HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From:  wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin)
Subject: Capital Cable admits underpayment of franchise fees
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:02:38 GMT


(This is for anyone who might be involved in negotiating a franchise
contact with a cable company.)

Capital Cable, a piece of Warner, admitted that they had underpaid
Albany NY by 1/3 on their franchise contract.  That's $400K.  Although
the contract gives Albany the right to an audited look at their books,
Capital is still refusing to do that, and will release only a summary
balance sheet.

The disagreement was this.  The contract required Capital to pay Albany
a fixed percentage of "all" revenues from Albany.  At that time
pay-per-view and the premium channels hadn't been invented, so Capital
claimed that they weren't covered, and paid Albany only for the basic
service income.  Of course they didn't say that they were doing this.

This is the same company that sued someone who spoke against them at a
public meeting, and then appeared to offer to drop the suit if Albany
renewed.  Finally they dropped the suit, and, coincidentally, their
franchise was renewed.



-- 
Wm. Randolph Franklin,  wrf@ecse.rpi.edu, (518) 276-6077;  Fax: -6261
ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 USA
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rickr@cedco.uucp (Rick Raque)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: K.U.U.G.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 05:07:29 GMT

jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:

>On 28 Sep 92, Jack Decker wrote to All:

>This is not in response to any one message that has been posted here, but
>rather to several I have received.

>Reading between the lines, though, what you really object to is the "waste" of
>a channel that could be used for something that YOU want to watch.

>Folks, get a clue... those stations simply WOULD NOT EXIST if nobody watched
>them.  Not only do people watch those station, but in many cases they even send
>in money to help support them.  If some of that money happens to find its way
>back to your local cable system, it might help finance their next channel
>capacity expansion (then again, it might not, but that's the decision of the
>cable company, not the broadcaster).

Jack, read your own words (if you can stop ranting and raving for a few minutes)People MUST be watching the stations that you are SO set against otherwise
the station or cable co wouldn't carry it (Has to bring in some kind of income
other that the donations tht keep up religous broadcast)  These people seem to
be able to watch adult type of shows  and not bother others ( I guess they just
watch what they want and leave others alone.  (Sounds good to me).


>The second thing is that some of you just can't stand to hear anyone take a
>stand for old fashioned morality without tilting, so you send netmail flames
>hoping to get that person to shut up.  Look, you have the right to hold the
>opinion that I'm full of baloney, 


jj    YOU CAN SAY THAT AGAIN.....


>but you DON'T have the right to say that I
>cannot express my opinions about something just because they don't agree with
>yours.  Nor do you have the right to demand that I back up each statement I
>make in excruciating detail.  When I make some statement of obvious fact (for
>example, that viewing porno incites some people to commit sex crimes), that's
>partly only common sense, which some of you apparently don't have.  But if you
>want to be contentious about it, YOU can spend your time going down to the
>library and researching the subject.  I have no intention of getting into a
>"battle of the experts" here.

I can see why he won't back up his statements and arguments (be kind of hard
huh, Jack?)  

By the way I'm not a liberal OR a conservative  (yes, Jack there are some 
people out here in the world and even on the net that have a different veiw-
piont than liberals or conservatives.  We just don't express ourselves that
often!)  I am also not 20 years old,  My sons are older than that.  Jack I 
think that you realy smart for taking a short rest from the net.  But I hope 
that you get back in time to be able to read this.


Rick Raque
rickr@cedco.uucp



-- 

=============================================================================
|   Rick Raque             |        Kentuckiana Unix Users Group            |
|   Louisville KY          |                 DoD  #0673                     |
From: habs@panix.com (Harry Shapiro)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Max number of channels on cable?
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:44:52 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <rmhz1!p@rpi.edu> Matt Garretson writes:

>This seems like a FAQ-type question, but I haven't seen a FAQ list here
>lately.  So, here goes:  I called up my cable co. to ask if they were going
>to be getting the Sci Fi channel. They said "no", because their channel
>capacity was used up.  Now, they offer channels 0-35, plus a few extra
>premium and PPV channels. My TV can tune up to channel 73. What happened
>to the 40's 50's and 60's?


It depends on several factors including the quality of the cable,
the number Amps between you and the head end, and the type of
passive equipment. In Queens NY they have a 1 gigahertz system which
can handle a 150 channels. The designer of that system feel that
they could up grade it to 2 gighertz (would require 2 gigahertz equipment).

The average system in the US has about 35 channels. I think, but
am unsure, that means they have about a 350 mhz system.

-- 
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,alt.censorship
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:20:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.20302@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org>
jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:
>In article <BCR.92Sep25100024@hpl3sn03.cern.ch> dated Fri, 25 Sep 1992 09:00:24
>GMT, bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers) wrote:

>The one other point, which I know some of you disagree with but which is only
>common sense

That means you believe it, but don't have any proof.

> (sorry if some of you don't have any),

That means you're not even going to try to find proof.

> is that if a person
>predisposed to criminal sexual activity and/or violence watches sexually
>explicit or violent material, it can give them ideas and heighten their urge to
>go commit criminal activity.

Equally likely, it can fully pander to their urges so that they no
longer have to commit the criminal activity, they've gotten their
jollies by watching it.

>  Thus, in the case of TV, there may be unwilling
>victims... not necessarily folks who actually saw the program, but people who
>just happen to be in the wrong place when some guy decides he's had enough of
>just watching and wants to go out and emulate what he's seen.

And in the case of censorship, there are unwilling victims, not just
those who were prevented from watching the program, but those who were
attacked by the criminal who wasn't home watching tv instead of
committing rape and murder.

>Now, which of you bleeding heart liberals is going to step up and defend the
>right of a rapist or sadistic murderer to watch porno or graphic violence?

I'm definitely not a bleeding heart liberal, but I'd much rather have
a rapist or a sadistic murderer watching porno or graphic violence on
tv at home rather than going out and raping or sadistically murdering
someone.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 05:19:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.30329@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org> jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:
>Anyway, I've said enough on the subject for now...

	More than enough, I'd say. Jack, I've read enough of what you've
written on this subject to draw the inevitable conclusion: the only
solution to your problem is to throw out your TV set. Your objections to
what is broadcast are too wideband to only apply to certain stations.
Get a tunerless monitor and VCR (they're made) and buy or rent only what
you like. You'll be happy, we'll be happy, and you won't have to
complain so much.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate,alt.censorship
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Summary: References on pornography studies - LONG
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:44:01 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.203c0@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org> jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:
>This whole thread has been one message of opinion after another.  Oh, sure,
>there are vague references to this study or that study, but no one has given
>any real citations that would indicate they have done any serious research on
>the subject.  You folks who are casting stones are living in your own glass
>houses.

	I guess it won't hurt to post this again; Jack probably won't
read it, but the subject comes up frequently. My thanks to Roger Tang
for doing the original post. I knew this puppy was worth keeping!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From apple!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!gwangung Tue Sep 25 14:30:25 PDT 1990
Article: 23501 of alt.sex
From: rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ron Carter)
Subject: Re: Update on Status of Cable TV Re-Regulation Bill
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 19:33:52 GMT


Bush went ahead and vetoed the bill last night...
--
Ron Carter | Director | Center for the Study of Creative Intelligence
"A ... mind stretched by a new idea can never | Denver, Colorado, USA
go back to its original dimensions."  -Holmes | rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 4 Oct 92 04:43:53 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

How about changing the subject line?  This has deviated rather far from
the cable TV consumer protection act.

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1686 misc.consumers:17408
From: nhmas@gauss.med.harvard.edu (Mark Shneyder)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Pocket Veto
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:09:49 GMT
Organization: HMS

In article <musjndx.717991683@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> musjndx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Jonathan N. Deitch) writes:
>
>The president refuses to sign a bill and lets it sit on his desk without
>signing it.  After a period of time (10 days?) the bill automatically becomes
>law.
>
>As an aside, did Bush promise to veto the cable bill or did he just announce
>that he's going to refuse to sign it ?
>
>All in all, it looks like we'll be stuck with it for better or for worse.

I bet you George Bush could care less about cable television re-regulation.
If he does veto it,just picture his crook son,Neil Bush vetoing it.
Neil Bush collects something like $200,000 a year working for the
cable multi-operator milti-billionaire Bill Daniels.
Is there a connection or what?

-PPV Mark
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: saf@netcom.com (Steve A. Feinstein)
Subject: Re: Cable reception
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 02:39:47 GMT

In article <BvI9Ey.1qF@ssesco.com> elmquist@pez.ssesco.com (Chris Elmquist) writes:

>For me, I get herringbone interference on channels 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42.
>The herringbone is very visible on larger screened monitors like 27" and less
>noticeable on a 19" and not at all objectionable on a 13".
>
>When the Cable Co. comes out to make measurements... they bring a portable 9"
>TV so that they run it on batteries in the bright sunlight out in the yard.
>For some reason (?? what could it be ??) they have never seen the herringbone
>on the 9" but admit to seeing it on my 27".  

I've just begun starting to get my Cable Co to work on this.  What's
very interesting is that on my 27" Sony, the interference is very
noticable.  But when I turn on the Picture-in-Picture to the same
channel, it looks markedly clearer.  I haven't figured out why.  If
-- 
 Steve A. Feinstein | saf@netcom.com | When a man points a finger at someone
  360 Cowper Street |================| else, he should remember that four
Palo Alto, CA 94301 |                  fingers are pointing at himself.
     (415) 326-8224 |                                          - Louis Nizer


Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1627 misc.consumers:17243 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:434
From: wdh@holos0.uucp (Weaver Hickerson)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:41:35 GMT
Organization: Holos Software, Inc.

In article <1992Sep24.202510.28652@Unibase.SK.CA> roe@Unibase.SK.CA (Roe Peterson) writes:
>bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers) writes:
>
>>>  Rape is violence.  Murder is violence.  The function of society is to
>>>  provide maximum security for the individual, within a framework of maximum
>>>  freedom.  No "moral" judgement is required to find rape and murder
>>>  violent behavior.
>
>>So is boxing, football, karatee, cock fights, S&M, ...  Sure no moral judgement
>>is needed to define violent behavior.  However, a moral judgement is needed to
>>define unacceptable violent behavior. 
>
>Let's look at this.  Boxing, football, S&M, and karate, (at least in tournament
>form) are all occurring with the consent of all involved.  This falls under

Where are you seeing those S&M Tournaments?

:)

Weaver
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1652 misc.consumers:17300 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:440
From: bill@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Bill Lanides)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: 74 to 25 in overtime
Summary: It's law! 74 to 25 and 308 to 114.
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:39:57 GMT
Organization: The Source for Source Pub Access Unix


Al Gore just said "We're not going to protect the monopolies anymore."
As if some miracle government regulation, which started the monopolies in
the first place, is now going to fix everything.

I am very dissatisfied with my cable company and I definately think they
charge to much.. I am mad as hell.. but not at the cable company, at the
damned government that created monopolies in the first place.  At the
damned government that now thinks it can help me by regulating more
businesses in this country.

Clinton/Gore scares me to death with their ideas that the government can
control the economy.  I'm afraid this country is about to go to hell.
Maybe I'm being a little too dramatic but it truely is scary.

Anyway, I don't want this to be a political argument.  I want to know if
there is anything I can do to show my displeasure at the passage of the
cable bill.  I'd also like to get my hands on the (ahem) LAW itself.
Is it available via FTP or can someone put it up on the Usenet?

..and before anyone goes accusing me of being this or that, I'd like to
say that I am NOT Republician or conservative.  Instead I am my own
person and if anything I lean towards the libertarian view.

     -Bill Lanides
From: brouillette@zayius.enet.dec.com (Mike Brouillette)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Wireless cable
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:45:39 GMT
Reply-To: brouillette@zayius.enet.dec.com (Mike Brouillette)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Merrimack NH



In article <1992Oct4.230758.933@ultb.isc.rit.edu> you write:
|>Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
|>Path: e2big.mko.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!psinntp!isc-newsserver!ritvax.isc.rit.edu!RXV9839
|>From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
|>Subject: Re: Wireless cable
|>Message-ID: <1992Oct4.230758.933@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
|>Sender: news@ultb.isc.rit.edu (USENET News System)
|>Nntp-Posting-Host: vaxa.isc.rit.edu
|>Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
|>Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
|>References: <1992Sep29.172209.22740@e2big.mko.dec.com>,<83ZXRB3w165w@dorsai.com>
|>Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:07:58 GMT
|>Lines: 13
|>
|>re: "Would you buy a Ginzu knife you saw advertised on TV?"
|>Well, yes I would and I did, about 2 or 3 years ago.  Got two for the
|>price of one (about $19.95).  They are still sharp today.  They performed
|>basically as advertised (much to my surprise). And I am seriously
|>considering the now advertised Ginsu2, bigger, better and can slide 
|>hard to cut tomatoes right after a thrashing on ROCK HARD MARBLE.
|>
|>While you might think the above tongue-in-cheek, it isn't.  Im serious.
|>However the original post was really about investing in wireless cable
|>companies and the caution suggested is really a good idea.  One way to
|>help spot the phonies is to invest in an on-going operation.  Some have
|>been in business for several years and no they are probably not soliciting
|>for investors.  USE CAUTION!
|>
  

  This postor is correct!  There are Ginzu buyers and there are non buyers
that look at that infomercial and say "that reminds me I need some knives,
I think I'll go buy quality".  I looked at that infomercial with interest
around a new possible trend, not at one second looking at investing with
those guys.  I use discount brokers cause I do my own research!

  The whole wireless industry looks like something that has the potential 
of taking the cable industry to the next level.  But, then you need to look
at what the "Baby Bells" are trying to do too!  If anyone could just hook 
their tv to their phone line, do you think that Wireless would fly?

			Just my opinion,
			Mb
From: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Cable reception
Reply-To: rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:41:19 GMT

In article <petec.718042450@splat>, petec@splat.dell.com (Pete Cruz) writes:
>I just bought a 46" TV and have now noticed fairly bad reception from my
>cable company. I had a 27" TV before which "appeared" fine, now I notice 
>quite a bit of detail difference. And channels very in quality also.
>
>Before I complain to the local cable company, I was wondering if this is
>common or am I just getting poor service?
>
>Any ideas on how to improve reception would be greatly appreceated.
>
>Thanks

This is common.  You may or may not be getting poor service.  You are seeing
two things; noise from the cable system and the difference in picture quality
(prmiarily due to noise level) in the cable cos received channels.  Noise here
is not audio, but rather video noise (Gaussian noise) which looks like snow in
a picture.  Usually, most satellite delivered services (ESPN, CNN) will look
better than off-air channels (your local broadcasters).  Live events usually
tend to look better than taped programming (this is true even on the broadcast
stations).  It is just more noticeable with big screen TV's since they have
inherently better resolution.  You will usually find the same phenomna with the
off-air channels if you hook directly to an antenna.  Big screens show more
noise.

Have your cable company do a service call.  You should have at least 0dBmv
signal on all channels at the input to your set; 3 would be even better.  They
could have any number of problems that may be making your set look worse than
it needs to.  They should be able to let you know if they can improve your
picture or not.

Another thing to consider-the closer you are to the set when viewing, the worse
it will look.  If you can arrange things so you are farther away it will help
some.  Remember that our current NTSC broadcast standard was developed in the
40's when TV's were a lot smaller.  Neither the broadcasters nor cable designed
their systems to serve sets that big.  That's the reason for the current HDTV
(high definition television) development.   Cable systems also have to meet
progressively higher signal/noise standards over the next few years.  This is
because of new FCC regulations on quality standards.  These are presently in
effect and are the result of cooperation between the FCC, NCTA and the National
League of Cities.  It has nothing to do with the current cable bill and will
remain regulation regardless of its passage or defeat unless the FCC choses to
change it for some reason which is unlikely.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: dchuk@netcom.com (Denise Chuk)
Subject: Re: Update on Status of Cable TV Re-Regulation Bill
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:51:53 GMT

webdw@cbnews.cb.att.com (bruce.d.woods) writes:

>In article <BvpDID.A3q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>>
>>>Bush went ahead and vetoed the bill last night...
>>
>>And was promptly overridden.
>>

>By a Congress that really has a sense of national priorities!
>(Did anyone notice that wasteful defense spending abroad or
>out of control "entitlements" were addressed by these yahoos?
>Did the truly terrifying deficit problem get more than lip
>service by more than a handful of congresscritters?)

>>So now that the bill is law, when does it take effect? When will we
>>actually SEE the results?
>>

>The FCC will look into it and will sometime in 1993 publish some
>new compendium of confusing, uneven and likely unfair regulations.
>Cheer up!  This will provide even more employment for the lawyers
>and the lobbyists!  Regulation, the dream & hope of mankind!

I also believe that this is very likely to be the "result" of the Bill. 
Initially, I was all for the bill, for I am pretty fed up with my local
cable co., yet the more I think about it, the more skeptical I become. The 
likely beneficiary of this bill will probably be the lawyers , and possibly
the Three Networks.  So basically we are having a redistribution of profits,
moving from the Big Bad Cable Companies to some other Big Bad Groups. And the
consumers? Well, I am afraid we are still at the bottom of the totem pole :-(.
Lower price and more responsive company? We can only hope.

Come to think of it, we have one presidential candidate that is the friend of
the lawyers, and another presidential candidate that tries to protect the
cable co. Very promising, indeed.



-- 
------

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent --Salvor Hardin
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate,alt.censorship
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:22:17 GMT


In article <43985@zygot.ati.com> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.30329@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org> jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:
>
>>Also, I believe that it is wrong to put temptation in someone's path (the
>>Bible would agree with me on this, or rather I should say that I agree with
>>the Bible on this, but from some of the mail I've received in response to my
>>previous message I realize that people who quote the Bible aren't exactly
>>held in high esteem by a few participants on this echo.
>
>One of the reasons Bible quotes do not go over horribly well is that
>there are some of us who do not feel the the Bible is the be-all and
>end-all authority for every endeavor of mankind. The Bible is a fine
>book. Hell, I even used it as the basis for a theme in a European
>literature course in college. Just as there are those who feel that the
>Bible is the "inspired word of God", there are some who do not. You
>will excuse those of us in the second category for not sitting down and
>shutting up just because someone says, "The Bible says...".

I agree - the Bible is a great book. As RAH once said, the Bible is so
full of contradictions one can use it to "prove" anything they want.