HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:40:21 GMT

>1)Does such a box exist?
>2)Are cable companies using it?
>3)Can I demand such a box from my cable company?
1-Yes, at least in theory and prototype.
2-No
3-Yes, but they can't get one.
The situation is probably best described as a Catch-22 of technology.
The EIA (Electronic Industries Assn) which most TV manufacturers belong
to and the NCTA (National Cable TV Assn) which most CATV companies belong 
to have agreed upon the technical specs for a plug to go into a TV.  It
is sometimes referred to as EIA Multiport.  It is actually manufactured
and is available on some more expensive TV sets.  The typical CATV 
convertor box consists of two major components, a tuner and a descrambler.
The tuner is essentially the same as your TV's and the CATV co doesn't
really need it.  Its in the convertor boxes because when scrambling first
came out TV's were not "cable compatible" (they had no mid-band channel
tuning capability, chsA-H).  Once in production in millions of boxes 
quantities, its cheaper to keep putting them in than to change.
Once the TV manufacturers and the Cable folks got together and came up 
with a plan it was too late--why??  In a word-DIGITAL.  Everyone is expecting
TV to go digital, possibly high definition and therefore the tv makers, who
are in a very competitive market where $2 in parts costs makes a big
difference, don't want to add in the multiport cost.  The cable convertor
manufacturers would make "descramblers only" to fit the plug if CATV
companies could guarantee them enough orders to make the production runs
probably even break even.  Lacking the TV sets to plug them into, the CATV
companies can't.  Ergo-no stand alone descramblers, although its technically
possible, more consumer friendly, and the specifications exist.
Should the EIA and NCTA have gotten together sooner?  Yes.  Easy to say
but frankly the EIA wasn't much interested in building in CATV plugs
when CATV was only in a 20-even 50% of TV homes, which wasn't that long
ago (early 1970's).  Hindsight is always 20-20.
Bob Vogel
From: long-morrow@cs.yale.edu (H. Morrow Long)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Extending Cable throught house
Date: 11 Sep 1992 13:24:52 -0400
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sparky.cf.cs.yale.edu


In article <3865@cvbnetPrime.COM>, fdeming@cvbnet@prime.com (Frank Deming {x6088}) writes:
|>   I have now tried to hook in my other TV sets to Cable. 
|>   1st I installed a 1-4 splitter to replace their 1-1.(Can they now claim I am
|>   tampering with their equipment?). 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. There is about 3 ranges
|>   of channels that should be pay-extra, all the rest should be viewable. Much to
|>   my annoyance, all of the local stations are above 13 and not viewable upstairs,
|>   without their box. 

Are you sure the local stations are not viewable and are scrambled?
That doesn't make too much sense...

What does your set mean by cable ready (is it just that there is a catv
coax connecttor in the back or can it receive STD,IRC &/or HRC cable channels)?

It sounds to me more like your TV is trying to tune the channels above 13 as
UHF channels (when the are not on almost all cable systems, cable systems use a
different range closer to the standard FM radio and VHF TV broadcast channels).

The first thing you need to do is determine if your 'cable-ready' TV
allows you to switch from 'broadcast' frequency channels (where the
channel numbers above 13 are UHF stations) to 'cable' or 'catv' channels
where the channel numbers are in the 'A' range, etc.   You may also
be able to select the type of CATV frequencies being used (this is
very easy and simple to understand if you have a TV with on-screen
programming via menus).  Most are STD but if you still don't get all
of the channels that you do with a box then you might need to try IRC
and HRC.  Note - there are some (rare) systems that don't use either
of the 3 catv frequency allocation schemes (so that they can compress
or move around the channels on the freq bandwidth), in that case all
bets are off - you can to use the cabal disservices box.


						- Morrow
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: roberts@triton.unm.edu (Robert Smathers)
Subject: Re: Can You Identify This TV Channel?
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 14:19:22 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


What you are seeing are the promos for the SCI-Fi Channel.  I guess
your cable system appears to be one of the "few" cable systems
so far to carry Sci Fi.  Sci Fi will officially launch Sept. 24.

Robert

-=-=-=-=-=
Robert Smathers -- (roberts@triton.unm.edu)  Albuquerque, NM USA
                                                         (-
South Scanner Satellite Services Chart vol 1 num 6 avl. ||          __/
UNZIP for UNIX also available!                          --          \/
NORTH AMRICAN SIGHTINGS contributor, Satnews magazine               /|
Moderator, UNI Satellite TV Conference                               |\


Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re-regulation bill S-12 available.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 02:18:11 GMT
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES

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).

I only have S-12 available, and although I thought I would type up the
House bill too (HR-4850), I have decided not too.  S-12 and HR-4850 are
very similar on most points.  There are a few minor differences, but keep
in mind that neither bill will be the final bill.  Both bills are going
into a joint House/Senate conference, where they will iron out the
differences between the two.  

HR-4850 is worthwhile reading... (anyone else want to type it?) but
it there is anything worse than typing 100k of legal definitions and
requirements from block letters... it is typing the same legalese from
block script.  The House bill is printed in a cursive font, and I would
really go bonkers trying to keep my place while typing.  I sometimes
wish I were a touch typist... but I have to live with being a seek and
pound typist.

FOR S-12  email: tweek@netcom.com


Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: ddebry@itchy.dsd.es.com (David DeBry)
Subject: Re: The Muppet Show
Description: Tall, skinny, kinda goofy looking
Uucp: ...!uunet!dsd.es.com!ddebry 
Reply-To: David DeBry <ddebry@dsd.es.com> 
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Design Systems Division 
Date: 10 Sep 92 02:38:15 GMT
Irc: Z-Grue (Zorkian Grue) 
Detailed-Info: finger ddebry@cc.utah.edu 
Day-Phone: (801) 582-5847 x4721 
Internet: ddebry@dsd.es.com 

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!


--
\\\ "No plans on a Friday night?  The day people get paid?  The night \\\
\\\  people get what rhymes with paid?"                               \\\
\\\                                   - David Addison, "Moonlighting" \\\
\\ ddebry@dsd.es.com \ ddebry@cc.utah.edu \ debry@cadehp0.eng.utah.edu \\
David DeBry \ Email any address. \ Finger ddebry@cc.utah.edu for details.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: eric@tfs.com (Eric Smith)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: TFS
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:05:59 GMT

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.
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1427 misc.consumers:16566 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:288
From: eric@tfs.com (Eric Smith)
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 10:08:52 GMT
Organization: TFS

In article <FSF.92Sep14134718@hpic006.mentorg.com> fsf@hpic006.mentorg.com (Rick Farnbach) writes:
...
>A "natural" monopoly is one in which the cost of providing services goes
>down the more subscribers you have.  An example is electric utilities.

So, newspapers and software companies are natural monopolies?

...
>must raise its rates.  Company A, on the other hand, continues to lower
>its rates.  Company B quickly loses all of its subscribers making

Maybe company B should have learned how to wage a decent price war.
The free market is very cruel to those who can't or won't learn.

...
>Natural monopolies are the failing of the free market.  To cover this

Military power is the failing of the free market.  Without military power
opposing it, the free market would be the undisputable ruler of the world.
The free market doesn't care about natural monopolies, because without
military power to enforce them, they would disappear.

...
>even to Adam Smith, bills like the Cable TV Consumer Protection act are
>appropriate.  The free market system still works under such bills,

Good thing dead people don't read these newsgroups.  The flames would
be a nightmare.

...
>On another note, being the good free market capitalist that I am, I

You forgot your smilies: :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Date: 5 Sep 92 05:31:29 GMT
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

Referring to mypost #464 to this conference:
The descrambler which has been prototyped CAN descramble only "subscribed"
channels.  They can do everthing that todays present cable TV convertors do.
They just use the TV set tuner for the tuner.

Admitted, they would not function on most current TV sets without modificationHowever the modification is not really extensive, certainly not when done at 
time of manufacture.  The cable companies are in no way opposed to such a
device and would prefer not to have to expalin to customers why they don't
exist.  It would be a bad business decision to produce such descramblers
now with digital and HDTV so close.  While it would offer more subscriber
convience the initial investement is very high with all indications that a very
short time period exists to pay back that investemnt, maybe 2-3 years.
Bob Vogel
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Date: 4 Sep 92 05:42:38 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <laird.715466064@stable.ecn.purdue.edu> laird@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
<
<Are there any descramblers that don't have tuners built-in and
<aren't tightly coupled to a special tuner?

Nope.

<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.
<
<I got only stupid non-answers before.  I have a tough time believing
<that people on this newsgroup don't know about this.

Can't be done.  The technology of today's scrambling techniques won't allow it.

There is talk of future technology that will have descramblers built in to TVs,
VCRs, etc., that use a standard.  Then the current problem will go away.

All kinds of things are on the drawing board, but nothing currently cab sit
in your house and do what you suggest.
-- 
      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
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1382 misc.consumers:16458 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:229
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
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 05:11:24 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

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.

}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.

I would agree with you if cable companies were not local monopolies.
If cable were a free market, wherein I could shop around and compare
South Bay to TCI to Gill to whoever and pick the one I liked best; if
my neighbor could do the same using HIS criteria of "best" and pick a
different company; if they all had to actually compete with each other
to try to win my dollars, then I would say keep the government out of
it.  But as it is, I have NO WAY to get better cable service.  I have
NO WAY to get a channel that the one-and-only company available to me
decides not to carry.  I have basically no say in the matter whatsoever.
So since the cable companies have no incentive to provide decent service
at a fair price, I don't have much objection to the government stepping
in and doing a little watching out for my interests.

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.

--James Preston
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:04:37 GMT

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.

The difference between him and a cable company is that he isn't a
monopoly, and the cable company is.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: njs@scifi.uucp (Nicholas J. Simicich)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: Nick Simicich, Peekskill, NY
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:34:06 GMT

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

Ha!  You must be young: I can tell you tales.....The phone company was
an expert at finger pointing when all there was to point at was other
parts of themselves.  Talking to my wife, service has actually gotten
better in the long lines area.  The regulated monopoly (NYNEX) has
gotten worse.


-- 
Nick Simicich - uunet!bywater!scifi!njs - njs@watson.ibm.com
SSI #AOWI 3958, HSA 318, NAUI #14065
Join the movement ---  turn 'to bush' into a verb.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 16:11:48 GMT

Re: why cable cos would care about additional outlets/TV's hooked up
About two years ago the FCC substantially increased their fines for signal
leakage.  They now stand at $25,000 per occurance.  Lets say the FCC drops
in and checks the leakage on cable system "x".  They find 25 "customers"
who hooked up their own drops and/or outlets and leak above the allowable
level.  They can legally fine that system $625,000, EVEN IF THE SYSTEM HAD
CHECKED THAT AREA TWO WEEKS AGO AND NO LEAKAGE EXISTED AND *ALL* THE LEAKAGE
WAS DUE TO ILLEGAL HOOKUPS.  Will the FCC really do this?  YES!  They will
probably not levy the maximum fine and they will take into account the past
record of performance of that system incontrolling their leaks.  No previous
problems could be just a warning, but a fine is likely.  The more grevious
the previous problems the higher the fines.  The FCC also has and HAS used
the power to require the cable system to shut off problem channels or all
channels if the situation requires.  If you ran a cable company, would you
allow your customers to hook up additional outlets?  The potential problems
are very different from telephone.  In additiona cable does not have the
central office control (ability to disconnect)if a customer line is generating
interference back into the system.
Bob Vogel
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 07:36:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.221537.9269@cgrg.ohio-state.edu> flip@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Flip Phillips) writes:
>Scuze' my ignorance, who (whom?) is TCI?

The cable megalopoly whose local branch responded "Never" when asked when
they would start carrying the Sci-Fi Channel. Despite being able to find
three open channels to carry the CrippleCast, they can't find one free one
now.
From: jy@eng.ufl.edu (jim yousse)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: surrond a sound
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:07:42 GMT
Organization: Digital Design

I'm considering purchasing a hi-fi vcr and have a question I hope someone 
can clear up.  If I was to record a moive (coming off a sattelite dish), 
which has surround a sound encoded in it, would the playback retain the 
surround a sound?  Has anyone tried this?  Thank for your help.
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:18:13 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <1992Sep8.221537.9269@cgrg.ohio-state.edu> flip@cgrg.ohio-state.edu (Flip Phillips) writes:
<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?

The number or two or three largest cable TV company in the states.
-- 
      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
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1402 misc.consumers:16501 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:260
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: 13 Sep 92 17:03:26 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <xcxnc_n.tenney@netcom.com> tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:

>In article <1992Sep12.201355.7505@panix.com> habs@panix.com (Harry Shapiro) writes:

>>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.


>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.

>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

I agree with what Glenn says, but there still is a solution, but
that requires that cable users are willing to work together and
to look out for there own interests (i.e., go against what
I said ealier and *NOT* go to city hall).

The average cable system has about 20% churn a year. That means
that 20% of the customer base moves away or cancles service. Thus
for a system to grow the customer base or even keep it even they
have to get at least 20% new customers a year.

The simple solution is to decide that you are willing to fight
you cable company by cancling your service. If you got 30 to 50%
of your town to do this with you, their profit base would rapidly
decline. If you cancled when your current bill was due the company
would face rapid financial hardships. If they are operated by
a larger company, quick action will most likely be taken. If the
are a small independent company then it is likely to take several
months for the situtation to come to a head.

The down side of all this is that while consumer reports rated
cable the *worst* of any service they have ever rated, 50% of
the people surveyed stated they would never give-up their cable.

To make a change means have people stop looking for the government
to be the idealized parents of their childhood and to move forward
taking responsibility for their own lives. Clearly it is easier
to send a letter to congress urging them to action...
-- 
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,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate