HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 08:13:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep12.201355.7505@panix.com> habs@panix.com (Harry Shapiro) writes:
>The Cable Act of 1984 does *NOT* prevent more than one cable company
>from being in the same service area. In some towns they do have
>2 cable companies.  The cable act prevents telephone companies from
>owning cable operations in the their "monopoly" area.
>
>It is up to each city and town (etc.) to grant operating rights to
>a cable company. 
>
>If you are unhappy with your cable service (Consumer Reports found
>50% of their members are) you need only go a far a your "City Hall"
>to voice your complaints.

1. The Cable Act of 1984 actually prevents your city or town from
   extending an exclusive to one cable company -- ie. the law of
   the land as it exists today makes cable system monopoly in a
   community illegal.

2. However, there is a virtual monopoly in existance.  Except for
   a few areas (predominantly test or high visibility markets) there
   is a single cable provider available to you in your home.  

3. If you have a problem and go to your "City Hall", *good luck*!!!
   For the most part, your city (a) can't do a damn thing, and (b) has
   an incentive to *NOT* do anything.  Remember that your City Hall
   is collecting X% (typically 5%) a month from the cable company,
   so they have a certain "conflict of interests" in helping you resolve
   problems.

   For example:  A few years ago, I took many examples of repeated
   and knowing violations of the franchise agreement to City Hall.
   The City Attorney told me the reality:  Nothing they can do.  If
   they did terminate the agreement, the company made it clear that they
   would immediately just turn off cable to everyone, and then take
   their time (one year) to dismantle and turn over the system.  He
   cited one city that was just thinking of doing it, and the cable
   company turned off cable for a holiday weekend and just aired
   text on all channels telling subscribers to call their City
   Council at home (and gave the home numbers) to complain.  It's
   amazing, but people would rather have lousy cable today than no
   cable for a year.

Again, the reality today is that there are no teeth anywhere
(practically) for cable problems.  Regulation is definitely
called for.


Glenn Tenney AA6ER
voice: (415) 574-3420 fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com
-- 
Glenn Tenney AA6ER
voice: (415) 574-3420 fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Movies on Showtime pulled after one showing??
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:42:07 GMT

Scott Bayles querys in "sbayles.715619064@mwunix":
>Showtime had a riskee movie previously shown sked for Tues night.  It wasn't
>on something else was.  why? How do I reach Showtime? (paraphrased greatly)

Showtime 
1633 Broadway
NY, NY
(212) 708-1600

Ask for programming.  They may have axed it because of complaints.  They may
also have simply goofed and shown the worng movie.  (That doesn't happen very
often.)  It may have been put in the schedule of the guide you are using in
error.  There may have been a tape/technical failure.
Showtime also has sales offices in San Francisco, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas,
and Los Angeles.  They could research it for you, but programming is done out
of New York.
Bob Vogel
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Cable Trouble
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:55:20 GMT

The four settings on your VCR and on many cable ready tv's are:
Standard/Off-air/ TV=regular broadcast bands, channels 2-13 and UHF 14-83
CATV Standard=the "standard" cable tv channelization format
HRC-harmonically related carriers, This is a channelization scheme which
   moves channels 4 & 5 (and maybe one or two others) to make all channels
   exactly equal in frequency seperation.  This is done to reduce distortions
   in the cable system transmission and lets you send more signals farther
   for a given level of distortion than a "standard" frequency scheme.
IRC-integrally related carriers, Yet another frequency scheme, slightly 
  different from either Standard or HRC which reduces distortions.
All of these frequency schemes are in use by some cable systems.  Most
use standard.
Bob Vogel
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Can You Identify This TV Channel?
From: dseaman@oread.cc.ukans.edu
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:25:09 CDT
Followup-To: rec.video.cable-tv
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Serces

In article <122@newave.mn.org>, john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
> A very strange TV channel has appeared on the cable TV system in
> Bloomington MN.  This channel is not on the list provided by Paragon,
> nor does it show up in the newspaper listings.  I have never seen
> a station ID or commercial on this channel.
> 
> Basically, the station runs video graphics and annimations.  They
> appear to be original, but they also mix in NASA annimations as
> well.  The screen is made up to look like the control panel of a
> space ship, with a "view screen" that covers most of the video
> frame, and things that look like control knobs around the edges.
> On closer inspection, these control knobs consist of photos of two
> electrical circuit boards, two bar graph type displays each with
> three bar graphs, and a box with 4 or 5 characters that look like
> Japanese letters.  From time to time, they will zoom in on the
> "view screen" part where it covers the whole screen.
> 
> All of this annimation is set to computerized music and sound effects.
> Every so often, a computerized voice or voices will say that we sould
> perpare for invasion, and they list off a number of people that they
> are coming for.
> 
> I spotted this channel after getting a new TV tuner that covers more
> cable channels than my old cable ready set.  It shows up on cable
> channel 99.  It is the only channel higher than 61 on our cable.
> 
> I have seen this programming on before 9PM, and it seems to go on 
> after 2AM.  I left it running last night, and in 4 hours, I never
> saw a single station break, ID, or commercial.  I did notice that
> some of the programming was the same that I saw before.  After flipping
> to it occasionally for the past few days, it looks like they have only
> 6 or so hours of programming, and they repeat it each night in a
> slightly different order.
> 
> Does anyone know what this TV channel is?  Is it also on sattelite?
> 
> I have thought of a few possibilities.  It might be that the real
> channel has gone off the air for the day, and they feed this video
> through instead of nothing.  Maybe for test purposes.  It might also
> be that there is going to be a new station on this channel, and they
> are running this video as a test.  My hope is that this is some type
> of promo for the Sci-Fi channel, but I would have expected some
> advertising if this were true.
> 
> The remaining possibility is that I am the only one getting this channel,
> and it is really a paranoid delusion a.k.a. Gary Stollman (of INVASION!
> fame over in alt.aliens or whatever it is called).
> 
> -john-
> 
> ==============================================================================
> John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
> Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: Richard Zimmerman <YAQX@cornella>
Subject: Re: Extending Cable throught house
X-Xxdate: Fri, 11 Sep 92 15: 56:35 GMT
Nntp-Posting-User: rsz1@cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d7
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:51:38 GMT

In article <3865@cvbnetPrime.COM> Frank Deming {x6088},
fdeming@cvbnet@prime.com writes:
>  I wouldn't mind not getting pay-extra stations at my other locations
in the 
>  house, but this interference on the basic service stations annoys me.
I really
>  don't like the idea of taking the pay-extra stations with some of the
>  descramblers on the market, but what other choice do I have? The cable
company
>  wants an extra $8/mo for each additional box. I would consider $3.
Does anyone
>  have an idea other than a descrambling box.

I have had a similar experience here in Ithaca, NY.  Channels 2-13 come
in fine, after that there are a few pay stations, Channel 17-19 come in,
and after 20, everything is scrambled.  I don't know why they scramble
basic cable stations such as MTV, the shopping channels, ESPN, CSPAN, etc
etc etc.  I assume the reason is so you pay the extra cost for a new
cable box, but I find this very obtrusive.  I cannot even record ESPN
with my VCR without leasing another box.  Heaven forbid I leave town and
want to record something on one channel and later record something on
another.  Hell, why do they even sell "cable ready" components at all? 
They aught to sell "Channel 3 ONLY" components.

 --Richard Zimmerman  (rsz1@cornell.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:30:57 GMT

eric@tfs.com (Eric Smith) writes:

>It is.  Video rental stores are one free market solution.  Satellite
>dishes to receive HBO etc. directly were another.  Free market

    Ah yes, but cable companies have been conspiring for quite some time
to deny programming to satellite and DBS providers, and this bill addresses
just that problem.  While regulating the cable companies as monopolies
NOW, this bill also provides for the future by making it possible for
competing technologies to be set up and providing for deregulation once
they are.

    I would agree that even now TVRO is very competitive with cable, until
you factor in the startup cost of probably at least $1k for TVRO.

--
    Tim Russell                 Omaha, NE              trussell@unomaha.edu
One of the richest men in the world made his billions selling a toy "operating
system" that is more accurately described as a glorified bootstrap loader.
                                                  -- Phil Karn
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 02:31:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.011439.17831@debbie> ennisj@tt.com (Jay Ennis) writes:
>The ONLY reason phone and
>electrical service in this country are as reliable as they are is that they
>are maintained by (usually) well regulated monopolies.  Two phone companies
>maintaining parallel cable plants would be an EXTREMELY expensive nightmare
>for all of us.  I think the power distribution scenario would be far worse.

As an indication of how bad it would be, consider the divestiture.

Remember back when the telco was ONE telco, and when you had a problem
making a long distance connection you called THE telco? 

If you have the same problem now, you need to call two or three telco's,
and each and every one of them will say "it's [the other telco's]
problem". "Who's putting the echo canceller on my line?" "They are."
"Not us!" "Are too!" "Are not...".

You might never have gotten the problem solved before divestiture, but
you didn't get a lot of excuses and finger pointing.
From: cchapman@matd.gatech.edu (Charles H. Chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:17:53 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Sep15.043908.23243@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> ramsey@spot.Colorado.EDU (L. Ron Hubbard) writes:
>From: ramsey@spot.Colorado.EDU (L. Ron Hubbard)
>Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
>Date: 15 Sep 92 04:39:08 GMT
>In article <1992Sep14.225250.4512@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> hyc@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Howard Chu) 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
>>
>>The universal descrambler kit described in Radio & Electronics magazine
>>works this way, i.e., no tuner, just a descrambler. You need to feed it
>>baseband video from a separate tuner (like a TV or VCR's video out jack).
>>
>That'd be an IF signal.  Baseband is a VERY different term.

Nope.  Baseband is the correct term in this context.  You could call it
IF but the IF frequency is DC.  By tuner, he meant a stand alone tuner
like you could get at Radio Shack or Home Depot, not a tuner ripped out
of a TV (which does put out video at an IF frequency).

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: tbd@neuro.duke.edu (Tristan Davies)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: The Muppet Show
Date: 14 Sep 92 01:30:02 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <ddebry.716092695@itchy> David DeBry <ddebry@dsd.es.com> writes:
-->In <1992Sep9.195839.27698@wam.umd.edu> mmeltzer@wam.umd.edu writes:
-->>Does anyone know if this show is on Cable TV at anytime.  If so, please  
-->>e-mail me the days and times it's on.
-->
-->	There's more than one person interested.  Please post the answer.
-->Thanks!

It used to be on TNT every morning, but that stopped a few months ago,
I think.  I recall seeing something about it being on once a week
now at like 6:30 AM.

The best place to ask this question is in alt.tv.muppets
Yes, such a newsgroup really exists!  And it's fun, too.

Tristan


-- 
e-mail: tbd@neuro.duke.edu
Department of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Center

"grblb blabt unt mipt speeb!! oot piffoo blaboo..." -- Opus
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:44:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.132107.26339@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>
>Let me restate this:
>Local governments have erected cable monopolies thereby eliminating
>competition. Come to your own conclusions about in whose interest
>government is working.

I have:  not mine!

>Wrong.  In most locations, the local government allows one cable
>franchise to operate. Period. This is government imposed monopoly.
>If you would like to talk about an 'economic' monopoly I will be
>more than willing - once  local government allow anyone to enter the
>field.

Double wrong.  As it has been pointed out REPEATEDLY, the
Cable bill of 1984 already prohibits exclusive contracts.
Why is there so little direct competition?  Why do most
neighborhoods only have one cable provider?  Could there
be collusion among cable companies?  

And please, please, please, DON'T bring up the typical
free-market arguments like "you can always start your own cable
company", or, "you can always move."  Geez, I am
so glad I left the Libertarian Party.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1391 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:247
From: speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 09:49:50 EDT
Organization: Dan's Domain, Randolph, New Jersey

tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:

> 
> In article <yJFqqB3w165w@micro-c.mcds.com> speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E.
> >
> >   As I understand it, the signal from the [cable TV] tap is already strong
> >enough for several TV sets.
> 
> Heh heh - not at MY house! ;-)
> 

  Here it is - I've had three sets & and 2 FM taps and all could
be used at the same time . . . 

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: arien@menlo.cadre.com (Arien Yung)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Test
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:10:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: menlo.1992Sep10.001026.6304
Organization: Cadre Technologies Inc., Menlo Park Operation

Just a test, please ignore!
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1441 misc.consumers:16604 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:304
From: wayne@ultra.com (Wayne Hathaway)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:43:17 GMT
Reply-To: wayne@ultra.com (Wayne Hathaway)
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies

> If you are unhappy with your cable service (Consumer Reports found
> 50% of their members are) you need only go as far as your "City Hall"
> to voice your complaints.

This may not actually work too well.  True story.  Many years ago,
back when communities really could regulate cable service, I got so
fed up with our (TCI-owned) company that I did exactly that: called
City Hall.  It took me almost a half day to find the city "official"
who had the responsibility of overseeing the cable franchise contract,
and when I finally found him he admitted that he hadn't even known the
job was his!

So much for "regulation"!

    Wayne Hathaway               domain: wayne@Ultra.COM
    Ultra Network Technologies     uucp: ...!ames!ultra!wayne
    101 Daggett Drive             phone: 408-922-0100 x132
    San Jose, CA 95134              FAX: 408-433-9287
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:03:44 GMT

In article <4dwn!#n@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>
>>Did you use the word greedy sob?  In my book, it is the person who
>>uses the coercive powers of government to force others to provide
>>him/her with a service at the price of their own choosing.
>
>You mean the same powers that gave the cable company the monopoly in
>the first place?  The monopoly the cable companies fight to keep 
>just about as hard as they fight this bill?  Is that what you're
>trying to claim is free market pricing for cable service, jonathan?
>

Good point.  Let me make something clear.  Using the coercive powers
of government to limit competition is every bit as bad as using the
coercive powers of government to limit the cost of a product.

Free market pricing is just that; no government granted monopolies
and no government dictated rate schedules.

As an aside, I recently read an interesting book - Freedom, Technology
and the First Ammendment (J. Emord) -.  One of the points of the
book is that in the early days of broadcast radio, the then dominant
players in the radio industry sought licensing (in exchange for 
government regulation of content).  Perhaps some of you in net land
may find this book of interest.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 13:21:07 GMT

In article <BuI7HM.GB9@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.004723.22684@news2.cis.umn.edu> 
>grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>>Given that the government created the monopoly in the first place, and
>>you are paying high prices, it should be pretty clear that government
>>is not about to watch out for your interests.
>
>There is no logical connection. Arguments that are "it should be
>obvious..." or "it is clear that..." are generally only poorly supported
>opinion.
>

Let me restate this:
Local governments have erected cable monopolies thereby eliminating
competition. Come to your own conclusions about in whose interest
government is working.

>>Cable companies will have an incentive to provide a decent product
>>at an affordable price when they have to compete with each other.  That
>>will not occur until the government imposed monopoly is removed.
>
>In most cases, there is no "government" imposed monopoly. It is an
>economic one. It doesn't matter why the monopoly formed -- the result
>is a captive consumer base and unresponsive service providers.
>
Wrong.  In most locations, the local government allows one cable
franchise to operate. Period. This is government imposed monopoly.
If you would like to talk about an 'economic' monopoly I will be
more than willing - once  local government allow anyone to enter the
field.

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: saf@netcom.com (Steve A. Feinstein)
Subject: Re: Can You Identify This TV Channel?
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 20:49:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <4014@vidiot.UUCP> brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes:
>
>It sure sounds like the Sci-Fi channel.  But someone who is watching the
>sat feed can say for sure.

It sure is the SF Channel.  Some time this weekend they superimposed a
"countdown" on the bottom of the screen alongside the SF Channel's
logo (A ringed planet).  Currently it's T-15:03:13:04.

-- 
 Steve A. Feinstein | saf@netcom.com | When a man points a finger at someone
  360 Cowper Street |================| else, he should remember that four
Palo Alto, CA 94301 |                  fingers are pointing at himself.
     (415) 326-8224 |                                          - Louis Nizer


Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:53:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.204428.6661@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>
>Double wrong.  As it has been pointed out REPEATEDLY, the
>Cable bill of 1984 already prohibits exclusive contracts.
>Why is there so little direct competition?  Why do most
>neighborhoods only have one cable provider?  Could there
>be collusion among cable companies?  
>
>And please, please, please, DON'T bring up the typical
>free-market arguments like "you can always start your own cable
>company", or, "you can always move."  Geez, I am
>so glad I left the Libertarian Party.
(Based on this last set of comments, it is not clear to me
what you were doing in the Libertarian Party to begin with)

Actually, I won't tell you that you can start your own cable company.
Nor will I tell you to move.  

The cable bill of 1984 may prohibit exclusive contracts, but it
obviously didn't prohibit local governments from demanding concessions
from cable companies - concessions that add to the cost of doing
business.  
Perhaps you can enlighten me and tell me what would happen if I went
before my local city council and told them I was going to set up a
cable network. I don't believe for a minute that they will welcome
me.


busin
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate