HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gallant@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Gallant)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Universal Descrambler
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:04:16 GMT
Reply-To: gallant@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Robert Gallant)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

Does anyone know of a company still selling the universal descrambler
kits?

thanks,
Rob
gallant@oasys.dt.navy.mil
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,sci.electronics,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: elmquist@pez.ssesco.com (Chris Elmquist)
Subject: Will this work?
Organization: SSESCO
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:36:49 GMT

I'd like to build this filter/combiner circuit to eliminate A/B switching
ahead of a cable ready TV...

                         ------------
                   -----| ch 3 notch |------
                  |     | filter     |      |
CATV from  -------*      ------------       *----- to TV or VCR
street            |                         |
                  |      ------------       |
                   -----| CATV tuner |------ 
                        | box        |
                         ------------

 *= two port splitter/combiner

The CATV tuner box is supplied by the Cable Co. and is required to decode
scrambled programming. I want to be able to tune the TV (with its remote
control) or VCR (with its timer) through all of the none-premium cable
channels and then tune to channel 3 (which is the output of the CATV tuner
box) to watch premium programming.   Obviously, the right-most splitter
in the above drawing could be followed by a distribution amplifier to
drive multiple sets.

I am wondering if the output of the tuner box is much wider (in frequency)
than just channel 3...  will I need a really wide notch in order to kill
all of its output ?  Perhaps several filters would be needed in series
to completely kill the channel 3 from the street ?  Would the channel 2
and channel 4 from the street bleed over into the channel 3 output from
the tuner box ?

Has anyone done this or know of an off-the-shelf solution to this apparently
simple (and annoying) problem...

Chris
--

Chris Elmquist, N0JCF
elmquist@SSESCO.com
73267.2711@Compuserve.com
(612)342-0003@work (8am-5pm CST6CDT)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: elmquist@pez.ssesco.com (Chris Elmquist)
Subject: Re: Will This Work? (a different approach)
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:40:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.185737.7051@wdl.loral.com> rst@spl1.spl.loral.com (Ray Tom) writes:
>
>                   ------------------------
>                  |                        |
>CATV from  -------*                        *----- to TV or VCR
>Street            |      ------------      |
>                   -----| CATV tuner |----- 
>                        | box        | Ch 3
>                         ------------
>
>* = Two port splitter/combiner
>
>How about this configuration???  If I am willing to accept the fact
>that the channel 3 output from the CATV tuner box will bleed over to
>channels 2 & 4.  Can't I just use the CATV tuner box for channels 2 & 4,
>and the premium channels???  Will this work or am I just blowing smoke???
>

well, the problem here is that channel 3 "from the street" will mix with
(and mangle) channel 3 coming out of the tuner box.  There is also the
possibility that the broad, harmonically rich output of the tuner box
will feed garbage back into the cable system (affecting other sets in
your house or perhaps your near neighbors).

The purpose of the notch or highpass filter was to prevent the output of
the tuner box from ever getting to the street and to prevent channel 3
from the street from ever getting to the output of the tuner box.

Perhaps you were relying on some directivity in the splitter/combiners... they
have none.. and feed signals in both directions equally well (or equally
poorly :-) ).

Chris
Chris Elmquist, N0JCF
elmquist@SSESCO.com
73267.2711@Compuserve.com
(612)342-0003@work (8am-5pm CST6CDT)
From: faunt@dustbin.cisco.com (Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Please explain my local cable system to me.
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:21:13
Organization: cisco Systems, Menlo Park, CA
Distribution: rec
NNTP-Posting-Host: dustbin.cisco.com

I never paid much attention to this, but now I have it, for the
election, and would like to understand it a bit more.

I have a cable-ready TV, which works just fine with the system, and I
got basic service, so I have no decoder-tuner at all.

 Out of about 50 channels, there about half-a-dozen "premium" channels,
but I can receive two of them just fine, with a pronounced but small
"herringbone" pattern to them, and one of them (a sports channel which
is worthless to me) clear as any other channel.  The other premium
channels are total garbage.  The garbage I expect, but the ones I can
get are a surprise. Also, the installer may have been trying to "sell"
me illegal service, since he showed me an in-line can,(I assume it was
a filter, he called it a descrambler), and said that that was all that
was necessary to get HBO.  There don't appear to be any filters in the
drop to my house.  How does this work?

If you want any more information, I'll see what I can find.
Thanx, doug

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rst@spl1.spl.loral.com (Ray Tom)
Subject: Will This Work? (a different approach)
Organization: Loral Software Productivity Laboratory
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:57:37 GMT


                   ------------------------
                  |                        |
CATV from  -------*                        *----- to TV or VCR
Street            |      ------------      |
                   -----| CATV tuner |----- 
                        | box        | Ch 3
                         ------------

* = Two port splitter/combiner

How about this configuration???  If I am willing to accept the fact
that the channel 3 output from the CATV tuner box will bleed over to
channels 2 & 4.  Can't I just use the CATV tuner box for channels 2 & 4,
and the premium channels???  Will this work or am I just blowing smoke???

Thanks In Advance,

Ray
rst@spl1.spl.loral.com


Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1731 misc.consumers:17528 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:492 alt.censorship:7923
From: chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:14:48 GMT
Organization: Tellabs, Inc.

In article <1992Oct5.203c0@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org>, jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:
> In article <1992Oct2.022013.12344@fid.morgan.com> dated Fri, 2 Oct 1992
> 02:20:13 GMT, sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:
> 
>  > That means you're not even going to try to find proof.
> 
> Give this man a cookie!  He finally figured it out!
> 
> NO, I am not even going to try and find proof.  It's a waste of my time to try
> and find "proof" that will just be pooh-poohed by this crowd.
> 
> However, I would just point out that of ALL the messages posted in this thread,
> including those by people who vehemently disagree, NO ONE has provided "proof."
> This whole thread has been one message of opinion after another.  Oh, sure,
> there are vague references to this study or that study, but no one has given
> any real citations that would indicate they have done any serious research on
> the subject.  You folks who are casting stones are living in your own glass
> houses.


  Because the freedom of speech (and of the press) is an important part of 
  what the the U.S.A. is about, and is explicitly guaranteed in the constitution,
  those who would restrict that freedom are obliged to show some compelling
  reason for doing so.

  Since you are the one who wants to restrict what others may watch -- because the
  material causes crime, you say -- the burden of proof is entirely yours.
   
  Merely saying it's an "obvious fact", or "it's only common sense" doesn't cut it.

  Also note that it is generally impossible to prove a negative; i.e., that
  something (anything!) is harmless.  For example, there was a murder in Chicago
  last night, and I doubt that I could *prove* I didn't do it, since I was at
  home alone.  Fortunately, those who would restrict my freedom in this matter
  are obliged to prove that I *did* do it.
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Will This Work? (a different approach)
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:19:05 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <1992Oct14.185737.7051@wdl.loral.com> rst@spl1.spl.loral.com (Ray Tom) writes:
<
<                   ------------------------
<                  |                        |
<CATV from  -------*                        *----- to TV or VCR
<Street            |      ------------      |
<                   -----| CATV tuner |----- 
<                        | box        | Ch 3
<                         ------------
<
<* = Two port splitter/combiner
<
<How about this configuration???  If I am willing to accept the fact
<that the channel 3 output from the CATV tuner box will bleed over to
<channels 2 & 4.  Can't I just use the CATV tuner box for channels 2 & 4,
<and the premium channels???  Will this work or am I just blowing smoke???

Blowing smoke.  You are forgetting that  the CATV channel 3 will be placed
right on top of cable channel 3.  Definately will not work.
-- 
      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: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: Update on Status of Cable TV Re-Regulation Bill
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:34:27 GMT

In article <H8P9RB5w164w@tweekco.uucp> alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard) writes:
>The Congressional set of priorities reflects the priorities of the
>American voter. The cable issue is something that a larger cross section
>of voters is angry about and more united on than most other issues,
>with the exception of a few people on this newsgroup, nobody likes being
>screwed by their cable companies, regardless of sex, ethnic group, 
>religion, stand on abortion, or political party. 
>
>In other words, this shows that the system actually worked for once. Any
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>other topic on which the voters are similarly united will get equally
>positive action by Congress. Whether Bush likes it or not. Of course,
>the next issue might be making Elvis' birthday a national holiday, but
>this is the nature of democracy.

Let's reserve judgement as to whether this legislation 'works' or not until
a year, or two, or five have passed and cable consumers are happier, rates
are lower, and service is better.

Mark
Organization: University of Minnesota - Computer & Information Services
Date: Wednesday, 30 Sep 1992 11:34:17 CST
From: <B-TRUS@UMINN1.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Most-wanted Cable Channels
Distribution: usa
 <1ab4s3INN4er@bigboote.WPI.EDU>

Cable companies that squeeze two channels into one must be quite common.
Our system, Cable TV North Central, has the learning channel and Bravo
share the same spot.  It's nice because we get Bravo for free but it bites
because since discovery network has taken over the learning channel there
has been a shift towards programs that are WORTH watching (all on at night
when Bravo is on, I might add)  I have called my cable company about this
but they keep saying that 1.) there is not enough demand for the learning
channel and 2.) the contract is with Bravo AND the learning channel and
won't be changed.  (yeah, bite me! I'll buy that for a dollar)

Also, we recently started to get HBO and CINEMAX at a really great price
and have started to tape a few movies now and then (for archival use only,
ya know ;-)  But there is a problem on them sometimes.  The top of the
screen will creep to the right and there will be a lot of noise in the
first 20-30 scan lines.  I have tried adjusting the tracking and even
opened the machine up and gave everything a good cleaning but it will
still happen now and then.  everything seems fine while watching them
direct, even through both tuners, it just seems to be an occasional
problem with taping.  Is some form of copy protection being leaked by
the stupid cable box?

Oh, well

Till next

Brad
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: hyc@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Howard Chu)
Subject: Re: Will This Work? (a different approach)
Organization: SAR Systems Development & Processing, JPL
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 08:55:00 GMT

In article <4271@vidiot.UUCP> brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.185737.7051@wdl.loral.com> rst@spl1.spl.loral.com (Ray Tom) writes:
><
><                   ------------------------
><                  |                        |
><CATV from  -------*                        *----- to TV or VCR
><Street            |      ------------      |
><                   -----| CATV tuner |----- 
><                        | box        | Ch 3
><                         ------------
><
><* = Two port splitter/combiner
><
><How about this configuration???  If I am willing to accept the fact
><that the channel 3 output from the CATV tuner box will bleed over to
><channels 2 & 4.  Can't I just use the CATV tuner box for channels 2 & 4,
><and the premium channels???  Will this work or am I just blowing smoke???
>
>Blowing smoke.  You are forgetting that  the CATV channel 3 will be placed
>right on top of cable channel 3.  Definately will not work.

How about putting a Ch. 3 notch filter on the "thru" side, thus forcing you
to use the cable box for channels 2-4, but otherwise leaving things clear?
(Just a notion...)
-- 
  -- Howard Chu @ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

All true wisdom is conveyed in one-line witticisms.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: elmquist@pez.ssesco.com (Chris Elmquist)
Subject: Re: Cable reception
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:25:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.050030.15177@ultb.isc.rit.edu> rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
>
>You are correct.  This can cause the problem you describe. However be aware
>that many cable companies are required to offset certain channels in the
>aeronautical frequency bands by about 5Khz.  Where these mesh with non-offset
>channels you will see a variance.  In any event a 1.3 Khz difference should
>generally not cause a problem.

I think it would be fine if the video *and* audio were offset the same amount
and together.  My theory is that the audio is offset more than the video...

>You are absloutely correct.  Aeronauticals have frequency stability
>requirements which the operator must meet.

Which means it's even easier for them to misalign the audio and video
carriers from each other...

>
>>Until proven otherwise, I will keep pestering
>>them to prove that these channels are on frequency.  If they choose to
>>replace all of their line components between me and the plant, well, that's
>>OK too.  *That's* their nickle.
>
>And will improve  your neighbors' cable service.  No doubt they will invite
>you over for popcorn and a pay-per-view event.
well, maybe--  my discovery was that most of the neighbors thought that
the crumby signal they were getting was the best it could be...  they
were all saying "ya.. it's a lousy picture but we can't get the cable
company to do anything about it".   So, they just pay their money and
try to watch poor signal quality TV.

>
>>Sure...  that all makes very good sense except that their position is that
>>because they don't see the problem on this little TV that there is *no*
>>problem.  I don't think it's reasonable to limit the scope of their
>>*quality* service to TVs with screens 9" or smaller.
>
>With that you and all 9" and larger TV owners will agree.  And I do too.  Their
>argument is not supportable.  NOBODY watches a 9" TV these days.
>
>Also congratulation on being in the 0.5% technical minority.  NOBODY carries a
>27" TV cross town to another headend to check out reception.  I applaud you. 
>The cable company might value your resume.
>

Thanks.  I guess I'm not one to give in...  I'm paying alot of money for
this so called service... and I want my moneys worth.  If we would have
discovered a problem with my equipment... then fine--  I would have
fixed it and lived happily ever after. So far though, there doesn't appear
to be anything wrong with my stuff and there looks to be more and more
things wrong with their stuff (the latest is mucking up the MTS stereo
on the local broadcast stations that they carry).  So-- we keep plugging
along.

Chris
Chris Elmquist, N0JCF
elmquist@SSESCO.com
73267.2711@Compuserve.com
(612)342-0003@work (8am-5pm CST6CDT)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: 74 to 25 in overtime
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 05:14:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.033957.4367@pdnfido.fidonet.org>, bill@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Bill Lanides) writes:
>
>Al Gore just said "We're not going to protect the monopolies anymore."
**detail deleted**
>
>Anyway, I don't want this to be a political argument.  I want to know if
>there is anything I can do to show my displeasure at the passage of the
>cable bill.  I'd also like to get my hands on the (ahem) LAW itself.
>Is it available via FTP or can someone put it up on the Usenet?
>
>     -Bill Lanides


What can you do?  Write to your Congressman and Senators, if they voted for the
bill or the veto override and tell them your views, tell them you're unhappy
they voted for the legislation and ask them how they expect the FCC to carry
out its mandate without any funding to go with it ( or should they not bother
to monitor fire and police ehannels for interference.)  If you're really
unhappy with them, don't vote for them, vote for their opponent and tell them
you are doing so and why.  Send a note to Bush of support.  (for his veto, not
necessarily for his campaign)  Send a copy of some or all to your local cable
company.  If you have some real unhappiness with them or their service, tell
them about it in a cover letter.  If you have done that before and gotten no
reponse, go to the next higher level with this letter (regional manager,
corporate home office etcl.).  Cable company should be able to provide you
their owners address.  (if you're desparate e-mail me with compnay name and
I'll look them up.)  Send a letter to Eddie Fritz at the National Assn of
Broadcasters and tell him how you feel.

As to the law itself, be careful.  The FTP availability that was mentioned in
another post is probably the original S-12.  What you need is the "Conference
Report" on the bill.  That is the Senate (S12) and the House (HR4***)
combination that is the real law passed.  Call or write your local Congressman
or Seantor and request a copy.  They will only send out one to a customer and
it is in excess of 80 pages and something to wade through.
Bob Vogel

Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1756 misc.consumers:17623 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:510
From: alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Update on Status of Cable TV Re-Regulation Bill
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:33:47 GMT
Organization: Tweek-Com Systems, Moraga, CA

> Let's reserve judgement as to whether this legislation 'works' or not until
> a year, or two, or five have passed and cable consumers are happier, rates
> are lower, and service is better.
> 
> Mark

I said that the SYSTEM worked, we have to reserve comment on how well the
legislation worked until we've seen it in action.
A.Lizard
From: ahummel@ems.cdc.com (H. Austin Hummel)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: New converters...
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:49:00 GMT
Reply-To: you@ems.cdc.com
Organization: Empros Systems International, a division of CDC

In article <cchapman.184.718577295@matd.gatech.edu>, cchapman@matd.gatech.edu (Charles H. Chapman) writes:
|> In article <BCR.92Oct7104154@hpl3sn02.cern.ch> bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers) writes:
|> >
|> >So, it is my understanding the new cable law will require all
|> >cable systems to switch to the same format.  Does this mean
|> >it will finially be practicle just to build the descrablers 
|> >into the TV and VCR's?  Up until now, no-one in thier right
|> >mind would want this because, there TV and VCR would not be
|> >usable if they move else-where.  I know I hate the current
|> >converter systems, that either requires you by-pass your
|> >VCR channel selecting capabilities, or you don't subscribe
|> >to scrambled channels.
|> >
|> 
|> I have just been barely following the cable law discussion so
|> I don't know all the details but I would be shocked to learn
|> that the cable bill required all the cable companies to convert
|> to the same format.  That would be prohibitively expensive for
|> some cable companies to have to change out all of their boxes
|> and other equipment.
|> 
|> I'm sure the cable bill says something about levels of service
|> and signal quality but I doubt if it has anything about scrabmling
|> formats.

Well, the cable company I use has a strange way of billing, sililar to
AT&T years ago. If your house is cable wired that would allow a TV in
every location you have to pay the cable company $4.95 per month per
possible location. That is why I am removing my cable at the end of this
month and will wait until I get my disk receiver.
From: gaf5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Gail A. Fullman)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Descrambler for Sale (enable to watch free HBO and DSNY chnls
Date: 15 Oct 92 11:58:18 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <Bw2wAr.H7r@acsu.buffalo.edu>, dianetti@acsu.buffalo.edu (Donald J. D
ianetti) writes:
>In article <BD.92Oct13131303@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>>I have a descrambler for sale.  It enables you to watch free HBO and
>>>DSNY channels.  I bought it about an yr ago for $200.  Please make
>>>an offer.  I will sell it to the one who give the best offer.
>>
>>Isn't this illegal?  Not complaining, just curious.
>Watching HBO for free constitutes theft of service and is
>punishable by law.
>
>But -- simply owning a device that allows you to get HBO for
>       free is not illegal
>    -- selling such a device is not illegal
>
>    -- only the actual USE of the device is illegal
>
>That is my understanding - somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>--
>Don Dianetti  --  SUNY at Buffalo  --  dianetti@acsu.buffalo.edu
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
Around here, the sellers of the devices were nailed by the law.  They kept
meticulous records of their sales, cable companies gave a grace period for
people to turn in their illegal boxes without penalty.  I know of one person
who got caught with an illegal box, was fined of several hundred dollars
and the cable company won't reinstall the cable until the fine is paid.
         
-- 

------------------------
|   Gail A. Fullman    |
|   Manager - ADMO     |
|   Ext. 83113         |
------------------------
From: rwb@alexander.VI.RI.CMU.EDU (Robert Berger)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Will this work?
Date: 10 Oct 92 03:52:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <BvvIpE.9t5@ssesco.com> elmquist@pez.ssesco.com (Chris  
Elmquist) writes:
> 
> I am wondering if the output of the tuner box is much wider (in  
frequency)
> than just channel 3... 

Probably. If they remodulate to get channel 3 they probably use a
cheap DSB modulator that also puts energy in channel 2.

There is an off the shelf solution called "Signal Combiner SC 1". It
takes a channel 3 or 4 source and mixes it with another vhf signal
containing the other channels.

It has a bandpass filter in the channel 3/4 input, and a band reject
filter in the other input.

It is availabe from Skyvision for $19.95. You need to specify channel 3
or 4 when ordering.

Their number is 800-543-3025.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv