HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Cable Re-Regulation Veto Override
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:01:12 GMT
Reply-To: sieferme@u.washington.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

The US Senate just voted to OVERRIDE the Bushman's
veto of the cable re-regulation bill.

The House will be voting to override in a few hours.

Maybe, the Cable-TV industry will FINALLY get
a SMALL PORTION of what they deserve!

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: fybush@unixland.natick.ma.us (Scott Fybush)
Subject: Most-wanted Cable Channels
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:58:48 GMT

TCI has never asked me, but I thought it might be interesting to post
the cable channels I'd most like to see added to my local (Waltham MA)
system.  I'd be interested to see what other channels people most want
added to their systems.

1. Sci-Fi
2. Comedy Central
3. New England Cable News
4. The Learning Channel
5. VH-1 (yes, my system has 56 channels and NO VH-1.  Could it have
         something to do with the deep-seated rivalryry between TCInd
         VH-1 owner Viacom?  Naaaaaaahhhhhh :-)
6. WWOR 
7. WPIX
8. E!

I'd also like to have Bravo and TMC available as pay channels.

And, as long as nobody's asking, here are the channels I'd care the
least about losing:  Local Origination Billboard on channel 2, which
has never carried a bit of video in the 2 1/2 years I've been on
this system (there is co-channel interference with broadcast VHF
WGBH-TV, so they may consciously avoid putting anything of value
on channel 2.  On the other hand, 4, 5, and 7 are on cable on their
broadcast frequencies, so this argument may be void.); Encore (on the
system only because it's TCI-owned); QVC (we already get HSN I and II; 
HSN II by way of over-the-air WHSH-TV 66); Boston Catholic TV (which
could very easily share another access channel with Italian TV, which
programs only a few hours a week on a channel that's otherwise 
a message board).

Our local cable company has no grounds whatsoever for claiming a lack
of channel capacity; besides the aforementioned channel 2, channel 19
is blank and there are three now-unused channels that carried the
Triplecast.  
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1654 misc.consumers:17306 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:442
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:08:41 GMT
Followup-To: rec.religious.wars
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography

In article <1992Sep29.20302@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org> jack@myamiga.mixcom.com 
(Jack Decker) writes:
>Also, if you have invested some amount of time
>in watching a show, you hate to have to turn it off just because the producer
>decides to put a steamy scene in the middle of the program (one that often adds
>nothing to the story line).

Here is a free clue: you don't HAVE to turn it off. You don't HAVE to
turn it on in the first place. With TV, you don't HAVE to do anything.
You won't die if you don't watch it. It is YOUR CHOICE. But, if you
choose not to watch it, don't whine about how other people enjoy
watching it and you can't.

>The one other point, which I know some of you disagree with but which is only
>common sense (sorry if some of you don't have any), 

In <1992Sep29.2028c@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org> jack@myamiga.mixcom.com 
(Jack Decker) writes: 

]I do apologize to all that this post is getting pretty far off topic, but some
]of the arguments that have been presented in this thread are really
]thinly-veiled attacks on those who believe that there should be some standard
]of public morality, 

No thinly veiled attacks from Jack Decker on those who prefer to see
the freedoms granted to us by the Constitution continue. No Sir. If you
don't accept his word as proof that there is a connection between porno
and sex crimes, you have no common sense. And if you don't accept this
missing proof of a connection as proof that the best solution it so ban
porno for everyone, you have no common sense. Ignore the studies that
haven't found any connection. They were just scientists, after all.
Freedom of speech? Not important. 

>Now, which of you bleeding heart liberals is going to step up and defend the
>right of a rapist or sadistic murderer to watch porno or graphic violence?

1. Until they commit the crime, they are not rapists or sadistic
murderers. When you can come up with an error-free method of
determining who will become a rapist or murderer because they watch
certain television shows you will have some basis for legislating
censorship ON THEM and on THEM ALONE.

2. Censoring EVERYONE because a very limited number of people can't
handle certain freedoms is not freedom at all. Some people can't handle
chain-saws properly, but chain-saws are not illegal. Killing someone
with a chain-saw IS illegal, and THAT is the proper place to draw the
line.

3. I am hardly a "bleeding heart liberal". For one who objects to being
classed in amongst the "Moral Majority", you seem quite free to apply
labels to others.
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1613 misc.consumers:17174
From: Matt Garretson
Subject: Max number of channels on cable?
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:13:08 GMT

This seems like a FAQ-type question, but I haven't seen a FAQ list here
lately.  So, here goes:  I called up my cable co. to ask if they were going
to be getting the Sci Fi channel. They said "no", because their channel
capacity was used up.  Now, they offer channels 0-35, plus a few extra
premium and PPV channels. My TV can tune up to channel 73. What happened
to the 40's 50's and 60's?
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1628 misc.consumers:17248 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:435
From: curt@vtucs.cc.vt.edu (Curt Tilmes)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:46:24 GMT
Followup-To: rec.video.cable-tv
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
In-reply-to: jsp@uts.amdahl.com's message of 28 Sep 92 23:32:36 GMT

Without taking sides, I think this argument is missing something:

>Let's start with this simple statement:  Your standards of morality say
>that watching sex acts on TV is wrong; my standards of morality say that
>watching sex acts on TV is perfectly ok.
Ok, Person A can't watch sex, and Person B wants to.  How can both of
them attain thier goals.

>Now then, if you have your way, that is, if we adopt your standard for
>the community at large then it is forbidden to show sex acts on TV.  Clearly
>then, you have imposed your standards on me, for as much as I would like
>I just cannot watch sex acts on TV.  In other words, for you to have what
>you want means that I am denied access to what I want.

>However, if I have my way, that is if we adopt my standard for the
>community at large then it is permissible to show sex acts on TV.  Does
>this then mean that I have imposed my standards on you?  No, because you
>are perfectly free to NOT watch the sex acts on TV.  You are clearly not
>denied anything; you don't want to watch sex acts on TV, and you are
>perfectly able to fulfill that desire.  The only way that it could be
>said that I imposed my standards on you would be if I somehow forced you
>to watch the sex acts that you didn't want to see.
>
Now Person A, who doesn't want to see sex is switching channels and
sees sex, or his kids are changing channels from the Family channel to
Nick and see sex.  Since you have allowed sex on TV, you have made it
more difficult for Person A to watch TV while attaining his goal of
not watching sex.

Isn't there some way *both* of you can attain your goals easily?  Some
sort of TV kill-file that will allow someone to filter out things.

Someone said you don't like your kids to watch movies with graphic
violence, just preview the movie, and don't let them watch the 'bad'
ones.  But what if Person A doesn't want to see the graphic violence
himself?  

The rating system that has been proposed here may be a step toward
user filtering rather that establishment censoring.  Suppose
independent ratings organizations could have their own ratings
included with the TV signal, you could say "I think like the
Fundamentalist Christians, so I will set my TV set to watch only F. C.
condoned shows" or "I just want to see everything", or "Don't show me
anything that the F. C. says has too much graphic violence, but ignore
their advice about sex".

Even if you just want to be able to watch anything, this rating
system, with adequate end user filtering would take away a lot of the
pro-censor arguments.

(And then you can move to things like 'I like Westerns, but I don't
like John Wayne.'... :-)

Curt
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1621 misc.consumers:17225 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:430
From: leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 28 Sep 1992 16:39:46 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <a8C903nq8e7c00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:

>_I_ happen to like watching nudity, a certain amount of violence, etc.  The
>whole purpose of this hypothetical "ratings" encoding was to avoid censorship
>while still giving parents some sort of AUTOMATIC method of dealing with the
>vast amounts of information and entertainment programming coming into their
>homes.  If the neighbors don't care if their kids watch nude boxers cursing
>each other as the blood squirts and oozes from their cuts, they simply would
>elect not to filter such material from their reception.

I believe that both "Roots" and (okay, what was the name of the mini-series/
documentary about the Jewish Holocaust from about 10 years ago?) both
contained nudity, yet were shown on broadcast television because of their
subject, content, and level of quality. "Snow White" has been banned from some
places because of 'graphic violence'.

   Your idea places too much emphasis on simply labeling and generically
categorizing programming. What's wrong with parents simply either watching
TV with their children and thus guiding their viewing choices, or at least
keeping an eye on them while they watch (and if not them, then a sitter or
whoever is watching them)?

   I still don't get it. Why can't parents take responsibility for raising
their children instead of blaming everyone else for their lack of parenting?
If you don't want nude bleeding boxers on your screen, don't put that channel
on! Instill in children the same things you believe in and eventually they'll
change the channel themselves.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Leavens                       | University of Southern California
Microcomputer Specialist             | leavens@mizar.usc.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: tkoppel@cassandra.cair.du.edu (Ted Koppel)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: CARL Systems Inc, Denver, Colo.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 03:12:36 GMT

-->dictator, but on the other hand, there is no reason we should be dumping our
-->trash all over the public airwaves.
-->

    Ah, but one person's trash is another person's altar .. and vice
versa.  Suppose that I am personally offended at the religious
broadcasting that goes on on many of the cable channels here.
(particularly Sunday mornings!).  I find the ranting and raving
objectionable.  Perhaps it is offensive to me to have to listen to
someone's most personal beliefs being shouted across the airwaves.

   If I am understanding the previous postings, there might be a
profanity filter or some such mechanism.  But will this mechanism
allow me to filter out programs with the words 'Pray', 'God', 'Jesus',
and so on?  

   And perhaps I don't want others in my household to be subjected to
this ... am I not in this case being just as censorious as the person
who wants to obviate any appearance of nudity or violence?

  Once you begin to place value judgments on the contents of
expression, you open up a huge can of worms.  The above example
clearly showing that what is virtuous and uplifting to you may very
well be extraordinarily objectionable to me.  Tell you what, don't
abridge my choices, and I won't abridge yours.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ted Koppel  --  ted@carl.org  or   tkoppel@cassandra.cair.du.edu
From: andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:34:32 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

(Curt Tilmes) writes:
>
>Isn't there some way *both* of you can attain your goals easily?  Some
>sort of TV kill-file that will allow someone to filter out things.
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^

  That's a _great_ way of putting it!

>
>(And then you can move to things like 'I like Westerns, but I don't
>like John Wayne.'... :-)
>

  And thank you for mentioning this too...  I thought about it in my last
  posting, but forgot.  It could be used to custom tailor your viewing
  preferences, so it could have applications other than self-imposed 
  censorship.

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Andrew Hart                   |  CompuTrac, Inc.                 |
|   (214) 235-7161 x 5320         |  222 Municipal Drive             |
|   andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org      |  Richardson, TX  75080           |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1651 misc.consumers:17299 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:439
From: higgins@dorsai.com (higgins)
Subject: Re: cable monopoly--NOT
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy, New York's Computer Consulate. +1.718.729.5018
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:29:29 GMT

>    No, that's the turd, nerd! Just where are you getting these alleged facts
> from? Localities issue franchises to cable operators. No franchise, no servic
> That's a monopoly!!
>  


I'm a reporter who covers the cable TV industry for a living. Very few
ops have applied for a franchise to overbuild an existing system. The
existing cable act bars any city from unreasonably refusing to issue
a second franchise. I'm not saying MSOs are a bunch of nice guys. I'm
not saying they LOVE competition in any form. I'm saying that they
don't have a government-sanctioned monopoly. Try reading the Cable
Act sometime, like I have. On the other hand, also read last
Thursday's Wall Street Journal to see what MSOs do when an overbuilder 
does com in (Sept 24 issue, I think.)
Funny thing about being a reporter. I'm a great admirer of facts, rather
than polemics.
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Max number of channels on cable?
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:39:33 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <rmhz1!p@rpi.edu> Matt Garretson writes:
<This seems like a FAQ-type question, but I haven't seen a FAQ list here
<lately.  So, here goes:  I called up my cable co. to ask if they were going
<to be getting the Sci Fi channel. They said "no", because their channel
<capacity was used up.  Now, they offer channels 0-35, plus a few extra
<premium and PPV channels. My TV can tune up to channel 73. What happened
<to the 40's 50's and 60's?

Not in the bandwidth of the cable system.  A cable system built to go to channel
36 (300 MHz upper frequency) cannot go any higher than that without being
rebuilt.  The amplifiers have to be moved from 2000 feet apart to 1600 feet
apart and the bandwidth of the amps have to be changed.

The next higher cable system is 54 channels (400 MHz upper frequency).
-- 
      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,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: wright@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Ted Wright)
Subject: Re: 74 to 25 in overtime
Summary: It's law! 74 to 25 and 308 to 114.
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:00:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.033957.4367@pdnfido.fidonet.org> bill@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Bill Lanides) writes:
>From: bill@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Bill Lanides)
>Subject: 74 to 25 in overtime
>Summary: It's law! 74 to 25 and 308 to 114.
>Date: 6 Oct 92 03:39:57 GMT
> ....
>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?
> ....
>..and before anyone goes accusing me of being this or that, I'd like to
>say that I am NOT Republician or conservative.  Instead I am my own
>person and if anything I lean towards the libertarian view.
>     -Bill Lanides

The bill was at ruby.oce.orst.edu as pub/things/senate.bill.12.txt.
It doesn't look bad to me.

Ted Wright (wright@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov)
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQCNAiqvp90AAAEEAO0VFsrmnZhmALDOZEG6vPlTwB5jqM5swOkhDqJIOHOtyNug
2ZfCpsQUYcrVCKjGs4zaivEoiQxi+538mwNhL9HXQK+I3HR2xESzpJEoLiv62kMI
cwVbEw9QAuxY7Z01KHi+bNYhYQvzBczaVttPJdOTvNpbUCzWIeKXEM95WINbAAUR
tChUZWQgV3JpZ2h0IDx3cmlnaHRAbGltczAxLmxlcmMubmFzYS5nb3Y+
=uu9S
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1615 misc.consumers:17184 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:427
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 08:44:42 GMT
Organization: Quake Public Access

In article <1992Sep24.202510.28652@Unibase.SK.CA> roe@Unibase.SK.CA (Roe Peterson) writes:
>If I hire you to murder me, or assist in my murder (a la Kevorkian), there
>should be no prosecution, as the event is consensual (presuming sanity).

>Cock fighting is a different issue, since the combatants are animals, and
>unable to consent.  I'm personally of the belief that such activities
>should be illegal.

Do you also believe that killing chickens for food should be illegal?  
The chickens don't consent to that either.  Whose rights do you think are
being violated by cock fighting?  I don't think you ought to be forced
to watch it if you don't want to (and I am not interested in watching it
either), but nobody is hurt by cock fights therefore the government has
no business forbiding them.

--Brian


Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1606 misc.consumers:17159 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:422
From: higgins@dorsai.com (higgins)
Subject: Re: Wireless cable
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy, New York's Computer Consulate. +1.718.729.5018
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:45:54 GMT

brouillette@zayius.enet.dec.com (Mike Brouillette) writes:

> 
> 
> 	I caught one of those informercials the other night on Wireless 
> Cable.  Does anyone know about this stuff?  Is the govt. going to award 
> areas like they did Cellular?  Is it too late to get in on this?  Is it 
> going to succeed?  Who are the primary players in this arena?
> 
> 			Mike B

DON'T DO IT! Many of these wireless cable mills have been chased and 
chased by the FTC and various state AGs. Jeez, would you buy a Ginzu 
knife you saw advertised on TV? Why would you invest money in something 
advertised the same way? Wireless cable is a real thing and they're not 
all frauds. But neither are all gold coin dealers. Can YOU tell the 
difference? I will fax articles on this to anyone who E-Mails me.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jxr@thumper.bellcore.com>
Subject: Error Characteristics of Digital CATV?
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 16:37:06 GMT

I'm not sure if there's any information available on this but ...

It's my understanding that CATV systems are looking at architectures
with fiber backbones to neighborhoods with coax drops to residences that
will support compressed, digital video.

I'm trying to find out what is known/guessed/predicted about the error
characteristics of such a system.  I.e., what will the error rate be,
burstiness of errors, packet loss, etc.

Any information and pointers to studies, analyses, simulations, results
appreciated.

Jonathan Rosenberg
jxr@thumper.bellcore.com

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: CABLE BILL VETO OVERRIDDEN
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:55:21 GMT

sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>I am envious of you if you have received channel additions in the
>past few years.  My local cable company has added nothing.
>Or, to be precise, every channel addition has come at the
>expense of a different channel deletion.

>We have been asking our local cable co. when they are planning 
>to add channels beyond the current 36 (yes, I know that this
>requires hardware updates).  Seven years ago, their answer
>was "in a few years"; today, their answer is "in a few years".

    I bet it is.  I would imagine that if you haven't had a hardware upgrade
by now, you won't get one until your cable company either can afford to go
to fiber optics or gets bought up by a company that can afford it.  Cox
Cable here in Omaha has been slowly upgrading the system to fiber.  Unfor-
tunately I haven't seen the boxes yet or checked out the video quality.
I do know that they're running network connections both over the cable
and the fiber, because our university has been experimenting with them.

--
   Tim Russell                 Omaha, NE              trussell@unomaha.edu
      "Who can doubt that pleasure is the only goal of a reasoned life?"
                                                   -- Epicurus
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Max number of channels on cable?
Date: 1 Oct 92 03:02:04 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <1992Sep29.230403.3132@intelhf.hf.intel.com> labelle@intelhf.hf.intel.com (George La Belle) writes:
<Matt Garretson writes:
<
<>This seems like a FAQ-type question, but I haven't seen a FAQ list here
<>lately.  So, here goes:  I called up my cable co. to ask if they were going
<>to be getting the Sci Fi channel. They said "no", because their channel
<>capacity was used up.  Now, they offer channels 0-35, plus a few extra
<>premium and PPV channels. My TV can tune up to channel 73. What happened
<>to the 40's 50's and 60's?
<
<	The cable channels go past 60 for sure. Your company simply hasn't
<	got enough transmitter channels to accomodate sending it. All they
<	need to do is add one.

Sorry, not true.  See previous posting I just did.
-- 
      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