HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.video

In rec.video, ees1mw@EE.Surrey.Ac.UK (Mike Willis) writes:

> Video films have to pass the
> British board of flim cesnsors before sale in this country. Sounds a bit
> like wartime doesn't it. Anyway, USA standards of Decency, violence etc
> are considered (by the censor) to be lower than are own so importing films
> for sale is not allowed.

Actually, there seems to be a polarity here: to generalise, the US permits
more extreme violence but is less happy with sexual material (for want of a
better description) while the BBFC is happier with the latter (look at
recent releases of Almodovar and Oshima) but tends to cut violence more.
You can't win :-(

I agree that censorship of videotapes and laserdiscs is iniquitous - what
is for private viewing in the home should not be censored, IMHO. The
argument used in the UK to establish videotape censorship was an appalling
tabloid scare on `video nasties' (You know the sort of thing - `Our kids can
rent _Zombie Bimbo Driller Killer Lesbians in Space Go Cannibal_ without
any restrictions! Shock horror!). Quite why laserdiscs were dragged into this
I am not sure - you can't rent laserdiscs in this country as far as I am aware
but they probably wanted to cover every angle.

> We now have a problem with Satellite TV. Certain European countries have
> laws a little less strict than our own. Well actually a lot less strict.
> You can guess what they have been transmitting. There is absolutely
> nothing the Government can do about it, so you can bet there is a big
> fuss.

Hopefully, this will lead to a re-appraisal of the film classification law,
if only by making it ridiculous. I expect aerial self-delivery of pork and
bacon to occur first, though :-)

Duncan
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: eb@lucid.com (Eric Benson)
Subject: Wanted: "inexpensive" VCR able to play (not record) SVHS
Reply-To: eb@lucid.com
Organization: Lucid, Inc., Menlo Park, CA
Date: 2 Sep 92 12:43:46

I'm looking for a second VCR for the bedroom.  My first VCR is Sony
SLV-R5 SVHS model, and I generally use SVHS in EP mode for
timeshifting.  I don't really want to shell out for another SVHS
recorder, but I would like to be able to play SVHS tapes on it.  I
seem to recall that some regular VHS VCRs can play SVHS tapes at VHS
resolution.  Does anyone know which models have that capability, and
in what price range?  Frankly, I'd be happy with a playback-only VCP,
but they only seem to exist in the rock-bottom no-frills category.
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: wex@cs.ulowell.edu (Paul M. Wexelblat)
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Originator: wex@bigmax.ulowell.edu
Reply-To: wex@cs.ulowell.edu
Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:23:27 GMT


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??

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???

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?

Disclaimer: I neither suggest or condone theft of services.  Neither do
I wish to start a (yet another) flame war.

 
-- 
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

	...Wex
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Date: 31 Aug 1992 05:58:38 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <4980@news.duke.edu> 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.

The general problem with such a box is that it will be larger and more
expensive than the current boxes.  Instead of one descrambling circuit, it
would have to have one for every channel so that they all can be
descrambled simultaneously.

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1294 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:156
From: grad@sparky.drad.umn.edu (Jonathan Grad)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 3 Sep 92 04:01:16 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Radiology Department

In article <BtyytA.DLs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 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. That's why many people bite
>the bullet and subscribe to cable, myself included. Believe me, if I had
>room for a dish, I would dump cable in a second. At present, however, I
>have no real alternative. :-(
>
How about listening to the radio, reading books or buying videos?
Better yet, how about encouraging like minded subscribers to petition
your local government to allow competition in the cable tv marketplace.
Maybe then. you will actually see cable companies that must take
customer preferences into account in their programming and rates.
From: speers@micro-c.mcds.com (Daniel E. Speers)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Why converter needed w/ cable-rdy TV?
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 22:37:26 EDT
Organization: Dan's Domain, Randolph, New Jersey

ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman) writes:

> In article <17gkb2INNbs9@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU> MJV@brownvm.brown.edu  
> (Marshall Vale) writes:
>   [Re: cable company scrambling all channels, including basic package]
> >   Granted, this system makes it easy to order pay-per-view and change
> > premium channels, sneak previews and the like but I'd chuck any day
> 
> How does this make it any easier for the cable company than scrambling  
> premium channels and pay-per-view channels only, which is what my cable  
> system does?

  As I understand it, if they scramble everything, and you are
a person who would, say, climb a poll and connect the cable
yourself, to them, it wouldn't matter because the signal is
scrambled.
  And then, for those people that do pay for service, and
forget to pay the bill, they can kill the service without
having to drive out and disconnect the line.  

> I know there are companies that scramble everything, but I have yet to  
> hear a logical reason for it. After all, scrambling everything is going to  
> lead to lots of angry calls from customers, and probably some  
> cancellations. What do they gain to compensate for that?

  Around here I wish everyone would cancel cable service.  The
cable co doesn't seem to care about customers.  After all, they
have a monopoly on this area.  Who else would customers go to?


Dan Speers                                       (speers@micro-c.mcds.com)
Sysop & Dictater - err - Ruler - Hmm.. - How bout BOSS - no - King!
                no - Alright then, Super Genius! - TOO Much... What
                about, Dan The GREAT! - No huh? - ok, what about
                System Guru?  That's good.  Hey Sarah!  Don't touch
                that keyoluboaidkla;lkj,mn.,amnsdklga;lk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan's Domain - THE Best BBS Period! (Ok, semicolon...)
(201) 366-5018 - We use a Telebit T3000 (among other things...)
From: alan@acpub.duke.edu (Alan M. Gallatin)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Date: 30 Aug 92 20:53:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.
Originator: alan@north7.acpub.duke.edu

I've seen many comments about cable companies forcing their subscribers
to use channel selectors when wishing to view premium channels, thereby
making a cable ready TV useless (almost).

As I understand, these descrambler/selectors run as follows...

CATV from wall to cable box.  Cable box will then pass selected channel
to TV as channel 3.  The selected channel will be descrambled or not
based on the authorization the box receives from the cable company.
This set up requires someone with a cable ready TV to do one of the
following things:
  * Use the cable box for everything and sacrifice the cable readiness
    of the TV
  * Use an A/B switch to use the box for premium channels and the TV's
    tuner for everything else
  * Scrap the box and premiums along with it.

WHY DOES THIS HAVE TO BE SO COMPLICATED?  WHY NOT A "DIFFERENT" BOX?

If there is reason that this would not work, please holler...
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.  In such a case, the cable ready tuner on the
TV does everything and the cable box will work more as a behind the
scenes filter.  Of course, this also makes using a VCR a hell of a lot
easier since, again, the VCR's tuner will be able to do everything.

1) Does such a box exist?
2) Are cable companies using it?
3) Can I demand such a box from my cable company?

-- 
Alan M. Gallatin <alan@acpub.duke.edu>
Duke University School of Law; Durham NC
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:30:41 GMT

In article <Btv4vt.Kt5@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard) writes:

|> 2.  Many cable companies are cross owned with programming providers.
|>     While this is technically not wrong in a truly free enterprise system,
|>     it does get abused an awful lot.  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?
|>

This sort of cross-ownership has already had nasty effects: some of the major 
cable operators (I forget which) own hefty chunks of stock in Turner 
Broadcasting, and therefore in CNN.

That's why they refused to carry CNBC until its owner (NBC) gave in to their 
wishes and promised that it would never become a competing general-news 
channel.

Sounds like a combination-in-restraint-of-trade to me.
---
Richard Chonak, sysmgr                                    office: newz@wit.edu
Wentworth Institute of Technology             sometimes: norris@athena.mit.edu
I have very exclusive and nuanced opinions.  License info available on request.
From: hougen@uirvlj.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 3 Sep 1992 22:06:41 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: uirvlj.csl.uiuc.edu

shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:

>Cable companies face no direct competition.  There are no market forces
>which drive their industry.  Period.

Not true.

	(1) Cable is not a necessity for life.  I should know, I don't
have it and I'm still alive.  So, if the cable companies raise their
rates too high they will loose so many customers that they will
actually make *less* money.  In fact, the reason I don't have it is
because I think its too expensive given my current impoverished state
of existence.

	(2) The broadcast channels compete with cable.  Even though I
only get two channels in my present location, that is enought to keep
me from wanting cable.  Also, other forms media *do* compete cable.
If you are incapable of begin entertained by other forms of media,
that is *your* problem.

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

Darrell
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 14:03:26 GMT

andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart) writes:

[...]
>   Why do I keep it?   Because I'm addicted to CNN.
>
>   I can't wait, can't wait for direct broadcast satellites.  I understand 
>   that I'll probably be paying comparable fees, but at least I can get
>   pissed off and take my business elsewhere.
[...]

If the cable companies have their way, CABLE News Network will never
be available by direct broadcast at reasonable fees. They are working
very hard to buy into and control all the good programs sources.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: rpj7264@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Ron Jobmann)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: What's the real bullet story?
Summary: busted
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:40:14 GMT
Organization: 777 Electrical Systems, Boeing

In article <92239.52241.6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, 6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> to side step this bullet story just a tad,
> i'd like to know something...  just how can the cable co.
> tell if one has a pirate box or not?  and if so, what are
> they going to do, send the cable cops to your home with a
> warrant?   i think not.  how many people do you know that
> have gone to jail or paid mega fines for their pirate boxes.
> 
> 
> please respond as i would like to hear the answer to these
> questions.
>                                     ~~~~M~~~~

Here in the Pacific Northwest, there were some really stupid people
selling converters and descramblers at flea markets and at tables
set up in the street in front of their homes.  They were busted big time,
and the cops got access to the records of who the equipment was sold to
and THEY were being looked for.  There were also advertisements every week
in the free shopper rags advertising this equipment.

What gets me about this is, as long as you are not personally using the
stuff, why is it illegal to sell them?  I mean, converters and descramblers
are NOT controlled substances or anything, they're just electronics.
IMO, I think the people blatantly selling them were dumb enough to get
caught, but to prosecute them is another story.


In an non-related story:
I called the local cable co. to check on install prices (TCI).  They
were running a summer special that included hookup, and two premiums
for the first month for total of $60.  Anyway, I thanked her and told her
I would think about it. 

Two days later, I got home from work and there was a trench dug from the
cable co.'s box at the street up to the house.  It had been covered
back up, but was still very obvious since they killed the grass.  There
was a bunch of rolled up cable sitting next to the house.

Next day at work, got a call from cable co. asking when I would like them to finish having them install.  Told them, 'Sorry, didn't order it and I'm not
paying for the work you've done.  And by the way, whose paying for the 
lawn I need to replace?'  No answer of course.

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: sonic@romulus.cray.com (Curtis Swanson)
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:18:59 CDT


In article <1992Sep1.172327.23919@ulowell.ulowell.edu>, wex@cs.ulowell.edu (Paul M. Wexelblat) 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??
> 

Because each scrambled channel must be tuned, unscrambled and rebroadcast by
itself.  You cannot descramble multiple channels with one circuit.  Multiple
circuits are expensive to do with the required precision to keep them in their
proper channels.

> 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???
> 

Maybe, if your VCR does not distort the scrambled signal significantly.  The 
question is why do it this way?  This method is just as bad as a standard box
and cable switches.

> 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?
> 

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.

> Disclaimer: I neither suggest or condone theft of services.  Neither do
> I wish to start a (yet another) flame war.
> 
>  
> -- 
> You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
> 
> 	...Wex

Hope this information helps.....
--
***  Curt Swanson  ***  sonic@romulus.cray.com  ***  IOTTMCO  *********
HOME:n - That mythical place where you can go and relax.......
I'd rather be in a coma.........
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1302 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:159
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:34:43 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


In article <BtzH14.K2D@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ffujita@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Frank Fujita) writes:
>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

The three worst problems with TV reception are location, location, and
location.

If you're within line-of-sight of the transmission towers, with no
mountains or buildings in between or nearby, you can get a reasonably
clear signal free of snow and multipath (ghosting) interference. I used
to live in a 3rd floor apartment in NE Urbana. I could get all the local
channels quite well with a simple unamplified indoor antenna. I have
since moved ONE BLOCK away from there, to a second story apartment in a
brick building. My over-the-air reception went completely down the
toilet. I tried all sorts of indoor antennas, including amplified
models; none helped. At that point I resigned myself to being raped once
a month by the cable company. If I could mount an outdoor antenna or a
sat dish, I'd dump RapeVision in a second. Alas, that will have to wait
until I move again.
From: teague@acavax.lynchburg.edu
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Why converter needed w/ cable-rdy TV?
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:15:02 -0500
Organization: Lynchburg College


My friend is a subscriber to a cable system which requires a converter box
for reception.  That is, even though he has cable-ready equipment, he cannot,
for example, tape one channel and watch another (unless of course, he obtains
a second box).  The converter box is a Scientific Atlanta model, if that is
significant.  Is he stuck with this situation, or are there alternatives to
an additional converter box (and associated fee)?  Thanks.
---
Kipp   (reply via E-mail to TEAGUE@ACAVAX.LYNCHBURG.EDU)
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1313 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:164
From: bc338569@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Brian Catlin)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 4 Sep 92 06:48:19 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <Bu08DM.18q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>
>In article <Sep03.014035.18388@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> bc338569@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Brian Catlin) writes:
>>
>>Actually, it does cost the cable company extra.  (A _very_ little extra).
>>When adding several sets, the cable company must supply you with a stronger
>>signal, which also takes some of the signal away from the rest of the people
>>farther down the distribution cable.
>
>Sorry, but that's not true at all.
>
>I currently have 4 devices connected to my cable. RapeVision barely
>provides me with enough signal to drive ONE TV; in order to drive 4, I
>needed to purchase, at my own expense, a CATV distribution amplifier. It
>costs RapeVision NOTHING extra for my 3 "extra" sets; therefore they
>have absolutely no right to charge me for hooking them up.

OK, OK.  Instead of saying that they must provide you with a stronger signal,
I should have said that they SHOULD provide you with a stronger signal.
Each tap-off in a distribution line is set to give out xx amount of signal and
they should increase this when you add more sets.  In reality, though, they
usually don't want to take the time, effort, or cost to do this.

(I speak only from my limited experience and from the studying that I have done
on cable system operations.  Therefor, flame away!)

BTW, in this case, you definitely are getting ripped off.

B. J. Catlin
bc338569@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1306 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:161