HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Regulation
Date: 26 Jul 92 02:41:20 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In article <1992Jul25.154453.2462@cs.umb.edu> edwardp@ra.cs.umb.edu (Edward P. Piecewicz) writes:
> Just last week, the FCC had given the telephone companies the OK to go 
> into the cable television business.

Sort of...the FCC changed the rules so telephone companies are no longer
prohibited from using their wiring for delivery of TV services.  The FCC
will still have to aprove of any system before it goes into operation.
The FCC also commented that they many not aprove of any telephone system
that competes with an existing cable-tv system.  This might mean no cable
tv by telephone line at all if you are already wired for cable, or it might
mean that they will not aprove of any overlapping channels.

> Telephone lines already can send and receive video signals, so why not 
> cable television???

Regular 9.6 dial-up phone lines cannot carry TV.  They can carry slow
scan B&W, which is what the video phone uses.  A twisted pair phone
wire does not have the bandwidth to carry video signals, rather, the
video would have to be converted into another format, such as digital.
The resulting digital stream has more data than a 9.6 dial-up line can
handle.  So you need something like a 56k or T-1 line.  And the signal
conversion equipment is currently very expensive.  This is how a video
conferencing system works.

With a ton of cash and a very expensive phone line, you could get one
channel of video and audio into your home.  Having a 30 channel cable
system is out of the question, unless you put a tuner for each household
at the telephone office (and only the currently selected channel comes
down over the wire).

There is currently a cable-tv by telephone line experiment running in
Amery Wisconsin.  I am still trying to figure out how it works.  If anyone
knows, please post the details.  A friend who lives there claims that
the modular phone jack on his wall connects to a cable box, then goes
into this TV by coax.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu (Not A Random Name)
Subject: Re: cable converter question
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 06:55:53 GMT

M02449@mwvm.mitre.org (Joe Gems) writes:

>In article <17JUL199215234956@sigma.tamu.edu>
>rkb6116@sigma.tamu.edu (Mr. Weather) writes:
> 
>>
>>Earlier, M02449@mwvm.mitre.org (Joe Gems) writes...
>>
>>>*converters* just tune any input frequency that they can receive to the output
>>>frequency they're set for -- i.e., they just, in effect, display unscrambled
>>>channels
>>>*decoders* unscramble signals that come in scrambled -- for some units,
>>>decoders are available that are add-ons (to the converter box), but, for other
>>>units, only a(n expensive) combined converter/decoder is available

No, I don't think that is quite right.  From what I have seen and read you
need a BOX and either an EPROM chip or an external descrambler (depending on
what type of system the cable in your area uses).

>>Okay, well then is it possible to purchase a box to connect between the TV and
>>the cable that will give me all the channels available, including HBO, etc..,
>>without going to the cable company?  Or does only the cable company have the
>>equipment to unscramble their services?
> 
>yes, it is possible for you to buy such a box, but it is not legal to use one
>without the cable company's permission (and good luck!)

This is not exactly true.  The legalities of this issue are still be hammered
out.  So far, the only sure way to get in trouble is if you don't pay for
cable AT ALL.  If you pay for basic cable and watch the "premium" channels you
have a very good chance of getting off in the highly unlikely event you are
ever caught.

Also, if you pay for basic and premium channels and want a SECOND TV in your
home on the system, there is no reason you have to pay the cable company an
monthly fee for that second hook-up.  You can buy a descrambler box for that
machine and use it without breaking any laws or ethical standards, as long as
you don't watch anything you don't pay for.

>>How much would I typically expect to pay (low end) for such a box? (if I can
>>buy one...)
> 
>depends on the system - somewhere in the $100-$300 range is typical (I know of
>only two states wherein companies advertising such gear exist - Florida and
>California - and in neither place can they legally sell the unit in-state)

Nah, not nearly that much.  A good TVT-3 Pan for a Jerhold based system will
run you about $50-60 bucks.  A EPROM for a Zenith will run you about $15 but
you have to own a box (the EPROM has to be soldered to some pins inside the
box).  Jerhold's seem to be the most common system, and for those the Pans
work quite well (from what I've seen... this area uses a Zenith based system
and that is much harder to defeat).

There are places in Michgan and New York and other states.  You can pick up a
publication called "Nuts and Volts" for more info.

>>thanks
> 
>You're welcome. (BTW, I don't think it's a very good idea.)

I wouldn't recommend it myself, but it is very common.

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: davelett@athena.mit.edu (Richard Sun)
Subject: Re: Pitiful cable picture
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 11:33:05 GMT

In article <64311@hydra.gatech.EDU> gb7@prism.gatech.EDU (Joe Bradley) writes:
>I'm trying to understand why the picture I receive from my cable is
>so pitiful. I have 7 outlets in my home, which of course are connected
>to several 2 or 3-way splitters heading back to where the cable comes into
>the house. I have disconnected the cable coming into the house from
>the distribution system and connected it directly to a TV. This produces
>a very good picture except for a few of the upper channels (35-40 on cable)
>which are slightly fuzzy. When the cable is connected normally, most of
>the channels above 30 are unwatchable on every set in the house.
>
>A serviceman from the cable company has come out and said the power is turned
>up to the max at the curb and there is nothing he can do. I have tried
>inserting an amplifier just after the cable comes into the house but before
>the first splitter. This makes the picture worse! The amp has a gain of
>16-24 dB over 5-600 MHz. I have even tried another amp of a different type
>but with the same result.
>
>Does this sound like something is wrong with the signal distribution system
>in my house or is the cable company supplying me with too weak of a signal?
>How could the amps make the picture worse (snowier)?
>
>Any comments would be appreciated.

It appears that you are doing your best to get a good cable picture...
you only have one set connected and you have even bought an amp to try
to improve.  Just remember that even though the cable company is a monopoly,
they face losing their license if they treat you badly, after all, you are
paying them good money, no?

Your best course of action is to:

(1) Talk to a service representative and tell them their distribution system
is too weak, and that you demand it to be improved, etc.

(2) If they appear unresponsive, talk to their manager.

(3) If they still don't respond, look up the number for your local cable
commission (usually found in the blue pages of your telephone book) and file
a complaint.

Good luck!  Cable companies hate it when you complain to the commission about
them, so step (3) will probably have the best results!
From: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Watching cable with TV remote
Date: 23 Jul 92 03:01:10 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In article <1992Jul20.162724.26053@fia.dmg.ml.com> mlevine@perfect.fia.dmg.ml.com (Mark Levine) writes:
> This might be real simple, because I've seen other people do it on different
> cable systems. I live in Queens, NY and I have all the most modern video
> equipment, but I can't seem to rewire my system to let me use the remote
> from my TV. I have to use the remote from the cable company which renders my
> PIP, and all other features useless. Any help would be much appreciated.

Try this experiment:  disconnect your TV from whatever cable wire goes into
it, and disconnect the cable TV wire from the wall.  Now connect your TV
cable jack directly to the cable TV jack on your wall.  Try your TV and see
what happens.  There will be one of three things: you get channels 2-13
only, you get 2-13 plus a dozen or more channels above 13, or you get nothing.
If you get 2-13 only, your TV is not cable ready, and you need a block
converter.  If you get 2-13 plus 14 and above, you are OK.  If you get
nothing, your cable system is run by a bunch of NAZI's.

Post your results, and let us trouble-shoot from there.  BTW, if your TV
has a switch labeled TV/Cable or Ant/Cable, make sure it is in the Cable
position.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: VCR PLUS ?  ** Does anyone think it's REALLY usefull **
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 22:45:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.095448.24845@cs.umb.edu> edwardp@cs.umb.edu (Edward P. Piecewicz) writes:
>Regarding VCR Plus+, I am in the opinion that if your VCR -cannot- be
>programmed via the remote control (i.e. you have to open a panel and
>continuously push buttons in order to record something), the VCR Plus
>unit will NOT work with that VCR.

Please come back when you have a few facts to back up your opinion.

I have a VCR that cannot be programmed from the remote and it works
just fine with my VCR+. The only requirement for the VCR remote is that
it 1) changes the channels, and 2) starts and stops recording.
From: tkelsey@panix.com (Tom Kelsey)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: VCR Plus Codes still needed
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:46:04 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

>>	Newspapers:	Create value for subscribers for almost no cost
>
>What value?  With VCR Plus if I want the codes in Denver I have to buy the
>Rocky Mountain News (or TV Guide), not the Denver Post.  With a PD system
>the numbers are just like the normal program guides - unless one paper does
>an outstanding job no one is going to purchase one paper over another just for
>their TV section.
  BEG TO DIFFER.. I Pay 1.50 for the New York Times Every Sunday, JUST
for the TV section which gives the vcr+ codes on a station linear mode
I.E.  HBO etc. accross the week from 6 AM Sunday thru Sat after midnight
I can look across the morning, afternoon, eveing after midnight for the
entire week, as agains the tv guide, where you have to look at every
time every day of the week to see what show is on.. and every time
between an hour and 30 past... with the Times booklet its all much
easier, and to me worth the 1.50... I may read the 'arts and ent' segment,
but usually not even that.. so I do buy a paper without regard to what
ever else is in it but the vcr+ codes..

tk


>
>>	Remote Makers:	Sell code programmers w/o paying for royalty
>>	Consumers:	Program VCR with greater ease, at lower cost than
>>			buying VCR+ devices (hopefully)
>
>I think the "greater ease" part would be lost.  If people need to use VCR +
>now, they certainly will be confused by yet another coding scheme.  Besides,
>at a discounted price of $49 or so, it's hard to imagine it being worth any
>company's time and trouble to bring something like a remote to market for less
>than that.
>
>>	Hackers:	Develop new ways to control their VCR/TV/etc.
>
>This one's true, but then again a TRUE hacker would just build something to
>program the VCR using its "real" programming mode anyway.  :-)
>
>>The only obstacle to this whole thing is that GemStar's lawyer is going to be
>>on our case as soon as they hear about it!
>
>No, I think the biggest obstacle would be the confusion factor.  There already
>is one code "standard" out there; the public would probably be "too confused"
>by and newspapers wouldn't bother to print Yet Another Code.  The acceptance
>level of whatever PD code was designed would have to be pretty high to displace
>VCR+, but you won't get that level without the support of newspapers, who won't
>print the code without a large user base, etc.
>
>I can see it now:
>
>9:00	Ch 4  Quantum Leap	3452 (VCR+) / 24332 (Usenet ++)		;-)
>-- 
>| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed above
>| Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, not those
>| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
>| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club        | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"
From: long-morrow@cs.yale.edu (H. Morrow Long)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: FCC allows phone companies to transmit video signals
Date: 24 Jul 1992 09:12:38 -0400
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sparky.cf.cs.yale.edu
Keywords: fcc, telephone, video


In article <1992Jul23.190346.22173@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, stevet@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (stephen.e.turpin) writes:
|> I wonder how long it will take for telephone companies or other companies
|> to start selling video programs over the phone lines.  I also wonder how 
|> long it will be before prices start to fall.  This should get real 
|> interesting!!  It finally looks like the monopoly over cable TV will be 
|> threatened!!  I can hardly wait to be able to have an alternative to 
|> cable TV.  This is going to put a crimp in the Satellite TV business, also.
|> 
|> Steve Turpin

One news report I heard said that it would probably be close to 10 years
before the RBOC phone companies could become real competition for the
cabal disservices.  I hope the phone companies are further along in
terms of planning and technology (but they would have to use some
incredible compression ratios to deliver video to the home using
today's copper wire tech - wonder if they will wait for fiber optic
to the home first?).

					- Morrow
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: M02449@mwvm.mitre.org (Joe Gems)
Subject: Re: Cable ready tv/vcr
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:58:44 GMT

In article <saurav.711911080@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee) writes:
 
>
>
>There are two types of vcrs available in the market: cable-ready and
>ones that require the cable box. The sales people told me the practical
>difference between the two, but can someone tell me the technical
>reason behind the difference?
>
>Basically, cable-ready allows you to bypass any cable convertor box
>and connect the cable coax cable directly to the vcr, whereas the
>old vcrs require a convertor box. What exactly does this convertor
>box do?
>
It tunes to cable frequencies (which, except for channels 2-13, are
different than the frequencies that non cable-ready video gear can tune to)
and outputs on a channel that non-cable-ready gear can tune to (normally 3 or
4).
But beware! There's no standard meaning to cable-ready (in terms of which
cable channels a "cable-ready" receiver can tune to), and therefore no way of
assuring that a "cable-ready" receiver will be able to receive all channels on
any particular cable tv system. Furthermore, if there's scrambling going on,
you're out of luck anyway. BTW, you can't use a decoder (i.e., descrambler)
without a converter, because the separate add-on descramblers can only tune
(typically) to channel 3, so the converter is needed to access the
channel in need of descrambling. BTW2, the converters will work on any cable
system (but if it ain't the converter the company uses, it may not tune to
all the channels on that system), but the descramblers are system specific, so
if it ain't the descrambler the company uses, it probably won't work at all!
 
I hope this is helpful ...
 
>Thanks
>Saurav
 
You're welcome.
Joe
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 22 Jul 1992 03:04:08 CDT
From: <U57755@uicvm.uic.edu> (Alejo Balingit)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: microwave cable tv info needed

Does anyone know  how popular cable-less cable tv is?  My friend just invested
some money on an outfit in Indiana and it seems like they are giving him some
false hopes on its future popularity.  I have never heard of this technology,
but supossedly there are some in California that are now running. I guess there
is a microwave transmitter and receiver involved so that there are no cables
required for hookup and each receiver is individually coded to prevent
pirating. If anyone knows where this technology is going please post or mail
me, I don't remember the company's name, but they made his investment sound too
good to be true and I'm just being a realist. Thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (David W. Tamkin)
Subject: Re: VCR PLUS ?  ** Does anyone think it's REALLY useful **
Organization: Contributor Account at ddsw1, Chicago, Illinois  60657
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:05:57 GMT
X-Disclaimer:  Material posted in this article is the sole responsibility of
                the poster and does not represent MCSNet or the system owners.

mpalmer@encore.com (Mike Palmer) wrote in <1992Jul23.132222.23663@encore.com>:

| I tried the VCR+ and found it to be of little use.  It's actually much 
| simpler to use the "One touch record (with delay)" facility that can be
| found on all modern VCRs.

In my experience that feature can store only one event.  A VCR+ can store
fourteen, so let's make two assumptions to discard trivial cases:

1. The alternative to using the VCR+ is use of all of one's VCR's memory,
   not just the one-touch feature.
2. One's VCR can store enough events for one's personal requirements.

| VCR+ built into the VCR however, would probably be much better.

Sony has one that includes a VCR+ in its remote.

| What are other peoples thoughts on this[?]

If you do not have cable, or if your cable service delivers all channels to
different channel numbers on your VCR's tuner, or if your cable converter
can be programmed to change channels on its own at times you specify, and
you don't need the extra events, then the VCR+ is either a toy or a crutch.
Some people like toys and some people need crutches (or feel safer using
them).

However, I do have cable, the cable converter delivers all signals to channel
3 of my VCR's tuner, and there is no way to program the converter to change
its own channel, so a VCR+ is the only way I can record from more than one
station without running home between programs to change the cable converter's
channel.

David W. Tamkin   Box 59297   Northtown Station, Illinois  60659-0297
dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com    CompuServe: 73720,1570    MCI Mail: 426-1818
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: brian@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Brian Boutel)
Subject: Re: Re: microwave cable tv info needed
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:23:32 GMT


In article <23800001@hpgrla.gr.hp.com>, daveje@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Dave Jerzycki) writes:
|> 
|> 
|>  We subscribe to a wire-less cable service out of Denver.
[...]
|>  We have had this microwave service for over a year now, and few if any
|>  complaints. There only stipulation is that you are able to receive their
|>  signal from their transmitter. We are in direct line with their receiver so 
|>  we have a great signal. Only a small microwave antennae mounted on our roof.

I'm puzzled by this.
Is it really microwave? Or is it broadcast UHF? What frequencies are used? What's
the range of reception?

We have a broadcast, scrambled, subscription TV service, using UHF channels
around 500MHz. So far it has only 3 channels, CNN International, a movie channel
and a sports channel that is ESPN a fair bit of the time. Is your "wireless
cable" service like this, or a different concept?

--brian

-- 
Internet: brian@comp.vuw.ac.nz
Postal: Brian Boutel, Computer Science Dept, Victoria University of Wellington,
        PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
Phone: +64 4 471-5328   Fax: +64 4 495-5232
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: fredj@wang.com (Fast Freddie)
Subject: Re: Pitiful cable picture
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:52:03 GMT

gb7@prism.gatech.EDU (Joe Bradley) writes:

>I'm trying to understand why the picture I receive from my cable is
>so pitiful. I have 7 outlets in my home, which of course are connected
>to several 2 or 3-way splitters heading back to where the cable comes into
>the house. I have disconnected the cable coming into the house from
>the distribution system and connected it directly to a TV. This produces
>a very good picture except for a few of the upper channels (35-40 on cable)
>which are slightly fuzzy. When the cable is connected normally, most of
>the channels above 30 are unwatchable on every set in the house.

>A serviceman from the cable company has come out and said the power is turned
>up to the max at the curb and there is nothing he can do. I have tried
>inserting an amplifier just after the cable comes into the house but before
>the first splitter. This makes the picture worse! The amp has a gain of
>16-24 dB over 5-600 MHz. I have even tried another amp of a different type
>but with the same result.

>Does this sound like something is wrong with the signal distribution system
>in my house or is the cable company supplying me with too weak of a signal?
>How could the amps make the picture worse (snowier)?

>Any comments would be appreciated.

I don't understand, if you connect your tv to the cable coming into the
house then the picture is good with the exception of a couple of channels.
Then you connect your tv amp to the next logical place and the picture is
crappy.  Sounds to me that the connection from the outside to the amp is
bad.  Have you tried to connect a tv to that point?
You can test this out by getting a straight connector.  Connect a cable
(hopefully a known good tested cable) from the outside to the input of a
tv.  If the picture is good connect it to the first splitter, then test it
on the next logical connection.  I don't know how much signal loss you get
from going through 5 or so splitters but.... 

Fred Jewell
From: tszeto@sneezy.ts.stratus.com (Tommy Szeto)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: signal fluctuations??
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:55:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: transfer.5267
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

Lately the picture on my tv has been fluctuating from "good" to totally snowed
images (and back sometimes).  This transition has actually occurred WHILE I 
was watching.  I have several tv's hooked up to a splitter with a signal amp 
from RS.  The cable enters my house from the basement and is split: one goes
to the first floor (tenant) and the other goes to the 2nd floor (me).  What
should I be looking for as the cause?  I've capped off all unused cable
splits.  Any ideas?  FM interference?  My tenant?  Electrical problems?
Please reply if you have any ideas at all (yes, I will contact my cable
company, but that's always a pain since I'm never home).

Thanks,
Tom

-- 
Tom Szeto                         "I don't think Olympic weight-lifters should
tszeto@sneezy.ts.stratus.com       be disqualified for spontaneously urinating
#include <disclaimer.h>            during the event."  - Jack Handey
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv