HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:09:12 GMT
Followup-To: uiuc.consumers
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

rslugg@med.unc.edu (Robert Slugg) writes:

>Cable may not have to compete within a locality against other cable
>providers, but they do have to compete against other media.  We chose to
>spend our $ on other services, like rental movies, etc.  Of course, with

Don't try to tell me that that constitutes real competition.  Thats
like saying car manufacturers face competition from the bicycle manufacturers.
Or that that athletic shoe manufacturers face competition from dress shoe
manufacturers.

Cable companies face no direct competition.  There are no market forces
which drive their industry.  Period.

>franchises like Blockbuster closing down the small video stores, even that
>outlet is becoming more monopolistic.  As long as you give your cable
>provider $ each month, they don't give a damn about your whining on the
>net.

Right.  Which is why they need to be regulated.  Then they will give a 
damn whether they want to or not.  And don't believe any of that crap
that your cable company may send you telling you that reregulation will
cause your prices to go up.  Part of the point of re-regulation is to
keep your prices down.

The consumer can only benefit from reregulation and the cable companies
are shaking in their shoes.


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Student Censorship At Case Western
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: 22 Apr 91 22:05:02 GMT

In <1991Apr22.182122.20598@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> cjs@po.CWRU.Edu (Christopher J. Seline) writes:

>The discussion of censorship at CWRU is being covered in the
>comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org  (aka caf-talk.eff.org).

PLEASE DON'T SEND ADD REQUESTS TO THIS ADDRESS!

For information on joining the Computers and Academic Freedom
send email to listserv@eff.org. Include these lines:
   longindex
   help

To join, send the line
   add comp-academic-freedom-batch
or
   add comp-academic-freedom-talk

(The first will get you dozen's of little notes per day. The second will
get you one big note a day).

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Xref: m.cs.uiuc.edu talk.politics.mideast:8759 talk.politics.misc:8772 misc.headlines:4012 talk.politics.soviet:2562 alt.activism:6393 alt.conspiracy:1935 alt.censorship:1309
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.soviet,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: USENET CENSORSHIP AT CUNY
Date: 11 May 91 19:16:42 GMT
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation

oleg@watson.ibm.com writes:
[...]
>If DLV was paying the USENET phone bills himself, and did not put his
>from: and organization: as those of CUNY, I would have to agree with you.
>However, since his views and statements can be considered by many damaging
>to the school he is a member of, CUNY has a right to withdraw posting
>abilities from him.
[...]

The academic freedom of students (as expressed by the 'Joint Statement
on Rights and Freedoms of Students.') says:

  Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the
pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general
well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth.
[...]
  1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately. They should always be free to support causes
by orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential
operation of the institution. At the same time, it should be made
clear to the academic and the larger community that in their public
expressions or demonstrations students or student organizations speak
only for themselves. 
[...]
[And in the context of inviting a speaker ...]

The institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a
device of censorship.

- Carl



-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Campus Speech Restrictions
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 19:44:01 GMT

Did anyone see the PBS panel discussion on campus speech restrictions.
I missed all but the last few minutes, and would be grateful for your
impressions.

I think the show was taped at Stanford. At the very end the moderator
thanked Dr. Kennedy, the president of Stanford. I thought this was
ironic since Dr. Kennedy was the one who, two years ago, thought
banning rec.humor.funny was a good idea. And who, just resently fired
Stuart Reges, a Stanford instructor, after Drug Czar Martinez
complained about a letter from Reges.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: hougen@uirvlj.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 3 Sep 1992 16:06:43 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: uirvlj.csl.uiuc.edu


Funny how so many people want to force someone else to provide service
to them on their terms.  I thought this was supposed to be a free
country.  I guess I was wrong.

Darrell

                   Vote Libertarian 
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: sonic@romulus.cray.com (Curtis Swanson)
Subject: Re: Cable Trouble
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:49:37 CDT


In article <1992Aug31.160344.20458@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, jennings@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Tim Jennings) writes:
> In article 27AUG199221481032@jane.uh.edu, vpaf5@jane.uh.edu (Kal) writes:
> > Yesterday, the cable company that services this apartment complex upgraded
> > us from 18 channels to 55 (wheee!!). I have two "cable-ready" TV's. A 
> > coax cable comes out from the wall outlet and screws into the back of
> > each TV. No cable boxes. The problem is, although one TV gets all 55 channels,
> > The other one, a Sony Trinitron, only gets up to channel 36. Every channel
> > above that is blank. The TV has a "NORMAL - CATV" slide switch, which is
> > in the CATV position. The TV is supposed to be cable-ready. The channel
> > display reads up to 99. Why am I not getting all those other channels?
> > Can anybody please help? This may be in some FAQ somewhere but I'm at
> > 1200 baud and can't really go through all those messages to find the FAQ,
> > if one exists. If you can help me, please respond thru E-mail and I will
> > summarize and post the solutions for the benefit of everybody.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance.
> > 
> > Kal.
> > 
> > vpaf5@jane.uh.edu
> 
> 
> Your problem is that your TV can only receive 110 channels (?!). This is what > is advertised when you buy your tv.  The problem is that the channels between > 13 and 84 don't carry TV signals.  Your TV won't get any channels above 36 
> (unless you can reset the tuner). If you only have a N-C switch then you 
> probably are stuck. Get a tuner box if you want more channels.
> 
> ---
> ----------------------
> Timothy J. Jennings 			"I Yam What I Yam."
> Motorola ASIC Division			--Popeye
> email: jennings@chdasic.sps.mot.com
> 

Maybe.  My VCR has four different antenna settings.  One is for over-the-air
(standard broadcast) frequencies and the other three are different cable
broadcast schemes.  Yes three.  Tim's TV probably has one cable mode and 
his cable company uses another mode.  Not much you can do about it.....

--
***  Curt Swanson  ***  sonic@romulus.cray.com  ***  IOTTMCO  *********
HOME:n - That mythical place where you can go and relax.......
I'd rather be in a coma.........
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:58:57 GMT

In article <laird.715466064@stable.ecn.purdue.edu> laird@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
>I want a descrambler that will sit in the loop of my TV and
>descramble whatever I tune to WITH THE TV'S TUNER.  I can get to
>the signals coming out of the tuner, and those going back to the
>display circuits; I just need a descrambler to go in between.

You will not find a commercial product such as this, for several
reasons. 

1. Cable companies would never provide such a unit, since it would
remove their control over what signals you were able to view. Any
company that did provide such a unit would need to have a signed
contract with the user that said user would pay for every pay channel
(including extra tiers, if present) that currently exists or will exist
on the system, including any and all pay-per-view programs, which are
distributed in scrambled form. The customer base for such an option
would certainly be limited.

Without the cable company's approval, any use of such a device would
constitute theft of service. 

2. Installation of such a device would require extensive modification
to the user's television. There is not a cable company in the world
that would assume such liability -- they can barely handle the
technical problems they have now, and adding TV service to their
responsibilities would result in even MORE complaints.

>I got only stupid non-answers before.  

This is a marvelous way of enticing people to respond to you. I saw your
first posting. When you ask a stupid question, in a stupid way, you 
get stupid answers.
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable TV Regulation
Keywords: regulation, congress
Date: 28 Aug 92 01:06:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES

In article <1992Aug26.195049.7536@u.washington.edu> sieferme@u.washington.edu writes:
>There has not been much discussion lately of the Cable Re-Regulation
>Bill currently creeping its way through Congress.  So, here is
>the text of a note I received yesterday with my cable bill from
>my local cable company (Viacom).  There have also been similar
>commercials on TV sponsored by the cable industry, propagating
>the same message.  It's truly staggering how many half-truths
>(quarter-truths, one-eighth-truths, etc.) can be put into a 
>single note.  Enjoy!  This is submitted for discussion; please
>don't flame me, since I think that this whole message is
>pure drivel.

Truely Pure drivel... I'll have to reread it later (offline) and
of course I'll probably put in my comments, but I'vo got to reply
to one part right now...  "...Your neighbors will get the same
programs for free."  Well, I already get the same networks for
free... I tossed my cable over a year ago...  The part of the
senate and house bills they are reffering to make mention that
a majority of the services for which consumers subscibe to cable for,
are those same OVER THE AIR stations which the cable companies get for
free.  

I won't try to explain it here... It is a long long subject... But I
mention it only in the hope that you will read the bills yourself.

If you have access to alt.cable-tv.re-regulate, I have posted the first
part of a multipost file of the two bills.  I have so far typed in
sections 1 and 2 of the Senate ACT S-12 which passed the senate back
in January of this year.  Once I am done typing the senate bill, I 
will then move on to the House bill HR-4850 (I think thats the right #).

Once I have them both typed completely, I will repost all parts again...
But, the part I posted today (about 10K) covers the reasoning behind
TV stations charging cable systems to carry their signal.

BTW:  The cable company can say No, we won't carry your station, and then
the TV station is left to decide if they want to force the cable company
to carry it for free... (advertising audience speaks loudly)  But, the
TV stations can't have it both ways,  It is written in the bills that
if the station demands that the cable company carry them, they can not
charge them for it.  Sounds fair to me.

       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: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rcrandall@sc9.intel.com
Subject: Re: MTS Stereo
Organization: Intel CTD
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:03:48 GMT

In article <92239.092253PATRICKS@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, PATRICKS@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Patrick Stevens) writes:
> 
>    Would anyone out there know how or where to find a MTS Stereo decoder?
> I would buy a Hi-Fi VCR but at the moment I don't have the money.  So I
> would like to make or buy a "black box" that would split the audio and
> video of channel 2. (the cable company here uses that channel).  Then I
> would like to pipe the audio through my receiver.
> 

Look in the old issues of "Radio Electronics" magazine.  I think they 
printed an article to make something similar to a MTS decoder.  As far
as I know (maybe someone can help here) the actual decoder chips are
licensed only to TV manufacturers and are not available to the general 
public.  They use some sort of dynamic noise reduction with maybe some
sort of dolby circuits too.

Rob

Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:52:13 GMT

[Posted to both uiuc.general and the non-local cable newsgroups. - Carl]

kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

>I have mixed feeling about the cable-tv regulation, but not about the
>slimy insert I just received in my cablevision bill. For example, that
>figure of a $23 dollar increase comes not from the Commerce department
>but from the National Cable Television Association.
[...]

I talked to the marketing manager of Cablevision of Champaign-Urbana
(for about half an hour).  He called the NCTA to verify the
attribution. He says that the NCTA says that the Commerce Department
says that the number is right. He couldn't suggest any way for me to
verify this independently.

- Carl
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: sbayles@mwunix.mitre.org (Scott Bayles)
Subject: Movies on Showtime pulled after one showing??
Summary: Why do they pull movies from schedule?
Keywords: showtime, movies
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:04:24 GMT

There was a movie on late-night Showtime last week that was pretty riskee'.
It is scheduled to be on a few times this month. However, at the scheduled
time Tuesday night for this movie, a completely different unadvertised
movie came on. Why do they do this?? Is it possibly because they received
some complaints?? If so, does anyone know a number for Showtime where I can
counter-complain??

Thanks,

Scott
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable TV Regulation
Keywords: regulation, congress
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:15:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES

In article <19402@ector.cs.purdue.edu> bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma) writes:
>
>
>   The thing I don't understand here is which cable company and which
>   station?  Does this only apply when a cable company services the
>   same area that can recieve the station?  Aren't there stations which
>   only transmit over cable and do not broadcast?  In summary, if I start
>   a TV station and say cable can have my signal for free, which cable
>   companies can I force to carry me? 

Sorry, but this section of the bill only deals with BROADCAST television
stations which normally would be considered as covering with their signal,
the area which the cable system is located.  

You ask a lot in one question... the exact desciption of what cable
system, and what TV station takes up many lines of text in the bill.
I suggest that you read the bill (either get it from your Reps in
congress, or get the copy I am working on once I finish it, and read
it.

The above section, only applies to commercial stations.  There is a
separate section that applies to noncommercial educational systems
which BTW, the LPTV broadcaster do not fit into either.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: laird@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:17:12 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:

>Without the cable company's approval, any use of such a device would
>constitute theft of service. 

>2. Installation of such a device would require extensive modification
>to the user's television. There is not a cable company in the world
>that would assume such liability -- they can barely handle the
>technical problems they have now, and adding TV service to their
>responsibilities would result in even MORE complaints.

>>I got only stupid non-answers before.  

>This is a marvelous way of enticing people to respond to you. I saw your
>first posting. When you ask a stupid question, in a stupid way, you 
>get stupid answers.

Thanks for finally explaining why you think it's a stupid question and
pointing out a possible answer.

Also, please note that I have received info about such ("stupid")
units as I described.  No, they're not the kind a cable co. would sell.

Now, that I think about it more, I don't agree with #1 (cable co. would
lose control); the channel information could be provided in the blanking
interval, no?

(Anyone who thinks that that is a stupid question is welcome to ignore it.)

--kyler
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: dleon@seas.smu.edu (David Leon)
Subject: Re: Why converter needed w/ cable-rdy TV?
Organization: School of Engineering and applied science; S.M.U.; Dallas, Tx
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 00:31:21 GMT

In article <Btnz0s.KJv@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) writes:
>In article <17gkb2INNbs9@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU> MJV@brownvm.brown.edu  
>(Marshall Vale) writes:
>  [Re: cable company scrambling all channels, including basic package]
>>   Granted, this system makes it easy to order pay-per-view and change
>> premium channels, sneak previews and the like but I'd chuck any day
>
>How does this make it any easier for the cable company than scrambling  
>premium channels and pay-per-view channels only, which is what my cable  
>system does?
>
>I know there are companies that scramble everything, but I have yet to  
>hear a logical reason for it. After all, scrambling everything is going to  
>lead to lots of angry calls from customers, and probably some  
>cancellations. What do they gain to compensate for that?
>
>--
>Dave Seaman
>ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu

Let's see, they can compensate by charging people for box rental, remote
control rental (!), multiple boxes in a house all while taking advantage
of people who dont know that their tv is cable ready.  You figure that one
person who is samrt enough to tell the cableco off does not cripple the
cableco when it has thousands of people who gladly plunk out $ for boxes.
On top of that, if you want premium channels, you really dont have much
of a choice...

David L. Leon
dleon@seas.smu.edu (explaining why he has a dish now)
From: vpaf5@jane.uh.edu (Kal)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Cable Trouble
Date: 28 Aug 92 02:48:00 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Yesterday, the cable company that services this apartment complex upgraded
us from 18 channels to 55 (wheee!!). I have two "cable-ready" TV's. A 
coax cable comes out from the wall outlet and screws into the back of
each TV. No cable boxes. The problem is, although one TV gets all 55 channels,
The other one, a Sony Trinitron, only gets up to channel 36. Every channel
above that is blank. The TV has a "NORMAL - CATV" slide switch, which is
in the CATV position. The TV is supposed to be cable-ready. The channel
display reads up to 99. Why am I not getting all those other channels?
Can anybody please help? This may be in some FAQ somewhere but I'm at
1200 baud and can't really go through all those messages to find the FAQ,
if one exists. If you can help me, please respond thru E-mail and I will
summarize and post the solutions for the benefit of everybody.

Thanks in advance.

Kal.

vpaf5@jane.uh.edu
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable TV Regulation
Date: 31 Aug 1992 22:45:35 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Aug31.192557.6623@apgea.army.mil> prmiskel@apgea.army.mil (Patricia R. Miskelly <prmiskel>) writes:
>  There was not one
>word of explanation as to exactly how the bill would raise my rates.

I'm not vouching for their truthfulness, but doesn't the following
paragraph provide that explanation?

>>  Congress is considering
>>legislation in September that could force cable companies to pay
>>broadcast TV stations (ABC, CBS, NBC) as much as $1 billion a year.

If cable companies have to pay the networks, they'll presumably pass that
cost on to the subscribers in the form of a rate increase.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: rslugg@med.unc.edu (Robert Slugg)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:03:32 GMT

Cable may not have to compete within a locality against other cable
providers, but they do have to compete against other media.  We chose to
spend our $ on other services, like rental movies, etc.  Of course, with
franchises like Blockbuster closing down the small video stores, even that
outlet is becoming more monopolistic.  As long as you give your cable
provider $ each month, they don't give a damn about your whining on the
net.

Bob

From: donrm@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Don Montgomery)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:27:18 GMT
Subject: Re: MTS Stereo
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv

In rec.video.cable-tv, rcrandall@sc9.intel.com writes:

    In article <92239.092253PATRICKS@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, PATRICKS@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Patrick Stevens) writes:

>     Look in the old issues of "Radio Electronics" magazine.  I think they 
>     printed an article to make something similar to a MTS decoder.  As far
		   [remainder of text deleted]

I got interested in this a couple of years ago and contacted the author
of the MTS article.  He said he didn't have any PC boards left and also
pointed out that it was cheaper to buy a finished product in DAMARK's
catalog.  If I recall, it was called the RECOTRON "FRED" decoder and
sold for ~$30.  I bought one and it works quite well.

My last DAMARK catalog didn't show any decoders, but they appear from
time-to-time.

Don Montgomery, Santa Rosa, CA
donrm@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com

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