove the normal IF input (which in this example
would be Showtime) and replace it with the IF output of another tuner (VCR
for instance) tuned to another scrambled channel (HBO)??  Would that work?

By the by, I was twiddling around with my system the other day...channel 3 on
our cable system is USA (non-scrambled).  I tuned my VCR to Cinemax (scrambled)
and routed the channel 3 output to the cable box.  The cable box managed to
restore a sync signal, but it was hopelessly black and white, and a bit
unstable yet.  But much more viewable than if it were straight to TV.  

Question is, since the box is authorized to do channel 3, would it know to
descramble a signal coming in?  In other words, can it automatically detect
a scrambled signal and begin descrambling if that channel is authorized?  Or 
does it have to be told that the signal is scrambled?

Questions questions questions...

 
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:10:21 GMT


In article <1992Sep2.170848.10491@mcc.com> amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>In article <Btxpp4.C98@cmptrc.lonestar.org> andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart) writes:
>>   
>>   So what did re-regulating the cable companies do for me?  I cheered it on
>>   when I heard about it, but I don't know the details.
>>
>>   I have lived in my present location for 2 and a half years.  In that time 
>>   my monthly cable bill ( for "extended" basic "regular" service ) has gone
>>   from 13.95 to 25.35 a month!
>
>And yet...and yet...he still continues to subscribe!  Amazing!  What
>power the cable companies must wield over this helpless pawn of his
>environment!

I don't know where you live, but around here the over-the-air channels
come in fuzzy, snowy, and ghosty. Basically, it's a choice between
rapacious cable fees or nothing to watch. That's why many people bite
the bullet and subscribe to cable, myself included. Believe me, if I had
room for a dish, I would dump cable in a second. At present, however, I
have no real alternative. :-(

>>   Do you KNOW that they would like to charge me an ADDITIONAL FIVE DOLLARS
>>   for each TV set hooked up in the house?  No additional services, just
>>   more extensions.
>
>The fiends!
>
>Your position is self-contradictory.  If having cable on more than one
>TV _weren't_ an additional benefit (i.e., service), there would be no
>reason for you to desire it.  And yet you complain about having to pay
>for it.  Do you think you should get free rugs in all your rooms after
>paying for the first one, too?

Such a snide attitude you have, my friend.

Tell me, do you think that the phone company should charge you $5 extra
per month for EACH and EVERY PHONE you have connected to your phone line
in your home? Even if you OWN those phones? I notice that the phone company
doesn't try to charge you for having a phone jack in your bedroom as well
as your living room. Why should the cable company be any different?

>Sheesh.

Indeed.

>BTW, I don't have cable, but I'll soon be starting a bboard for
>irritating whiners

While you're at it, why not start one for irritating and off-base
flamers.

Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
From: phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:30:50 GMT

hougen@uirvlh.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen) writes:

>It would be much better if the cable companies were deregulated.  As
>it is now, most cable companies have an exclusive franchise (even
>though it is sometimes called a nonexclusive franchise) to serve a
>particular area and the only thing that is keeping them from raising
>their rates sky high is the fear of rate regulation.  This is supposed
>to be a free country; why not open up the cable markets to free market
>competition?  Then we could have low rates and the cable companies
>could make their profits.  But, of course, they are trying to protect
>their unreasonably cushy position and all most people can think of is
>more government interference to cut the rates.  As far as I am
>concerned, cable is not a necessity of life and therefore, there is
>absolutely no reason to regulate that industry at all.  Period.

As a Libertarian at heart, I would probably agree with you, EXCEPT for
a major problem with this:

In a free market there should be equal opportunity to compete.  If Cablevision
(as an example) overcharges, I should be able to move in and start my own
cable company and compete.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

1.  The existing cable companies had the advantage of being able to install
    their plant under situations where they and their investors believed
    that an exclusive right existed.  This constituted to a significant
    degree a specific sanction by the appropiate government authority.
    That's NOT a free enterprise or a level playing field.

2.  Many cable companies are cross owned with programming providers.
    While this is technically not wrong in a truly free enterprise system,
    it does get abused an awful lot.  Cablevision, Inc., has a lot of stock
    held by a couple of program providers.  Would those providers be willing
    to offer their programs to the competing cable system?

3.  There is only a limited level of resource available for installing the
    cable lines on the poles and into larger buildings.  Would the second
    cable company get an equal oppotunity to install lines at an equal cost?
    What about a third, or a fear of a third and fourth by the owners of the
    poles?

4.  Cable lines leak radio frequency interference.  A second cable company
    stringing lines is going to double this interference.  The second
    company is going to be even less likely to afford the added equipment
    to make leakage any less.  The only existing incentive to keep the
    leakage low is FCC regulations.

5.  Costs go up for BOTH because the existing plant base of one company is
    now supported by fewer subscribers.  The plant base is a constant.
    Another way to look at it is that the whole subscriber base now has to
    support TWO plant bases, TWO head end sites, TWO bureaucracies (and
    Cablevision has a pretty sad one... their computers won't even let
    their people calculate prorated bills based on cutoff days).