HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Date: 3 Sep 92 03:32:33 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <1992Sep2.110003.2351@dde.dk> phn@dde.dk (Per H. Nielsen) writes:
<
<Because the descrambler needs a pure baseband video signal to operate.

Wrong.  Many cable-tv descramblers are of the IF type.
-- 
      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: hatamian@gandalf.rutgers.edu (ShAhin)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: MTS Decoder Question
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:55:37 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



Hi there,

I have a 13" tv that is not cable ready, therefore I am using my
mono VCR's cable tuner to receive cable. I am wondering whether
I can do the following to receive stereo tv sound using a MTS decoder:

Cable coax to VCR. 
VCR's coax output to tv (the current setup).
VCR's coax output to the MTS decoder.
The MTS decoder to my stereo amplifier.

The question is whether the signal coming out of the VCR, when using
its tuner, is altered to mono, or could the MTS still decode it.
I know I can run the cable coax to the MTS first, but then you have to
change the channel on the MTS first. Isn't that right? You see
I don't know how a MTS is set up, but I assume it has it's own audio
tuner.

Any help is appreciated.

--Shahin
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: mj4@prism.gatech.EDU (JONES,MICHAEL D.)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: cable distribution boxes
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:08:26 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


Can anyone recommend a quality cable distribution box.  I just bought one
from Radio Shack (Archer brand).  They had one for $10 and one for $30.  I
bought the expensive one, but when I used it to feed 2 VCRs and 2 TVs I got
a lot of interference and ghosting.  Adjusting the gain to minimum doesn't
help.  I've heard others in this group say that they have also had problems
with distribution boxes from Radio Shack.  Any advice would be greatly
appreciated.

Thanks
Michael

-- 
JONES,MICHAEL D.
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!mj4
Internet: mj4@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: rcrandall@sc9.intel.com
Subject: The Cable Scramble!
Organization: Intel CTD
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:50:37 GMT


I have been wondering for a long time if, upon request, the cable
company you are connected to must disclose what kind of scrambling they
do on their protected premium channels.
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 09:53:25 GMT
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES

In article <17p716INNf07@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu> hougen@uirvlh.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen) writes:
>
>Evidently, the cable companies are worried that they will loose
>business or make less profit if the so called "reregulation bill" is
>passed and they are probably right.  I'm sure they would like to pass
>their increased costs on to the consumers so while their tactics may
>be slimy, I can't say that I blame them.  

The funny stuff I see about the NCTA letter, is that they mention only
one facet of S-12 and HR-4850 and not the other 95% that would make
the customers say "SOUNDS GREAT."  At a worst case scenario, the cable
companies would have to pay each of the three network affiliates around
$0.05 cents per subscriber per month.  Thats $0.15 cents per month or
$1.80 per year per subscriber.  I don't know where they think they can
get away implying that the network carry clause will cost $23-$51 more
per month.

>It would be much better if the cable companies were deregulated.  As
>it is now, most cable companies have an exclusive franchise (even
>though it is sometimes called a nonexclusive franchise) to serve a
>particular area and the only thing that is keeping them from raising
>their rates sky high is the fear of rate regulation.  This is supposed
>to be a free country; why not open up the cable markets to free market
>competition?  Then we could have low rates and the cable companies

Thats the beauty of the proposed bills.  If there is reasonable competition
in the same cable market, then those cable operators in those markets will
not face the same regulation which the monopolies face.  Neither will the
small start-up cable operator trying to make a go of it in a market which
for all intents and purposes, is monopolized by one cable operator.

Once I get the bills typed into ASCII, I will post a location from
where they may be FTPed.  Until then, as I type them, I am posting
10K blocks to alt.cable-tv.re-regulate.
estimated time of completion-  S-12 1 week
                             HR4850 2 weeks

**************************************************************************
*     tweek@netcom.com  tweek@tweekco.uucp  WWIVNet 5@5058  4@5056       *
**************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
From: brian@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Brian Boutel)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:11:56 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.


In article <BtzoFp.47F@news.orst.edu>, stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
|> In article <BtzEI2.FnE@comp.vuw.ac.nz> brian@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Brian Boutel) writes:
|> >How does the supply company control what you can watch? The decoders have a
|> >smart card, which can be remotely authorised, to control whether decoding is
|> >permitted. As of now, all channels are provided in the basic service, but in
|> 
|> Interesting. Just how does the programming information reach the
|> smartcard, considering that the only input to the decoder is
|> video/audio?
|> 

In one of the lines which is not displayed, along with teletext and other data.

I didn't explain that our system is broadcast, not cable. It's used here for some
terrestrial broadcast services, and in Europe for satellite transmissions.
Consequently, the cable method of using FM-band signalling for the "magic bullet"
is not available, and authorisation signals have to be transmitted on each
channel. When you first subscribe, you connect your decoder and insert the card.
You then call the service, who transmit authorisation for your decoder within a
few minutes. The status is recorded in the card, and decoding begins.


--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: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:54:53 GMT


In article <23hnywb.bitbug@netcom.com> bitbug@netcom.com (James Buster) writes:
>In article <Btv4vt.Kt5@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard) writes:
>
>>2.  Cablevision, Inc., has a lot of stock held by a couple of program
>>    providers.  Would those providers be willing to offer their programs
>>    to the competing cable system?
>
>Why should the provider care? The competing cable system is another revenue
>source. If you, Cable Movies Inc., have a contract with all the cable companies
>in an area to provide your service, you still have as much market penetration
>and have as many subscribers as before.

Because HBO et. al. hold a lot of CUCI stock. This means that they make
money not only from the subscription fees CUCI pays to HBO, but also
dividends from the CUCI stock they hold. If Company B enters the C-U
market, and half the HBO subscribers jump ship, HBO still gets their
programming fees, but they no longer get the CUCI stock dividends. Thus,
they may make less money.

Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:26:49 GMT


[An email note posted with permission of the author. - Carl]

From OBERMAN@icdc.llnl.gov Wed Sep  2 09:41:59 1992

>kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>>I have mixed feeling about the cable-tv regulation, but not about the
>>slimy insert I just received in my cablevision bill. For example, that
>>figure of a $23 dollar increase comes not from the Commerce department
>>but from the National Cable Television Association.
>[...]
>
>I talked to the marketing manager of Cablevision of Champaign-Urbana
>(for about half an hour).  He called the NCTA to verify the
>attribution. He says that the NCTA says that the Commerce Department
>says that the number is right. He couldn't suggest any way for me to
>verify this independently.

I read both the Washington Post article and a follow-up in my local paper
(from the Post news service).

Yes, the numbers were from the Dept. of Commerce. The Dept. of Commerce admits
that the numbers were in turn supplied to them by the NCTA and that no attempt
had been made to confirm them in any way. They just published them as gospel.

According to the second article, DOC is backing away from the numbers very
quickly.

Pretty slick maneuver by the NCTA, I'd say.

R. Kevin Oberman			Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: koberman@llnl.gov		(510) 422-6955

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:59:54 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <1992Sep1.191859.10038@walter.cray.com> sonic@romulus.cray.com (Curtis Swanson) writes:
<
<If your VCR managed to record the signal without distortion (highly unlikely),
<you will unscramble the signal.  However, it is much easier to use the box and
<record the descrambled signal.

No it won't.  The necessary sync signal needed to regenerate the video sync
is lost when recording.  Without it the descrambler won't work.
-- 
      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: hougen@uirvlh.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 30 Aug 1992 01:07:50 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: uirvlh.csl.uiuc.edu


kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:

*>>I have mixed feeling about the cable-tv regulation, but not about the
*>>slimy insert I just received in my cablevision bill. For example, that
*>>figure of a $23 dollar increase comes not from the Commerce department
*>>but from the National Cable Television Association.

Evidently, the cable companies are worried that they will loose
business or make less profit if the so called "reregulation bill" is
passed and they are probably right.  I'm sure they would like to pass
their increased costs on to the consumers so while their tactics may
be slimy, I can't say that I blame them.  

It would be much better if the cable companies were deregulated.  As
it is now, most cable companies have an exclusive franchise (even
though it is sometimes called a nonexclusive franchise) to serve a
particular area and the only thing that is keeping them from raising
their rates sky high is the fear of rate regulation.  This is supposed
to be a free country; why not open up the cable markets to free market
competition?  Then we could have low rates and the cable companies
could make their profits.  But, of course, they are trying to protect
their unreasonably cushy position and all most people can think of is
more government interference to cut the rates.  As far as I am
concerned, cable is not a necessity of life and therefore, there is
absolutely no reason to regulate that industry at all.  Period.

Darrell
From: PATRICKS@MAINE.MAINE.EDU (Patrick Stevens)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: MTS Stereo
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:22:53 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System


   Would anyone out there know how or where to find a MTS Stereo decoder?
I would buy a Hi-Fi VCR but at the moment I don't have the money.  So I
would like to make or buy a "black box" that would split the audio and
video of channel 2. (the cable company here uses that channel).  Then I
would like to pipe the audio through my receiver.

   Any info would be greatly appreciated.

                                        Thanx,
                                              Pat
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: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 16:50:22 GMT

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

>  As it is now, most cable companies have an exclusive franchise (even
>though it is sometimes called a nonexclusive franchise) to serve a
>particular area and the only thing that is keeping them from raising
>their rates sky high is the fear of rate regulation.
[...]

Mr. Bill Rutly (sp?) of Cablevision of CU volunteered that they don't
have an exclusive franchise. But on reflection, I thought, so what:

  - you have a monopoly in all but a few markets
  - your industry is working hard to abort any future competition from
       fiber and satellite
  - a few big companies (TCI, Time-Warner) own most franchises.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: bouma@cs.purdue.EDU (William J. Bouma)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable TV Regulation
Keywords: regulation, congress
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:39:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


In article <p-jnz6=.tweek@netcom.com>, tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield) writes:
|> 		shall require that television stations, within one year after
|> 		the the date of enactment of this subsection and every three
|> 		years thereafter, make an election between the right to
|> 		grant retransmission consent under this subsection and
|> 		the right of signal carriage under section 614.  If there 
|> 		is more than one cable system which services the same
|> 		geographic area, a station's election shall apply to all such
|> 		cable systems.
|> 
|> =) A TV station gets to chose if it wants to
|> =) force a cable company to carry it, or if
|> =) not, if it wants to charge the cable co.


   The thing I don't understand here is which cable company and which
   station?  Does this only apply when a cable company services the
   same area that can recieve the station?  Aren't there stations which
   only transmit over cable and do not broadcast?  In summary, if I start
   a TV station and say cable can have my signal for free, which cable
   companies can I force to carry me? 

-- 
Bill <bouma@cs.purdue.edu> 
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Frank Fujita)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:43:50 GMT

tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>I don't know where you live, but around here the over-the-air channels
>come in fuzzy, snowy, and ghosty. Basically, it's a choice between
>rapacious cable fees or nothing to watch.

I paid about $50 for a RECOTON (rabbit ears type) antenna.  It is
powered, and receives (in Savoy) 3,12,15,17 *very* well (I'd say one
noticible difference less well than my father's cable in Los Angeles,
and 2 noticible differences better than a regular antenna.  In any case,
I haven't subscribed to cable yet (though I really wish I had had CNN
during Desert Storm).

I see these things advertised in the COMB catalog now, though I bought
mine at Best Buy.  COMB doesn't sell them any cheaper than Best Buy did.

Frank Fujita
From: bitbug@netcom.com (James Buster)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:21:51 GMT
Organization: Lynx Real-Time Systems, Inc.

In article <Btv4vt.Kt5@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard) writes:
>1.  The existing cable companies had the advantage of being able to install
>    their plant under situations where they and their investors believed
>    that an exclusive right existed.

Because the investors believed they had exclusive rights we should continue to
give them exclusive rights?

>2.  Cablevision, Inc., has a lot of stock held by a couple of program
>    providers.  Would those providers be willing to offer their programs
>    to the competing cable system?

Why should the provider care? The competing cable system is another revenue
source. If you, Cable Movies Inc., have a contract with all the cable companies
in an area to provide your service, you still have as much market penetration
and have as many subscribers as before.

>5.  Costs go up for BOTH because the existing plant base of one company is
>    now supported by fewer subscribers.  The plant base is a constant.
>    Another way to look at it is that the whole subscriber base now has to
>    support TWO plant bases, TWO head end sites, TWO bureaucracies (and
>    Cablevision has a pretty sad one... their computers won't even let
>    their people calculate prorated bills based on cutoff days).

You should look at it this way. There are actually two entities here:
The owner of the cable plant, and the programming provider. Only the
cable plant could be considered a monopoly. Under the system I envision,
Cable Plant Inc. is a separate company, which is required by law to charge
all competing programming providers the same rates for usage of the
cable system, and to provide equal and timely service and upgrade of the
plant for all buyers. It is the programming providers that are competing on
price, # of channels, whether or not they scramble everything, etc.
-- 
				James Buster
			     bitbug@netcom.com
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:56:58 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <1992Sep1.172327.23919@ulowell.ulowell.edu> wex@cs.ulowell.edu writes:
<
<In article <1992Sep1.104838.16682@dde.dk>, phn@dde.dk (Per H. Nielsen) writes:
<|> From: phn@dde.dk (Per H. Nielsen)
<|> Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
<|> Date: 1 Sep 92 10:48:38 GMT
<|> 
<|> 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
<|> >wall to cable box.  Cable box will descramble all appropriate channels
<|> >(PPV, etc.) according to authorization and then pass a full array of
<|> >channels out to the TV.
<|> 
<|> Such a box would be extremely expensive to produce because it would need
<|> a separate tuner, descrambler and modulator for each channel.
<
<Why??

To decode each possible cable channel would require a tuner for each one.
That's why.  Expensive propsition.

<I pay for XYZ, a premium Channel that appears on my cable
<at Channel YY.
<
<My cable ready VCR will take any channel and output it
<on channel 3 (or 2).
<
<I now build a frequency converter that translates channel 3
<to (cable) channel YY and goes into my converter box....
<
<Does this work???

Nope.  What exactly did you do here?  You tuned the channel of the cable and
tried to put it back into the cable again.  The output of the VCRs RF modulator
is not very good.  It puts out too much lower sideband information.  But who
cares, it isn't being broadcast.  So can't mix it back into the cable.  BTW,
you'd have to trap out channel YY just to put YY back in again.

None of what you wanted to do makes any sense.

<Further question...
<
<I record the scrambled signal of say CNN ( scrambled but part
<of the basic service for which I pay) I then play it back through the system
<described above; what will happen?

Nothing.  First of it won't record.  Because there isn't any vertical sync
signal, the VCR has nothing to lock on to.

For the sake of argument, if the VCR was able to lock onto the signal, it
couldn't be decoded upon playback because the important sync restoration
signal is lost.  Didn't know about that did you?
-- 
      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: cchapman@matd.gatech.edu (Charles H. Chapman)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: What's this ""bullet"" thing?
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:53:18 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1992Aug24.170130.20730@rchland.ibm.com> chung@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Vicente Chung) writes:
>
>On my cable box I have a silver thing that looks like a spark plug.  That is a 
>notch filter to block "extended services" channels to your cable outlet.  They
>are not decoders for "premium" channels such as HBO or pay per view.
>

Actually it's just the opposite.  On many cable systems they put a jamming
signal on the premium channels like HBO.  If you look at it without the
filter, the whole screen flashes a herring bone pattern and there is an
annoying beeping noise in the audio.  The filters block the interfering
signal so you can watch the premium channel.

These devices are simply passive notch filters and cannot be controlled
remotely by the cable company.  Pay per view uses an entirely different
scheme.

Chuck

Charles H. Chapman  (GTRI/MATD)             (404) 528-7588
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:     ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!matd!cchapman
Internet: cchapman@matd.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: STATRAA@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Subject: Mystical Electronics?
Organization: Yale University
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 21:56:04 EDT

Does anyone have any experience with the "universal" descrabler marketed
as a kit by Mystical Electronics of Connecticut?  Has anyone built it?
Thanks in advance...
--
Travis Stansbury
statraa@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate