HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
	<1992Aug28.205213.761@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <Btxpp4.C98@cmptrc.lonestar.org>
	<BtyytA.DLs@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:14:47 GMT

In article <BtyytA.DLs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:


>  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. :-(

Even worse, modern TV's are designed to work with a much cleaner signal.
i.e. You could get more channels and a clearer signal with manual tunning
than electronic tunning...  Next time I need to by a TV, I'm going to insist
on trying it with rabbit ears in the store.  (Unfortunately, last time I didn't
relize how important that is.)

>  In article <1992Sep2.170848.10491@mcc.com> amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:

>  >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?

I suppose the electric company should charge an additional charge for each
outlet.  The water company should charge per faucet, and the sewer for each
toilet...  Cable companies are more than welcome to meter the cable, but any-
thing else is simply unfair.  (Why should I have install an extra long cable
and move my TV into the bedroom each night rather than simply having a second
set?)  Cable companies already get unfair advantages against home satilite 
dishes with lower rates on descrambling.  Worse, you can't share your satilite
dish with your neighbors and split the costs?  Why?  In such case cable 
companies have been known to sue.  (Who cares who wins, an individual normally
can't afford the legal costs...  But, I do know of a case where the cable 
company did win.  Probably because the guy couldn't afford a decent lawyer.)

Also, tell me why does the Grand Forks cable company charge individuals
$26 for cable, but landlords $4 per apartment if they wish to provide
cable as part of the utilities?  (No, you don't have to have too
many apartments for this special rate.  I believe the minimum is 8 apartment
units (which can be different buildings).)

At least I haven't heard of any communities with zoning laws prohibiting
satilite dishs (yet).

                                            Bill



Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1301 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:158
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:34:32 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


In article <Sep03.014035.18388@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> bc338569@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Brian Catlin) writes:
>In article <BtyytA.DLs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>>
>>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.
>>>
>>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?
>
>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.

Sorry, but that's not true at all.

I currently have 4 devices connected to my cable. RapeVision barely
provides me with enough signal to drive ONE TV; in order to drive 4, I
needed to purchase, at my own expense, a CATV distribution amplifier. It
costs RapeVision NOTHING extra for my 3 "extra" sets; therefore they
have absolutely no right to charge me for hooking them up.

>*** Re-regulate the cable industry to the max!!! (I love to see them squirm) ***

I agree, but I only want them to give consumers a fair deal, good
service, and decent picture quality. Seeing them squirm is only a
pleasurable fringe benefit ;-)
From: cchapman@matd.gatech.edu (Charles H. Chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Why converter needed w/ cable-rdy TV?
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:25:25 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <94624@bu.edu> dlukas@thalamus.bu.edu (David Lukas) writes:
>In article <cchapman.124.714851636@matd.gatech.edu>, cchapman@matd.gatech.edu (Charles H. Chapman) writes:
>|> In article <1992Aug25.211502.17@acavax.lynchburg.edu> teague@acavax.lynchburg.edu writes:
>|> >
>|> >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.
>|> 
>
>This is not necessarily true.  Many cable systems scramble more than
>just the premium channels.  They may scramble some of the "basic"
>channels if they have more than one tier of "basic" service, or they
>may do it in order to discourage illegal hookups.




OK..maybe I was a bit hasty in my assertion that he only needed the
box for premium channel.  My advice to that guy's friend would be to
hook up the cable directly to his television and see what was available.
If he got all the channels he wanted, he could turn in the box and save
the monthly charge.




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: mandreol@ncrcan.Canada.NCR.CA (mandreol)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: What's the real bullet story?
Summary: What's the FM Trap
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:20:48 GMT
Organization: NCR Canada Ltd. Mississauga, Ontario

In article <BtM76D.G37@solbourne.com> kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>
>BTW, the tips some here have suggested (FM Trap on cable line to avoid
>authorization frequency) will "protect" you from a "bullet" if that's how your
>particular cable system works.  However, this "protection" will indeed cause
>problems with some cable systems, as some cable boxes require a periodic
>"reauthorization" signal, otherwise the box will shut down.
>-- 
>| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed above
>| 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"

What exactly is the FM Trap?  I have the switch on my Radio Shack line amp
and never new what is was.


+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
=                                                                              -
-  -Mario Andreoli-                                 NCR CANADA LTD.            =
=                                                   Century Ave.               -
-  Phone : (416)819-4205                                                       =
=  Inet  : Mario.Andreoli@Canada.NCR.COM            ISS Department             -
-  Email : mandreol@ncrcan                                                     =
=  Fax   : (416)819-4095                                                       -
-                                                                              =
+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: M02449@mwvm.mitre.org (Joe Gems)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Regulation
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:51:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.195049.7536@u.washington.edu>
sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
 
>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 ...   |
 
Thanks for the posting, Eric. See the business section of the Aug. 27
Washington Post for an interesting article on this mailing. (BTW, one point
the Post article makes is that the information that the Commerce Department
used in making their estimate was provided by ... (oh, come on, take a wild
guess ...) Right! The cable TV lobby (NCTA by name). What a crock!
From: speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Why converter needed w/ cable-rdy TV?
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 22:28:11 EDT
Organization: Dan's Domain, Randolph, New Jersey

cchapman@matd.gatech.edu (Charles H. Chapman) writes:

> OK..maybe I was a bit hasty in my assertion that he only needed the
> box for premium channel.  My advice to that guy's friend would be to
> hook up the cable directly to his television and see what was available.
> If he got all the channels he wanted, he could turn in the box and save
> the monthly charge.

  I did this with my cable co.  I took them the box and two days
later the cable was totally off.  Idiots.
  I can't wait to see if they bill me for it...

  So how did they disconnect it?  From all appearances, from the
house to the poll and into a little box (looks like a line splitter,
has two cable connectors coming from it, others around here have
four) everything looks like it's still connected.  What's up?
I've heard rumors that they've put a jaming device somewhere, is
this true?


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...)
From: phn@dde.dk (Per H. Nielsen)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:00:03 GMT
Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S

wex@cs.ulowell.edu (Paul M. Wexelblat) writes:


>In article <1992Sep1.104838.16682@dde.dk>, phn@dde.dk (Per H. Nielsen) writes:
>|> From: phn@dde.dk (Per H. Nielsen)
>|> Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
>|> Date: 1 Sep 92 10:48:38 GMT
>|>
>|> alan@acpub.duke.edu (Alan M. Gallatin) writes:
>|>
>|> >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.
>|>
>|> Such a box would be extremely expensive to produce because it would need
>|> a separate tuner, descrambler and modulator for each channel.

>Why??

Because the descrambler needs a pure baseband video signal to operate.

This is why descramblers usually have a built in tuner with a
channel selector. The tuner simply receives the selected channel
and converts it into an encrypted video signal which is fed to
the descrambler. The descrambler outputs a normal unscrambled
videosignal which is fed to a modulator which produces a
tv-signal on a certain channel that can be received on a tv or VCR.

Normally all this happens in a single box.


>I pay for XYZ, a premium Channel that appears on my cable
>at Channel YY.

>My cable ready VCR will take any channel and output it
>on channel 3 (or 2).

>I now build a frequency converter that translates channel 3
>to (cable) channel YY and goes into my converter box....

>Does this work???

Im not quite sure what you are trying to do.

>Further question...

>I record the scrambled signal of say CNN ( scrambled but part
>of the basic service for which I pay) I then play it back through the system
>described above; what will happen?

Aha! It will definitely not work because the VCR will not record
the special signals used by the encryption scheme.
Probably it will record nothing at all because modern
VCR's mute when there is no proper input signal to receive.

-- 
Per H. Nielsen                                 Telephone:  Int +45 42 84 50 11
Basic Applications                             Fax:        Int +45 42 84 52 20
Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark     E-mail:     phn@dde.dk
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1303 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:160
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:34:57 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


In article <1992Sep3.040116.15218@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>In article <BtyytA.DLs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>>
>>
>>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. :-(

>How about listening to the radio, reading books or buying videos?

Irrelevant. ST:TNG books have poorer graphics and sound than their
television counterparts, and the laserdiscs for the first season are
only now beginning to come out (this is now the 5th season of TNG).

>Better yet, how about encouraging like minded subscribers to petition
>your local government to allow competition in the cable tv marketplace.
>Maybe then. you will actually see cable companies that must take
>customer preferences into account in their programming and rates.

As I said, no real alternative. ESPECIALLY in the short term.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Regulation (small correction to the last)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 03:51:52 GMT
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES
Distribution: usa
Keywords: regulation, congress


Oops, I made one slight error in the last message.  Thats what I get for
going from memory rather than looking at my reference.

A 12 channel cable system is only required to carry 3 Local Commercial
Television Stations according to S-12.  I erroniously wrote 4.
From: bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable TV Regulation
Keywords: regulation, congress
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:13:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


In article <q3jny_c.tweek@netcom.com>, tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield) writes:
|> In article <19402@ector.cs.purdue.edu> bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma) writes:
|> >
|> >   only transmit over cable and do not broadcast?  In summary, if I start
|> >   a TV station and say cable can have my signal for free, which cable
|> >   companies can I force to carry me? 
|> 
|> You ask a lot in one question... the exact desciption of what cable
|> system, and what TV station takes up many lines of text in the bill.
|> I suggest that you read the bill (either get it from your Reps in
|> congress, or get the copy I am working on once I finish it, and read it.

   I'll do that sometime.  But are you saying that this is so complicated
   that it cannot be easily summarized?  If so, then I begin to have some
   sympathy for the cable companies.  People have been arguing that cable
   really has nothing to complain about because if they are forced to carry
   a station then they get it for free.  Problem is, no one has mentioned
   which stations can force a cable company to give them access.  This is
   extremely relevant to the discussion.  If I were a cable company and
   any TV station on the planet could force me to carry them, I would be
   scared too!  A good portion of the facts seem to be being left out of
   the argument.

   I do not work for any cable company, nor am I associated with anyone 
   that does.  I quit subscribing to cable 2 months ago when I moved, but 
   I will probably subscribe again sometime, so I am interested in how
   this all turns out.  Thank those of you that have posted info about this
   bill.  I am inclined, as many of you are, to believe that if the cable
   execs say this bill is a bad thing, it must in fact be good.  However,
   I would like to know for sure.
-- 
Bill <bouma@cs.purdue.edu>
From: wex@cs.ulowell.edu (Paul M. Wexelblat)
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Originator: wex@bigmax.ulowell.edu
Reply-To: wex@cs.ulowell.edu
Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:58:52 GMT




What am I trying to do...

I responded to a question about a box that just descrambles whatever is
to it with the following suggeation; and got mostly responses of 
the ilk below -- "What are you tring to do"  (not much on whether it will
work)

One reason to try the technique is, for example, allow you to use the
programming capabilities for which I'm paying when I buy a VCR and have 
cable.

so, will it work??

In article <1992Sep2.110003.2351@dde.dk>, phn@dde.dk (Per H. Nielsen) writes:
In response to my suggestion.

|> >I pay for XYZ, a premium Channel that appears on my cable
|> >at Channel YY.
|> 
|> >My cable ready VCR will take any channel and output it
|> >on channel 3 (or 2).
|> 
|> >I now build a frequency converter that translates channel 3
|> >to (cable) channel YY and goes into my converter box....
|> 
|> >Does this work???
|> 
|> Im not quite sure what you are trying to do.
|> 
|> >Further question...
|> 
|> >I record the scrambled signal of say CNN ( scrambled but part
|> >of the basic service for which I pay) I then play it back through the system
|> >described above; what will happen?
|> 
|> Aha! It will definitely not work because the VCR will not record
|> the special signals used by the encryption scheme.
|> Probably it will record nothing at all because modern
|> VCR's mute when there is no proper input signal to receive.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Per H. Nielsen                                 Telephone:  Int +45 42 84 50 11
|> Basic Applications                             Fax:        Int +45 42 84 52 20
|> Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark     E-mail:     phn@dde.dk
-- 
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

	...Wex