HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hyc@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Howard Chu)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:52:50 GMT
Organization: SAR Systems Development & Processing, JPL

In article <1992Sep1.104838.16682@dde.dk> phn@dde.dk (Per H. Nielsen) writes:
>alan@acpub.duke.edu (Alan M. Gallatin) 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).

The Proton monitor/receivers that I've seen have both monitor out and tuner
output jacks, as well as multiple inputs. You could tune a scrambled cable
channel, feed the tuner output to the descrambler, and then feed the
descrambler output to one of the inputs, and you'd be all set. Too bad I
haven't seen this feature on any other brands or models...
-- 
  -- Howard Chu @ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
 ::To the owner of the blue Mazda, license 742-XLT, your headlights are on...::
 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: abl9y@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Andrew B. Lederman)
Subject: Help on descrambler
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:07:22 GMT

I was wondering if anybody could provide some information for me.  I was thinking of buying a Scientific Atlanta 8580 to replace the one I now pay to
rent from the cable company.  My question concerns scrambling.  As I
understand the system now, the cable company sends out a signal to the
box, according to each box's specific address to scramble certain
signals and descramble others.  Furthermoe, if the box does not get a
control signal every so often, it will turn off.

If you buy your own box, the cable company will not have its unique
address in its system, and therefore can't send a signal to scramble a
station.  However, will the box still receive the data control signal?
In other words, will my box quit working after a while because it
hasn't recieved a control signal?  (Usual disclaimer:  Of course I do
not intend to recieve and services for which I am not paying.)

Am I wrong in believing that this will (if it is the correct unit)
descrable all stations?

Pls. email replies to abl9y@Virginia.edu.  Thanks a lot.
From: ss@wpi.WPI.EDU (Scott Streeter)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: surrond a sound
Date: 15 Sep 92 07:47:26
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: jy@eng.ufl.edu's message of 15 Sep 92 03:07:42 GMT

>>>>> On 15 Sep 92 03:07:42 GMT, jy@eng.ufl.edu (jim yousse) said:

jy> I'm considering purchasing a hi-fi vcr and have a question I hope someone 
jy> can clear up.  If I was to record a moive (coming off a sattelite dish), 
jy> which has surround a sound encoded in it, would the playback retain the 
jy> surround a sound?  Has anyone tried this?  Thank for your help.

Yes, it will..
--
                        Scott Streeter
                        ss@wpi.wpi.edu
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 02:17:57 GMT

hougen@uirvlj.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen) writes:

[...]
>I find amusing and distressing the attitude of some people that other
>people should be forced to provide everything for them even including
>entertainment. 
[...]

I like lots of competition in markets even for luxuries.

What I find amusing and distressing is that the cable companies are
fighting the Re-Regulation Law by objecting to a De-Regulation part of
it. The cable companies seem to think that they have a right to
rebroadcast over-the-air TV without having to come to terms with the
broadcasters.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Extending Cable throught house
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:01:08 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <1992Sep13.194744.3694@arizona.edu> petrisko@evax2.engr.arizona.edu writes:
<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.

Yep, I received some e-mail today and after he described where it was, the
lightning arrestor connector came to mind.
-- 
      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
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Can You Identify This TV Channel?
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:56:56 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

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.
<
<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.

There isn't a cable channel 99.  Normally that number is used for a channel
that it can't get at, like A-1 or A-2.  Pull out the manual for your TV and
look up what 99 really points to.

<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.

It sure sounds like the Sci-Fi channel.  But someone who is watching the
sat feed can say for sure.
-- 
      harvard\                          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
      rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
                                   brown@wi.extrel.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:48:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.220716.1167@tfs.com> eric@tfs.com (Eric Smith) writes:
>But if the evil company bought the good company, they had to pay for it.
>That means they were rewarding its owners for their good work in building
>up the new company.  

No.  They were buying out a competitor so that they could
indulge in monopoly pricing.  Perhaps the big company desired
some of the physical capital owned by the small company;
perhaps the small company had a good cash position.  There is
no "reward" involved.  

>That reward will motivate other companies to do the
>same thing.

There is ABSOLUTELY no indication that this will occur.
Whether any new firms enter the cable business in this
city depends upon many factors:  startup costs,
the cost of capital, the local demand curve for cable
service, the cost of purchasing television programming,
availability of skilled labor, etc.  It is just as
easy to imagine a potential competitor
looking at the difficulty of competing with one big
cable company with huge economies of scale, and deciding
that there are better ways to make a profit.  The
monopoly, complete with monopoly pricing, is left intact.

>And if the evil company then proceeded to destroy the value
>of the good company, they wasted that money, and will eventually go broke
>from that habit.

The big company does not have to destroy the value of 
the smaller company.  It merely has to keep out 
competitors.  And the "eventually" going broke does not
follow either; the managers of any firm make thousands
of decisions which affect the overall prosperity of the
firm, and if they "destroy the value" of the small
cable co, they can still make many other wise decisions
to insure a sufficient level of profit.

>It just takes time for these things to work themselves out.  Free markets,
>like all good things in life, need patience.  Quick-fix solutions are
>short sighted and destructive, just like all destructive actions that
>result from lack of patience.

"In the long run, we'll all be dead".  I'd rather take my chances
with quick fix than with no fix.  And if I believed in god, I'd
thank her that I left the Libertarian Party.

BTW, I just heard one of the sponsors of the cable bill, Sen.
Gorton from my state (not exactly a flaming liberal do-gooder!).
He talked about the distortions in the anti-bill commercials
funded by the cable companies, and said that the lies
are not finding much sympathy in Congress.  There is hope yet.
 
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |

Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: neal@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Neal Howard)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:24:12 GMT
Distribution: USA
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

How about just spending all your free time with your head buried in the
Usenet instead of the TV tube? At least net access doesn't cost as much and
for many users, costs nothing.

===============================================================================
Neal Howard                         | '91 XLH-1200
neal@cmptrc.lonestar.org            | DoD # 686
CompuTrac, Inc.                     | Live to Flame, Flame to Live
===============================================================================

Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1371 misc.consumers:16413 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:209
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:05:19 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 [cable TV] tap is already strong
>enough for several TV sets.

Heh heh - not at MY house! ;-)

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 08:37:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.053406.338@scifi.uucp> njs@scifi.uucp (Nicholas J. Simicich) writes:
>Ha!  You must be young: 

Bzzzzztt. Thank you for playing, but YOU LOSE.

Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
From: staffan@ca.serum.kodak.com (Kenneth Staffan (x37507))
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:53:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.021757.30776@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>hougen@uirvlj.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen) writes:
>
>[...]
>>I find amusing and distressing the attitude of some people that other
>>people should be forced to provide everything for them even including
>>entertainment. 
>[...]
>
>I like lots of competition in markets even for luxuries.
>
>What I find amusing and distressing is that the cable companies are
>fighting the Re-Regulation Law by objecting to a De-Regulation part of
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Where can I get a copy of this?  Anybody have it on-line?

Ken
---
staffan@serum.kodak.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:01:31 GMT

Re:  the debate about making a convertor box that is a descramber only.
IT CAN BE DONE.  IT HAS BEEN DONE.  IT WORKS.  THE CABLE & TV MFGS HAVE
AGREED UPON A STANDARD.
Here is the plan.  Plug the cable into the TV.  Demodulate the signal
with the regular TV tuner.  Run that output into an attached plug or
cavity in the back of the TV set.  Plug the cable co descrambler into the
plug. Take the output of the plug back into the vidoe section of the TV
with real descrambled video.  The ONLY reason this type of descrambler is
not in mass production is that the industries are in a classic Catch-22.
The TV mfgs. won't add the plugs to the Tv's until there is enough "demand"
(that is cable companies with the descrambler boxes) and the cable co's
won't mass produce boxes that won't fit on a substantial number of TVs.
There is a J factor here.  Both groups expect digital and/or High definition
TV to be just a few years away.  Either would obsolete the stand alone
descrambler.
Bob  Vogel
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1403 misc.consumers:16502 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:261
From: rcrandall@sc9.intel.com
Subject: decoder facts needed
Organization: Intel CTD
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:03:08 GMT

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.  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: 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 18:01:24 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Sep15.132815.10493@cpqhou.compaq.com> thomasr@cpqhou.UUCP (Thomas Rush) writes:
>Well, this really is the heart of it, isn't it.  
>
>	Problem: Cable TV service is a monopoly and has led to some
>		(many, tremendously large numbers) incidents of 
>		high prices and poor service.
>
>	Wrong Solution: Introduce yet another government agency to
>		regulate this monopoly industry in an attempt to 
>		have the federal government determine what fair 
>		prices and good service are.[...]
>
>	Better Solution: Ensure that no government body limit the 
>		ability of additional firms to enter the cable market. [...]
>
>And with that, the vast majority of your points are answered.
>Why should cable TV be a monopoly industry?

There seem to be a number of technical reasons that make cable a 'natural
monopoly'. Until these are overcome (I can't wait) it seems less evil to
have a regulated monopoly (evil as those are known to be) than an unregulated
one (plently of examples of how bad cable service is now).

The phone company is an example of a bad government regulated monoply slowly
climbing out of the hole it was dug into. New technologies make possible
(and practical) competition and divestiture has been making many things
a lot better (not on the local loop, of course, where a regulated monopoly
still exists).

Look at the other utilities I receive (water, electrical, sewage): they are
regulated, charge reasonable rates, and have decent service. This has been true
in the many places I have lived. Cable has always been the snottiest,
hardest to deal with utility I had to deal with when moving somewhere.

I also don't buy the "if you don't like it cancel or move". I can't put up
a dish, I can't receive the local multi-channel competitor, DBS doesn't
exist yet, local broadcast is rinky dink, and the one video tape the
local video store has to rent is usually rented by 2pm.

Cable isn't really a necessity, but arguments could be made that phone service
(as most of us have it) is not a necessity either. For the emergency type
calls that most people justify phone service as being 'necessary' for a 10
or 20 person party line would be sufficient. But we regulate that industry
heavily so that we all get private lines (to read netnews on of course) for
a reasonable fee, even though we are dealing with a monopoly. I see cable
in the same boat, if not as far along the curve as phone service.

-Eric Varsanyi
 ewv@craycos.com
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:07:20 GMT

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.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,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: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:07:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.015317.13819@news2.cis.umn.edu> grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad) writes:
>Actually, I won't tell you that you can start your own cable company.
>Nor will I tell you to move.  

Thank you.  
>
>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.  

Yes.  There are many barriers to entry, such as forbidding
new cable co's from using existing utility poles.
This is in addition to the usual initial capital 
expenses, like equipment.  

>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.

Don't know about you city (or mine, for that matter); I never
tried.  If you can find who in city govt is responsible
for cable regulation, and they aren't on their coffee break,
they would probably burst out laughing.

I have heard of some examples of new or existing cable co's
trying to "invade" a previously exclusive area.  Most
of the attempts were halted by lawsuits brought by
the existing monopoly provider.  There was also
a thread in this group recently which discussed the
attempts by municipalities to not renew cable 
franchises, and run the cable system as a public 
utility.  The resulting threats and lawsuits by
the affected cable co were predictable.

If you could start your own cable co in an area with
existing cable service, and you could overcome
all financial / legal obstacles, what programming
would you carry?  Do you think that you would be able
to buy channel <x> if your competitor is owned by
the company that also owns channel <x>?

>busin


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

Newsgroups: rec.video
From: tsui@ils.nwu.edu
Subject: sony801 prices
Organization: Institute for the Learning Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:29:32 GMT

I'm gonna start looking at V801 and V5000 camcorders pretty soon.  Anyone out
there have any good experiences with any mail order places?  I try to avoid
anyplace in NY.

Most people here are pretty up on things so I trust your opinions

much thanx
Josh Tsui
INSTITUTE FOR THE LEARNING SCIENCES
From: andrew@frip.WV.TEK.COM (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: How accurate is your VCR's clock?
Date: 11 Sep 92 00:28:14 GMT
Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix Color Printers, Wilsonville, Oregon

[]

	"I was under the assumption that they would use the 60Hz line
	frequency (at least in the US), which I've been told is quite
	accurate (at least over a 24-hour period)."

It's dead-on accurate over a period of years.  The power company
watches every cycle, and if the count varies from its expected value,
they alter the frequency until they catch up or down.

But VCRs clocks are expected to keep time even when not connected to
the mains, so the clock uses an internal crystal.  Some of these
crystals are notoriously bad -- errors of 2% are not unheard of.

  -=- Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
                       (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: rjn@FC.HP.COM (Bob Niland)
Subject: Re: Looking for serial controllable LDs
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:40:04 GMT
Reply-To: rjn@FC.HP.COM
Organization: Hewlett-Packard/WSY Ft.Collins,CO,USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

> djk@world.std.com (Dan J Keldsen) writes:
> So, there is a program called MAX for the Macintosh that is basically a 
> toolkit for MIDI and Multimedia applications. There happens to be an
> object for MAX that allows control of laserdiscs that have serial ports
> on 'em. Would anybody happen to have a list of such LDs (new or old)
> that I could check out?

The software may be expecting to communicate either with an industrial LD
player with RS-232C (such as a Pioneer LD-V2200, -V4200, -V6000 or -V8000)
or with an IR adaptor for a consumer player (such as "The Box" from Voyager
Co.)  The interactive software needed to control access to a given LD title
is normally supplied on a floppy with the disc media.  Typical consumer LD
media does NOT include such software.  You need to go after educational
titles, which are typically many times more expensive than entertainment
titles, and are not carried by normal LD outlets.

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland      Internet: rjn@FC.HP.COM               3404 East Harmony Road
                CompuServe:  71044,2124               Ft Collins CO 80525-9599

This article represents only the opinion[s] of its author, and is not an
official or unofficial position of, or statement by, the Hewlett-Packard
Company.  The text is provided for informational purposes only.  It is
supplied without warranty of any kind.
Newsgroups: rec.video,rec.games.video,sci.electronics