HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfr@glitter.RedBrick.COM
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: decoder facts needed
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:03:50 GMT
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA

In article <1992Sep9.100308.1@sc9.intel.com> rcrandall@sc9.intel.com writes:
>Is there anyone out there in the south bay area that knows what kind of 
>scrambling system is used on South Bay Cablevision?  I need to know because
>I want to buy a box so I don't have to rent it every month.  Of course I would
>pay for the service.

  RIGHT!!!! :-) :-) :-) :-)

  I was hoping to get a box with audio and video out,
>perhaps the super-vhs jack for better picture.  I cannot just know the model
>number of the box I have from the cable company, but need to know the details.
>Thanks in advance.
>Rob 
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: hull@ibmb0.cs.uiuc.edu (David Hull)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Reply-To: David Hull <hull@cs.uiuc.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:56:39 GMT

In article <yJFqqB3w165w@micro-c.mcds.com> speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers) writes:
>   As I understand it, the signal from the tap is already strong
>enough for several TV sets.  So NO additional power is required.

rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade) writes:
>as i recall...if you split the line within your house you only affect your
>own sets signals...as in 100% in split in half does not give each set 50%...
>but maybe only 40% each...you lose some signal power in the split...but 
>that only affects your house so if you are happy who cares.

The cable TV cable is a transmission line.  From the cable company's
point of view, your house looks like a 50 ohm (or is it 75 ohm?) load
on their network, no matter whether you have one TV or a million.
However, each time you put a splitter on the line you cut your signal,
so if you have a lot you may want to use a signal booster.

A friend also told me that most splitters don't have the transformer
to do impedence matching, so if that's the case it affects things too
(if the impedence isn't matched correctly, it causes reflections which
will create ghosts).

-David Hull
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: mmeltzer@wam.umd.edu
Subject: The Muppet Show
Reply-To: mmeltzer@wam.umd.edu
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:58:39 GMT


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.

Thanks!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
			mmeltzer@wam.umd.edu is

			     Marc Meltzer
		      President of The Meltz Inc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:32:09 GMT

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.

>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.

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: flip@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Flip Phillips)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: OSU, Advanced Computing Center for Arts & Design
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:15:37 GMT

In article <4015@vidiot.UUCP> brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.161148.25025@ultb.isc.rit.edu> rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
><Re: why cable cos would care about additional outlets/TV's hooked up

>I have a surprise for you....TCI deregulated connections a few years ago.

Scuze' my ignorance, who (whom?) is TCI?

-- flip
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1450 misc.consumers:16627
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:19:04 GMT
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <BuLLoH.B00@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:

>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...".

This is the urban myth that companies such as Bell of Canada who are
facing divestiture would love to have the public believe. The truth of
the matter is that telephone service has never been more reliable, nor
so easy to have problems handled as it is today.

No long distance company is going to engage in this nonsense because it
knows that if it provides unsatisfactory service to the customer, he
can go somewhere else. And even in those rare cases where the LEC is
not cooperative, the IEC will step in and look after the customer's
interests in order to keep him satisfied.

>You might never have gotten the problem solved before divestiture, but
>you didn't get a lot of excuses and finger pointing. 

You are damn tootin'. It was very difficult to get some problems solved
before divestiture. Now, if you have problems at all, they are solved
quite readily. But I have never seen this "finger pointing" that you
claim exists, at least not since divestiture.

I make no statement concerning the advantages or drawbacks of a
particular monopoly. But, please, if you are going to use examples, get
in sync with reality. The divestiture of AT&T (and the elimination of its
monopoly) was the best thing that ever happened to telephone service.
The destruction of THAT monopoly greatly benefitted the telephone-using
public.
-- 
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Re-regulation bill S-12 available.
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:49:46 GMT

In article <w0snca=.tweek@netcom.com> tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.135351.4273@clpd.kodak.com> staffan@ca.serum.kodak.com (Kenneth Staffan (x37507)) writes:
>>
>>Where can I get a copy of this?  Anybody have it on-line?
>
>I am in the process of aranging an FTP site for the Senate bill S.12 which
>I have typed into a file.  Text format is 100K and zipped, it is 30K.  Until
>I get the file onto the FTP site, I will gladly email to you
>(zipped-uuencoded).

Senate Bill 12 is available for anonymous ftp from ruby.oce.orst.edu
as either pub/things/senate.bill.12.txt or senate.bill.12.txt.Z

Notice: all anonymous ftp transactions are logged; thus 'anonymous' it
isn't.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Extending Cable throught house
From: petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu (William Petrisko)
Date: 13 Sep 92 19:47:44 MST
Reply-To: petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona, College of Engineering and Mines, Tucson

In article <4065@vidiot.UUCP>, brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot) writes:
>In article <BuFFMA.Gr9@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
><In article <3865@cvbnetPrime.COM> fdeming@cvbnet@prime.com (Frank Deming {x6088}) writes:
><>channels(Disney, Showtime, MovieChannel). The cable company installed in the
><>basement a 1-1 splitter(probably to at least attempt to prevent my own expansion).
><
><Since that would not prevent your own "expansion", it is unlikely that
><they did it for that reason.
>
>I'd like to know what a 1-1 splitter is.  Sounds like a barrel connector to me.

Same here...either that or the block the grounding wire is connected to.
-- 
bill petrisko                                  petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu
         aka n7lwo                           ...!uunet!bit!modsco!adirect!bill
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1437 misc.consumers:16596 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:299
From: ewv@craycos.com (Eric Varsanyi)
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 17:39:48 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Sep12.000740.14723@news2.cis.umn.edu> 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.

Well, perhaps we should repeal all the anti-trust and SEC laws against
insider trading. I am against government meddling in most cases, even
when it hurts, but in the case of a 'natural monopoly' (another posters
term) I can see the value of government protection in some cases. The various
safety regulations that car companies must comply with are another good
example, the government regulating what theoretically should be free market.

>Perhaps we should look at your chosen field and determine whether
>your company is being too greedy.  Maybe the government should fix
>your salary (let's say at 30% of its current level). After all, you
>don't need all that much money to get by.

The trick is that my company can hire someone else to do what I do if they
feel I am 'charging' them too much (or they're not getting enough for what
they pay). I can go work for someone else if I feel underpaid. That is
free market. I'm not the only kernel programmer in town, able to demand
a higher and higher salary until the company finds it better to do without
a kernel programmer at all than be extorted.

-Eric Varsanyi
 Cray Computer Corporation
 ewv@craycos.com
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1446 misc.consumers:16619 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:309
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 20:20:44 GMT

covert@cactus.org (Richard Covert) writes:
>
>Well, I have a bunch of relatives who live in Champagin-Urbana
>Ill and they tell me that CableVision is owned by HBO. They can't
>get SHOWTIME and The Movie Channel because HBO won't allow them
>on THEIR cable.

Actually, the lines of ownership/crossownership go something like:

NBC-CBNC/Cablevision-SportsChannel-AMC-Bravo (NBC is partial investor)

ABC-ESPN

Time-Warner-HBO-Cinemax

TCI-Prime Sports

Viacom-Showtime-TMC


Northern Manhattan was once run by a Viacom system that was sold to
Time-Warner Cable; supposedly, south Manhattan had HBO and northern
Manhattan had Showtime.  The NHL U.S. national contract belonged to
SportsChannel America for the past four years (here's where I come
into the picture (-;) and its coverage was spotty because few systems
(most of them Cablevision-owned) had SCA as a basic channel and just
as few had a regional pay-tier SportsChannel (metro New York might be
the only area to have both SC's, but as part of a joint package).
There were some conflicts in those areas where a local franchise had
exclusive coverage with a Prime outlet and TCI blocked access by SC to
their systems until some barter arrangements were made near the end of
the last hockey season (since the cable sports market is saturated),
by trading SC equity to TCI for access.  When the NHL announced a 25
Game-of-the-Week series with ESPN on basic tier plus the final two
playoff rounds in May, they were sued by SCA (who claim first right of
refusal) and the case comes before a court on Wednesday (ironically,
the head of Cablevision won a bid to buy up most of the New York
Islanders ... quite a spiderweb).

With all the past and present turf wars waged by cable entities, it is
not unusual for them to agree on joint ventures (e.g., Comedy Central
is a merger of Warner and Viacom comedy networks) one moment and then
be suing each other in court on another matter after lunch.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Extending Cable throught house
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:34:56 GMT

In article <3865@cvbnetPrime.COM> fdeming@cvbnet@prime.com (Frank Deming {x6088}) writes:
>channels(Disney, Showtime, MovieChannel). The cable company installed in the
>basement a 1-1 splitter(probably to at least attempt to prevent my own expansion).

Since that would not prevent your own "expansion", it is unlikely that
they did it for that reason.

>  1st I installed a 1-4 splitter to replace their 1-1.(Can they now claim I am
>  tampering with their equipment?). 

Maybe. 

>  I hooked up the cable-ready TV in my 
>  Master Bedroom. I get cable channels 3-12, then nothing after this except
>  an occasional channel. 13 is the Disney channel. 

So, are you saying that channel 13 is blank, or is channel 13 receiving
the scrambled Disney Channel?

In either case, you have probably mis-set your cable ready TV. There is
most likly a switch somewhere which will change it from "off-air" mode
to "cable" mode.

>  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

What interference? Is there another problem you aren't mentioning?

>  wants an extra $8/mo for each additional box. I would consider $3. 

Do you also go into a restaurant and tell them that you would pay $3 for
their $8 meals and expect them to bend over?

>  Additionally, what do I need to hook up a non-cable-ready TV.

any of:

1) A cable box. 
2) A block converter.
3) A wire.

depending on the functions you want. See the ads in Radio Electronics.


Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1363 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:201
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:28:29 GMT
Followup-To: uiuc.consumers
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:

>In article <Bu08EC.1AD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>(stuff deleted)...

>>In article <1992Sep3.040116.15218@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>>>In article <BtyytA.DLs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>>
>>>Better yet, how about encouraging like minded subscribers to petition
>>>your local government to allow competition in the cable tv marketplace.
>>>Maybe then. you will actually see cable companies that must take
>>>customer preferences into account in their programming and rates.
>>
>>As I said, no real alternative. ESPECIALLY in the short term.
>>
>If you don't encourage competition in the short run, you'll never
>see competition in the long run.  You can't complain that you are
>feeling the effects of a lack of competition (high prices) if you
>don't allow competition in the first place.

On the local level, competition on a home by home basis has nothing
to do with getting the government to allow it.  It just isn't 
technically possible or economically feasible right now.

A cable company invests a lot of money to lay cable in a particular
area.  They make that investment because they know that approximately
60% of the area will buy their service.  Why should a second cable
company invest the same money, for only a portion of that market
when they can just get their own exlusive franchise?  Its only 
worth it, if at all, in highly populated areas.

It isn't that the local municipalities want to protect the cable
companies and not allow competition.  What they are not allowing is
the running of multiple sets of wires.  If all the cable services
could *share* a wire, like the long distance telephone companies
do, then that would be a different story.

-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
From: mhunt@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Hunt)
Subject: Why can't a VCR be used as a cable converter?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 02:22:29 GMT


 
 Why can't a VCR be used in place of a cable converter before the
descrambler?  If the VCR doesn't 'blank out' scrambled channels,
why doesn't it work? 


Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1385 misc.consumers:16471 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:237
From: habs@panix.com (Harry Shapiro)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:13:55 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <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?

>John
>-- 
>John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
>Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
>Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
>jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
>Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.



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.
-- 
Harry Shapiro  				      habs@panix.com
List Administrator of the Extropy Institute Mailing List
Private Communication for the Extropian Community since 1991
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: ramsey@spot.Colorado.EDU (L. Ron Hubbard)
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 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.

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate,sci.econ
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 08:46:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.210559.18395@tfs.com> eric@tfs.com (Eric Smith) writes:
>In article <71IG03C481So00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
>>Oh, and keep in mind that it was the government that created that
>>monopoly in the first place, so they kind of have a duty to oversee
>>what they created.
>
>So we pay them taxes to maintain the monopoly, and then we pay them more
>taxes to oversee it and prevent it from acting like a monopoly?
>Sounds sort of like the combination of tobacco subsidies and spending money
>to try to get people to stop smoking.

Just another two examples to prove that the free market is most often
the better option.

Mark

Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 02:05:27 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.040116.15218@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>>the bullet and subscribe to cable, myself included. Believe me, if I had
>>room for a dish, I would dump cable in a second. At present, however, I
>>have no real alternative. :-(
>>
>How about listening to the radio, reading books or buying videos?
>Better yet, how about encouraging like minded subscribers to petition
>your local government to allow competition in the cable tv marketplace.
>Maybe then. you will actually see cable companies that must take
>customer preferences into account in their programming and rates.

I can't speak for all locations, but I (as a local elected official
in my township) would welcome a competitive cable system.  The situation
here is that the existing cable companies seem to agree amongst themselves
as to what territories they each will cover and none of them encroach
on the other.  We have two companies in our town and neither has
an exclusive franchise.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,rec.video.production
From: klopfens@andy.bgsu.edu (Bruce Klopfenstein)
Subject: Cable TV and Remote Controls
Followup-To: rec.video.cable-tv
Keywords: RCD, remote
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:18:49 GMT

I am tracing the history of television remote control growth
in the U.S.  Remotes took off with VCRs, TV sets, and cable TV
converter boxes.  It's very difficult to find any information
on cable converter growth.  Can anyone offer any insights as
to when cable TV companies started installing converters *with
remotes*?  Any actual sources would be especially helpful,
but I'll gladly accept any information I can get.

Thanks.


-- 

Bruce C. Klopfenstein             |  klopfens@andy.bgsu.edu
Department of Telecommunications  |  klopfenstein@bgsuopie.bitnet
322 West Hall                     |  klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv