HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: xxkozak@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (GEORGE KOZAK)
Subject: Re: Drags, for beginners
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Dec 1992 22:25 EST  

In article <92349.152115IO10702@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, Merv <IO10702@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes...
>On the question of getting the mighty elephant into a new
>Daytona, I would say that the Kozak racing Daytona isn't
>even a Daytona.  Just a body shell with a tube frame
>setup holding it up.  The shell is probablly fiberglass.

    You're real close, Merv.  The car was built to 1989 NHRA Pro Stock
rules, which calls for a steel body.  The frame is tubular chrome moly
stretched 10" to give a 104" wheel base.  It also has a funny car cage.
So the "real" Daytona parts amount to the roof, the rear quarters, the
tail lights, the door handles, and a few trim parts.  The rest is Hairy
Glass fiberglass or fabricated from steel or aluminum.  
    With this type of car, any engine/transmission combination can be
used.  But it's as far from the street as you can get.  (There's only
1.5" under the oil pan.)  
    Some days, when I lose first round, I'd rather have your '63 and 
have fun on the street. :-) 

>-Merv
>*************************************************************************
>**  CHRISTIAN E. MURRAY      *    1955 F-100   472 CADDY POWERED       **
>**  120 FOURTH ST.           *    1963 DODGE 330  MAX WEDGE POWERED    **
>**  BANGOR, ME  04401        *    1963 PLYMOUTH BELVEDERE WAGON        **
>**         (207) 945-6994    *           SOON TO BE 514 POWERED        **
>**                           **** 1973 CHARGER  318 POWERED            **
>**  MERV@GANDALF.UMCS.MAINE.EDU *            (AND PROUD OF IT)         **
>**  IO10702@MAINE.MAINE.EDU     *                                      **
>**  IO10702@MAINE.BITNET        *                MO POWER TO YA        **
>**                              *                                      **
>*************************************************************************

    George Kozak
    Kozak Racing
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: nhmas@gauss.med.harvard.edu (Mark Shneyder)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable rates...
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:10:16 GMT
Organization: HMS

In article <1992Dec15.174852.3668@news.nd.edu> root@sanger.chem.nd.edu (Doctor Math) writes:
>
>Around here it's TCI of Michiana (Gee, another TCI affiliate).
>They just raised their rates $0.60 or so, to over $28/month for

Apparently,this is a national trend for the next few months before the
Cable Bill kicks in April of 1993. We haven't received our cable hike
notice from Cablevision of Boston but they usually raise their rates around
February 1st anyway.(I already envision "begging" notice from them in January)

I've also heard that alot of systems are re-shuffling their channel line-ups
by moving the more popular services like CNN,USA,ESPN,etc into more expensive
basic tiers and filling up the most basic line-up with local channels,
religious and shopping networks and mindless junk like "Mind Extension
University".

-Mark
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: fox@rei.com (Fuzzy Fox)
Subject: Re: Question pertaining to the Cable Bill
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:19:06 GMT
Organization: Recognition Equipment, Inc.

rjh@selway.umt.edu (The Necromancer) writes:

>YES!!!  this is a direct result of the Cable Act!  The Act requires that all
>systems must carry local broadcast stations, these stations may make up one
>third of the cable companies programming.  The bill also states that these 
>broadcast stations may request payment for their signal.  The cable company 
>cannot refuse to carry the station, no matter their price.

I don't think that's what the bill (law) says.  I believe it says that
cable providers must carry local stations, but they do not have to carry
them if the stations request payment for rebroadcast of their signal.

-- 
#ifdef TRUE        | Fuzzy Fox (a.k.a. David DeSimone)       fuzzy@netcom.com
#define  TRUE   0  |
#define  FALSE  1  |  "You have been recruited by the Star League to defend
#endif             |     the Frontier against Xur and the Kodan Armada."
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Question pertaining to the cable bill
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 22:23:39 PST
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems BBS, Moraga, CA (510) 631-0615

There is a consideration which would prevent local broadcast stations
from charging ridiculous prices to cable networks to carry their
programming. The obvious one. Most people these days get their TV
programming via cable. If local broadcast stations price themselves
out of the market, they suddenly lose a good part of their audience.
Which means the rates they can charge to advertisers and the attractiveness
of their station to advertisers drops dramatically. So regardless of
cable industry propaganda, don't look for local broadcast stations to
shoot themselves in the foot by charging prohibitive prices to cable
to carry their programming. It's not going to happen.
A.Lizard

-------------------------------------------------------------------
A.Lizard Internet Addresses:
alizard%tweekco%boo@PacBell.COM        (preferred)
[path]!pacbell.COM!boo!tweekco!alizard (bang path for above)
alizard@seer.mystic.com (backup)   alizard@Blue.Kludge.com (backup)
PGP2.0 public key available on request.
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: cole@concert.net (Derrick C. Cole)
Subject: Question pertaining to the Cable Bill
Organization: MCNC Data Operations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:30:48 GMT

I received a card in the mail last week notifying me of rate changes to my
cable service AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the recent legislation effective 1/1/93.
They graciously informed me my rates would increase by no more than 5 percent
AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the recent legislation.

My question:  Without knowing the details of the bill, is this action...

1) Expected?
2) Legal?
3) Premature?
4) Necessary?
5) Justified?

Aside:  They would also be swapping CNN (currently channel 6) and WGN (channel
30) AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the recent legislation.  What give here?

Another aside:  They also are not even considering adding any new channels
(namely the Sci-Fi Channel and the Cartoon Network) until April 93.  They're
"waiting to see just what will result from it [the Cable Bill] besides the
rate increase."  I didn't realize the rate increase was part of the recent
legislation...

Any and all insight/thoughts/feelings welcome.

Flames to /dev/null.

Derrick (rather angry paying customer)

-- 
"What're you going to do?  Shoot me?"
                       -- American press reporter to US Marine
-----
Derrick Cole              KC4WEJ              MCNC Center for Communications
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: root@sanger.chem.nd.edu (Doctor Math)
Subject: Cable rates...
Summary: I'll show you mine if you show me yours :)
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:48:52 GMT

The recent posting of cable rates in the Bay Area gives me an idea:
Let's all share our cable rates! I'm curious (as many probably are)
what other people are paying for their cable, and what they're getting
in return ...

Around here it's TCI of Michiana (Gee, another TCI affiliate).
They just raised their rates $0.60 or so, to over $28/month for
"basic" cable, which is 28 channels. Both MTV and VH-1, no SciFi
Channel, two PPV available, also Showtime, HBO, Cinemax, and
Disney. No Playboy channel, presumably because it's not "in keeping
with community standards". The local (CBS?) affiliate decided not
to show Silk Stalkings for the same reason, but it can be seen
on USA (conspiracy theory about collusion between TCI and CBS
ommitted :)
I'm not a subscriber; by choice I have no television - I spend my
day staring into 19" CRTs and reading Netnews, whatever would I
want to watch TV for?
In Joliet IL, their cable system provides 58 channels, 46 or so of
which are included in "basic" cable, which is available for about
the same price as here. There seems to be a wide variance in how
much is available where and at what price; this doesn't seem "fair",
but that's the way of Cable :) :)

Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: Question pertaining to the Cable Bill
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:25:03 GMT

>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:34:54 GMT, rjh@selway.umt.edu (The Necromancer) said:

	RJH> YES!!!  this is a direct result of the Cable Act!  The Act requires that all
	RJH> systems must carry local broadcast stations, these stations may make up one
	RJH> third of the cable companies programming.  The bill also states that these 
	RJH> broadcast stations may request payment for their signal.  The cable company 
	RJH> cannot refuse to carry the station, no matter their price.  This issue is
	RJH> currently in court, as it is viewed as unconstitutional by most cable operators. 

Buzz, you loss. The must carry and request payment terms are mutually
exclusive!  This means a cable company does not have to carry any
local broadcast stations that requires a payment.  However this still
can increase a stations cost for two reasons:

  1) Customers might demand a station that the cable company
     must pay for.  (If 30% of there channels are local stations 
     demanding payment, they aren't going to have happy customers
     if they drop 30% of thier channels!)

  2) The cable company might have been excluding local stations
     that demand to be carried and are not requesting payment.
     This means the cable company will either have to drop another
     channel, or pay for additional equipment needed to carry one
     more channel.

>The cable company cannot refuse to carry the station, no matter their price.

So I state again, it is impossable for a station to both demand to
be carried and demand payment.  If a local station wants more than
the cable company is willing to pay, the cable company does not and
will not carry that channel!

                                   Bill

--
"Yeti!  Saw them in the London Underground twenty years ago.  Ghosts!
A headless woman used to walk through my bedroom at midnight.  Mermaids?
Grandpa was rescued from the Marie Celeste by one.  Vampires?  I always
wondered where my dad went to at night.  Telepathy?  Right now you're
thinking that I'm talking crap.  So what can you tell me that I won't
believe in?" - Andrew Hunt, "CAT'S CRADLE: WITCH MARK"
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: fox@rei.com (Fuzzy Fox)
Subject: Re: Question pertaining to the cable bill
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:52:39 GMT
Organization: Recognition Equipment, Inc.

alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard) writes:

>Most people these days get their TV programming via cable.

Are you sure about this?  In my community cable is widely available, but
it does not appear to be as widespread as you indicate.  However, I
would agree that a *significant number* of people get their programming
via cable, and I would thus agree that it would be unwise for a local
broadcaster to charge an exorbitant rebroadcast fee (or any fee at all,
for that matter).

-- 
#ifdef TRUE        | Fuzzy Fox (a.k.a. David DeSimone)       fuzzy@netcom.com
#define  TRUE   0  |
#define  FALSE  1  |  "You have been recruited by the Star League to defend
#endif             |     the Frontier against Xur and the Kodan Armada."
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Question pertaining to the Cable Bill
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:06:58 GMT

In article <BCR.92Dec15185435@hfl3sn02.cern.ch> bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec14.180445.15195@netcom.com> tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield) writes:
>>YES!!!  this is a direct result of the Cable Act!  The Act requires that all
>
>Buzz, you loss. The must carry and request payment terms are mutually
>exclusive!  This means a cable company does not have to carry any

Semi-Flame mode on!!!

Please, Check your attributions.  The text in question was written
by The Necromancer.  I, tweek@netcom , pointed out, just as you have,
that he is wrong.  Please, be very carefull when editing quoted text.

       tweek@netcom.com  tweek@tweekco.uucp  WWIVNet 5@5058  4@5056 
          I'd rather get my cable service from the phone company,
                than my phone service from the cable company.


Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: fak9957@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Frank Kruppenbacher)
Subject: cable bill notice
Reply-To: fak9957@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:08:32 GMT

I also received a notice in my cable bill with regards to the new cable TV
legislation.

I got the impression that cable rates MAY increase as a direct result of the
cable TV legislation, but the notice did say that rates WILL increase.

My notice did carry (as a result of the new cable TV regulations) an
explaination of the new process subscribers are to follow if they have a
complaint regarding poor picture quality or other cable service related
problems.

With regard to other aspects of the new cable TV legislation and how it will or
will not affect the subscriber, my cable company is taking a wait and see
position. Apparently the legislation is still in conference committee and no
one yet knows the final version of the law.

Frank

Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Question pertaining to the Cable Bill
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:04:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <1992Dec14.153048.10974@rock.concert.net> cole@concert.net (Derrick C. Cole) writes:
>I received a card in the mail last week notifying me of rate changes to my
>cable service AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the recent legislation effective 1/1/93.
>They graciously informed me my rates would increase by no more than 5 percent
>AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the recent legislation.

Yow,  Do you have the exact wording of this notice?  Did they hint that
the rate increase was due to the bill, or did they come right out and say it?
It is still too early for them to know what the effects of the bill will be
since the FCC is still working out most of the details.  Sounds like they are
just trying to stuff their pockets in a last attempt to make money without
any regulation.

>
>My question:  Without knowing the details of the bill, is this action...
>
>1) Expected?
Yes,  I would expent nothing less from the cable industry.
>2) Legal?
Yes, except for the lying.  But it should have no effect once the regulation
happens.
>3) Premature?
Yes, if they claim it is due to the re-regulation.
>4) Necessary?
?  Maybe.  IMO, probably not.
>5) Justified?
Depends on answer to #4
>
>Aside:  They would also be swapping CNN (currently channel 6) and WGN (channel
>30) AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the recent legislation.  What give here?
Not if CNN and WGN are the only two involved in the swap and you are not in
WGNs "BROADCAST SERVICE AREA".  If you were located in the signal area of
WGN , then the cable company would be required to place WGN on the same 
channel which their over the air broadcast occurs on.


>Another aside:  They also are not even considering adding any new channels
>(namely the Sci-Fi Channel and the Cartoon Network) until April 93.  They're
>"waiting to see just what will result from it [the Cable Bill] besides the
>rate increase."  I didn't realize the rate increase was part of the recent
>legislation...

It's not... They (no-one) knows what the effects will be, and thus the
cable companies are LYING when they say it is.  It is the same BULL that
they were spreading before the congress voted on the bill.

>Any and all insight/thoughts/feelings welcome.

Sorry, I don't want to get too worked up about it this early in the morning.
>
>Flames to /dev/null.
(Unless it's flames about the cable co's)

       tweek@netcom.com  tweek@tweekco.uucp  WWIVNet 5@5058  4@5056 
          I'd rather get my cable service from the phone company,
                than my phone service from the cable company.
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Bob Vogel)
Subject: Re:  Question pertaining to the Cable Bill
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:08:18 GMT

I will take a risk here and not quote to previous discussion in detail
in hopes that the largest majority is following this daily.

Tweek@netcom--thank you.  You accurately responded to several inaccuracies
in the post that got this whole discussion started.  Youdid it well and
accurately (tho I haven't check it chapter and verse) and saved me doing it.

A comment about cable companies.  Some do indeed play it fast and loose,
or at least let's say their standard of care inaccurate billing notices may leave some room for imporvement.  However the industry, taken as a whole, is a
very diverse group, still with a significant number of SMALL operators {say
1,000-50,000 subscribers for a whole company}.  While it is true that many
of the smaller operators have been purchased, especially over the last 10
years, that is not so different from steel, automobile, etc.etc.  In short,
that a trend of our times.  The operating practices, honesty and pricing
approach of these companies varies probably as much as some of the 
opinions expressed in this forum.  MOST operators would cring at using a
billing notice (rates are up because of the cable bill) as discussed here.

Both broadcasters and cble companies have been playing it very close to the
vest in regard to re-transmission.  The broadcasters have been having some
seminars (at least accroding to the trade press) on how to dealwith their new
found freedom {no it is not fully defined yet} and I expect NCTA has given
some advice to its members.  Most of that advice probably says don't do
anything until the FCC rules are available.

Re: Cole, Raywid & others law firm.  I do not know whether they work for
NCTA or not, but they do work for any number of cable companies, both
large and small.  I have occassion the read their legal summaries and
opinions many times and am unaware of any inaccuracies or bias.  The fact
that cable companies may not always take their advice does not mean they
are biased or inaccurate.  I expect any problems with their stuff is with
the reader and not them {willing to be corrected on this as I do not have a
copy of their cable bill summary}.

Re: cable bill copies  electronic access would be great, but until someone
goes to the trouble or time to post the final bill if youreally want to
see the real thing  CALL UP YOUR SENATOR OR CONGRESSPERSON, most have local
phone numbers, and ask for a copy of the bill.  Specify the "Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992".  That is part of what you
pay your taxes for.  It should come at no charge.  Some offices may 
respond faster if you call the DC office, but they will be adjourning
shortly (if not already) for Holiday break.  May take a couple of weeks
but its the cheapest way.
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Question pertaining to the Cable Bill
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:32:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.153048.10974@rock.concert.net>, 
cole@concert.net (Derrick C. Cole) writes...

>I received a card in the mail last week notifying me of rate changes to my
>cable service AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the recent legislation effective 1/1/93.

Actually what they meant to say is "AS A DIRECT RESULT OF OUR PLANS TO 
RAISE THE RATES FOR ANY REASON WE CAN THINK OF AND THE RECENT LEGISLATION 
IS AS GOOD AN EXCUSE AS ANY SO SUE US NAHH NAHH NAHH NAHH!"
> 
>My question:  Without knowing the details of the bill, is this action...
> 
>1) Expected?   Yes, considering it's happening all over the country
>2) Legal?      Rate increase, yes.  Lying about it, I don't know
>3) Premature?  When you're in the cable business, the sooner the better
>4) Necessary?  By their measures, yes.
>5) Justified?  Hey, drop cable if you don't like it <g>!
> 
>Aside:  They would also be swapping CNN (currently channel 6) and WGN (channel
>30) AS A DIRECT RESULT OF the recent legislation.  What give here?

If it's like Nashville, what they're doing is clustering their bottom tier 
channels so that the rest of them can be trapped out if you decide not to 
subscribe to them.  My understanding is that, at least initially, the price 
regulation, if and when it ever comes, will apply to bottom tier only, so 
they've got to be able to offer it as single package.

Speaking as a long-time continuing and still current subscriber to Cable 
Televison, I sure wish somebody'd organize a massive boycott...

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Question pertaining to the cable bill
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:55:23 GMT


Subject: Re:  Question pertaining to the Cable Bill
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Bob Vogel)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:08:18 GMT
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

In a previous article, rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Bob Vogel) mentioned:
>I will take a risk here and not quote to previous discussion in detail
>in hopes that the largest majority is following this daily.

I would be very surprised if they missed any of the preceding articles in
this last week.  It's hard to miss a sleeper coming back to life.

>Tweek@netcom--thank you.  You accurately responded to several inaccuracies
>in the post that got this whole discussion started.  You did it well and
>accurately (tho I haven't check it chapter and verse) and saved me doing it.

I will take this as a rather high compliment, knowing that you, in the past,
have taken a position against the cable bill (if I'm not mistaken.)
Whether we agree or disagree on the bill, I am sure we both agree on the
need to present honest facts, and if one is not completely sure of the
facts, to at least mention that one does not know for sure.  I had a 
feeling that maybe I went a bit overboard on the bill quoting, but it 
just made me angry that someone who obviously hasn't read the bill, tells
me to read the bill so that I can get my facts straight.  

>Re: cable bill copies  electronic access would be great, but until someone
>goes to the trouble or time to post the final bill if youreally want to
>see the real thing  CALL UP YOUR SENATOR OR CONGRESSPERSON, most have local
>phone numbers, and ask for a copy of the bill.  Specify the "Cable Television
>Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992".  That is part of what you
>pay your taxes for.  It should come at no charge.  Some offices may
>respond faster if you call the DC office, but they will be adjourning
>shortly (if not already) for Holiday break.  May take a couple of weeks
>but its the cheapest way.

Imagine, just four months ago, I was telling others to do the same thing,
prior to my entering the entire bill into computer form.  What with all
the other things that have come up lately,  I haven't had the time nor will
to do this for the re-write.  OK,  I called the Reps office and have ordered
up the most current copy... the one which was passed into law.  Of course,
if anyone expects me to type in the new sucker... Forget It!  One 100k file
once a year is about all I feel like doing. 

(maybe I'll do a manual DIF of the two ??? )

Mike
       tweek@netcom.com  tweek@tweekco.uucp  WWIVNet 5@5058  4@5056 
          I'd rather get my cable service from the phone company,
                than my phone service from the cable company.
Newsgroups: alt.cad