HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elmquist@pez.ssesco.com (Chris Elmquist)
Subject: Re: Will this work?
Organization: SSESCO
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:27:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.161719.14587@osf.org> tom@osf.org (Tom Jordahl) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.214908.22466@wdl.loral.com> rst@spl1.spl.loral.com (Raymond Tom) writes:
>>|> It has a bandpass filter in the channel 3/4 input, and a band reject
>>|> filter in the other input.
>>|> 
>I called them up as soon as I read this post (Monday) and bought one
>of these thingies.  I should be getting it today (Thurs) or tomorrow (Fri).
>
>The guy on the phone claimed that there was little-to-no problem
>with channels 2 and 4 geting hosed by the output of the cable
>box being laid over ch. 3.
>
	[some deletions]
>
>I'll let you know how the combiner works.

yes... do that--

do you plan to put a VHF antenna on the VHF in or cable on the VHF
in ?  I'm curious if it is constructed as described above... and
if the bandpass/bandreject filters are acceptable for CATV frequencies
and levels...

Chris

--
Chris Elmquist, N0JCF
elmquist@SSESCO.com
73267.2711@Compuserve.com
(612)342-0003@work (8am-5pm CST6CDT)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,sci.electronics,rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: Monty Solomon <monty%roscom@think.com>
Subject: Re: Will this work?
Followup-To: rec.video.cable-tv
Reply-To: Monty Solomon <roscom!monty@think.com>
Organization: Proponent
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:17:27 GMT

In article <21111@plains.NoDak.edu> csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith)  
writes:
> I bought a Tru-Spec channel 3 combiner from MCM Electronics a while back
> for about $15.  It is supposed to do exactly what you ask.  It has a cable
> input, a ch3 input, and a combined output.  It is supposed to reject ch3
> from the cable input, filter the ch3 input to only ch3 (no bleed over into
> 2 and 4) and then combine the two signals.  But it doesn't work.  It doesn't 
> block the channel 3 from the cable enough.  You can see significant ghosts 
> of the old cable channel 3 in the combined channel 3 from the cable box.  
> I even took the top off and tried to tune the filter circuts by spreading 
> some of the air-core inductor windings to change inductance.  I improved 
> it's ch3 rejection slightly this way, but ghosts of the old ch3 and hum 
> bars were still plainly visible...

I have used these in the past.  They work quite well only if channel 3 is  
unused on the cable input.

A Channel Plus modulator will probably do what you want.  Their hyperband model  
modulates on any cable channel between 37 and 64.

-- 
# Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
# monty%roscom@think.com
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1750 misc.consumers:17588 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:508
From: dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Update on Status of Cable TV Re-Regulation Bill
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:40:56 GMT
Organization: Sony Microsystems, San Jose, CA


In article <1992Oct8.083427.1044@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, markr@mot.com (Mark) writes:
|> In article <H8P9RB5w164w@tweekco.uucp> alizard@tweekco.uucp (A.Lizard) writes:
|> >In other words, this shows that the system actually worked for once. Any
|>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
					^^^^^^
|> Let's reserve judgement as to whether this legislation 'works' or not until
|> a year, or two, or five have passed and cable consumers are happier, rates
|> are lower, and service is better.

Oh, come on! Let's reserve judgement as to whether or not you actually
read the posting before dashing off a response.

What A. Lizard said was that the "system" worked.  Congress created
legislation in response to consumer demand, the president tried to veto
it, and the Congress overruled the veto.

He did *not* say that the "legislation 'works'".  Don't put words in
peoples' mouths!

--
...David Elliott
...dce@smsc.sony.com | ...!{uunet,mips}!sonyusa!dce
...(408)944-4073
..."I take my arms and I wrap them around my art." - F
From: phil@phunt.MV.COM (Phil Hunt)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable reception
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 13:57:24 EST
Organization: Howtek, Inc.
Reply-To: phil@phunt.MV.COM
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.6v1


In article <petec.718042450@splat> (rec.video.cable-tv), 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.
] 
Sure, buy a satellite dish!  Reception is GREAT!   8*)

Phil
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1773 sci.electronics:16981 rec.radio.amateur.misc:16875
From: elmquist@pez.ssesco.com (Chris Elmquist)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,sci.electronics,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Will this work?
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:13:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SSESCO

In article <21111@plains.NoDak.edu> csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:
>In article <BvvIpE.9t5@ssesco.com> elmquist@pez.ssesco.com (Chris Elmquist) writes:
>
>Mine is.  It bleeds over heavily into channel 2 and a little into channel 4.
>You can see a very poor picture on ch2 and the audio is near perfect on ch2.
>Ch4 has a little audio and a barely noticible video signal.  BTW, if it
>matters, this is on a mechanical tuner...
As other posters have mentioned, the output of the tuner box will most likely
be a wider, DSB signal as there is no need for VSB filtering in that
application.  This will mean that the channel 3 output of the tuner box will
"walk on" a portion of the channel 2 from the cable. 

Perhaps a highpass filter that cuts in just after channel 3 would be a better
choice than the notch filter I originally proposed.  This would kill both
channel 2 and 3 from the cable...  but they would still be tuneable by the
tuner box...

>
>I bought a Tru-Spec channel 3 combiner from MCM Electronics a while back
>for about $15.  It is supposed to do exactly what you ask.  It has a cable
>input, a ch3 input, and a combined output.  It is supposed to reject ch3
>from the cable input, filter the ch3 input to only ch3 (no bleed over into
>2 and 4) and then combine the two signals.  But it doesn't work.  It doesn't 
>block the channel 3 from the cable enough.  You can see significant ghosts 
>of the old cable channel 3 in the combined channel 3 from the cable box.  
>I even took the top off and tried to tune the filter circuts by spreading 
>some of the air-core inductor windings to change inductance.  I improved 
>it's ch3 rejection slightly this way, but ghosts of the old ch3 and hum 
>bars were still plainly visible...

So, how much attenuation is needed to kill one of these signals ?  What
levels are we talking about here ?  20 dB ? 45 dB ? 

Chris

Chris Elmquist, N0JCF
elmquist@SSESCO.com
73267.2711@Compuserve.com
(612)342-0003@work (8am-5pm CST6CDT)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate,alt.censorship
From: elmquist@pez.ssesco.com (Chris Elmquist)
Subject: Re: Will this work?
Organization: SSESCO
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:27:53 GMT

In article <Bvw03y.KsK.2@cs.cmu.edu> rwb@alexander.VI.RI.CMU.EDU (Robert Berger) writes:
>In article <BvvIpE.9t5@ssesco.com> elmquist@pez.ssesco.com (Chris  
>Elmquist) writes:
>> 
>> I am wondering if the output of the tuner box is much wider (in  
>frequency)
>> than just channel 3... 
>
>Probably. If they remodulate to get channel 3 they probably use a
>cheap DSB modulator that also puts energy in channel 2.

This has been the consensus so far...

>
>There is an off the shelf solution called "Signal Combiner SC 1". It
>takes a channel 3 or 4 source and mixes it with another vhf signal
>containing the other channels.
>
>It has a bandpass filter in the channel 3/4 input, and a band reject
>filter in the other input.
>
>It is availabe from Skyvision for $19.95. You need to specify channel 3
>or 4 when ordering.
>

Is it likely that the VHF input would really pass all cable channels
up to 300+ MHz ??  If it is just a band reject for ch3/4 on the VHF
input and a band pass on the ch3/4 input then it seems likely that
it would...

I saw these in the Skyvision catalog and wondered how they were put
together...

Chris
Chris Elmquist, N0JCF
elmquist@SSESCO.com
73267.2711@Compuserve.com
(612)342-0003@work (8am-5pm CST6CDT)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: Monty Solomon <monty%roscom@think.com>
Subject: Re: Will this work?
Reply-To: Monty Solomon <roscom!monty@think.com>
Organization: Proponent
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:45:43 GMT

In article <Bw0Htt.GB@ssesco.com> elmquist@pez.ssesco.com (Chris Elmquist)  
writes:
> I have seen these advertised...  but no details are ever given about whether
> they modulate in MTS stereo (or not)... or if the input is baseband A/V or
> RF on channel 2 or 3.  Since they call it a "modulator", I have assumed it's
> baseband A/V and for cost reasons, that it doesn't do MTS stereo.
> 
> Is there a different story ?

Their modulators are available in one, two or three modulators per chassis,  
stereo or monaural audio, and analog or digital channel selection.

They all accept audio (left and right) and video inputs.

The stereo models broadcast true MTS stereo with dbx noise reduction companding  
circuits.  The monaural models mix the left and right audio inputs equally.

Each modulator includes a broadband combiner.

A couple of the models offer video and audio outputs which can be used as  
monitor or VCR inputs.


-- 
# Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA  01701-0405
# monty%roscom@think.com
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Most-wanted Cable Channels
Date: 7 Oct 92 04:49:28 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In <1992Oct4.231838.1237@ultb.isc.rit.edu> rxv9839@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes:
> NO and emphatically NO!  The cable companies pay the operating costs
> of C-Span 1 & 2 as apublic service and its not a cheap one.  Note the
> convention coverage you received from Broadcast TV this year.

I am not sure what you are trying to say about C-Span's convention coverage
this year.  I would have been lost without C-Span.  It was the only channel
to broadcast the convention in a manner where one could actually see and
hear the speakers.  Even CNN and PBS had sub-par coverage--all they did
was talk with their experts, they hardly ever carried any of the speakers
other then the headliners.  C-Span had great convention coverage IMHO.

BTW, I am curious to find out the per person cost of getting C-Span.

-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: tom@osf.org (Tom Jordahl)
Subject: Re: Will this work?
Organization: Open Software Foundation, Cambridge MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:17:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.214908.22466@wdl.loral.com> rst@spl1.spl.loral.com (Raymond Tom) writes:
>|> It has a bandpass filter in the channel 3/4 input, and a band reject
>|> filter in the other input.
>|> 
>|> It is availabe from Skyvision for $19.95. You need to specify channel 3
>|> or 4 when ordering.
>|> 
>|> Their number is 800-543-3025.
>
>Has anyone tried the "Signal Combiner SC 1" from Skyvision???  Does the 
>channel 3 signal spill over to channels 2 and 4???

I called them up as soon as I read this post (Monday) and bought one
of these thingies.  I should be getting it today (Thurs) or tomorrow (Fri).

The guy on the phone claimed that there was little-to-no problem
with channels 2 and 4 geting hosed by the output of the cable
box being laid over ch. 3.

By the way, when I asked for an "SC 1", he said it was something
completely different than the "Signal Combiner".

They are also sending me a catalog of their stuff.
They seemed like 'nice people'.

I'll let you know how the combiner works.

-- 
Tom Jordahl                                       Internet: tom@osf.org
Open Software Foundation                          UUCP:   ..!uunet!osf!tom
     "Go that way, *really* fast. If something gets in your way, turn."
From: pimentel@earrth.enet.dec.com (John Pimentel)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Looking for the full text of the Cable TV Protection Act of 1992
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:25:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: sousa.1910
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


Is there a location either here or FTP that I can aquire the full text as it
stands today?  (That is short of calling my "favorite" senator).

=============================================================================
-- John Pimentel

The opinions expressed are my own.  No rights are granted to take them out of
context nor do they represent the views of my employer, whomever it might be
for the moment.
=============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: wdp@gagme.chi.il.us (Bill Pfeiffer)
Subject: WANTED: Copy of entire cable-tv bill just passed.
Originator: wdp@gagme
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 06:19:43 GMT


I would like a copy of the entire cable-tv bill which was
just passed by the senate and house, so I can read for myself just what it
contains.

Can someone please post and/or e-mail me a copy of this legislation, *OR*
tell me where I may pick it up via FTP?

Thanks very much

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,misc.consumers
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Cable TV Consumer Protection Act of 1992
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:46:03 GMT

jack@myamiga.mixcom.com (Jack Decker) writes:
: 
:  > Now you tell me, who is going to defend your right to read the Bible (a
:  > subversive publication if there ever was one) and worship as you see
:  > fit? Why are your freedoms and rights more important than mine? Our
:  > founding fathers (some of whom were not deeply religious men regardless
:  > of what you learned in Sunday School) had had quite enough of the
:  > church dictating secular policy and so stated in their writings.
: 
: I think that you are slanting this just a bit (what they'd had enough of was
: one particular sect - the Church of England - telling everyone that they must
: join ONLY that church and worship God ONLY in their way) but this really isn't
: the place to discuss the history of the Americas.

Wrong. They left because the CofE would not let them force their narrow-minded
ideas on everyone else.  Why do you think they were called "Puritans?".

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: WILL THIS WORK?
From: dave.dennett@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Dave Dennett) 
Date: 10 Oct 92 06:32:00 GMT
Reply-To: dave.dennett@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (Dave Dennett) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

subj: Will this work?
to: chris elmquist

CE>I'd like to build this filter/combiner circuit to eliminate   > A/B 
CE>switching ahead of a cable ready TV...

Unfortunantly, since TV video is AM, you will probably run into 
problems when combining the signals back together with interference on 
channels 2 and 4.  One possible solution would be to add a channel 3 
bandpass filter to the output of the CATV box, which would clip off 
any signal outside of channel 3.

One of the easier solutions here would be to run the CATV signal 
through through one of the older style cable converters which take 
the channel 1 through 36 cable channels, and outputs them on channels 
40-82 in the UHF range.  This will allow you to tune channel 3 
directly from the cable box, and program your TV to the UHF range for 
the nonscrabled programming without any interference between the two.

Radio Shack used to sell a Cable -> UHF converter.  I would imagine 
somewhere you could still find a manufacturer making such a device.

           -----| CATV/UHF |-----> TV UHF in
--CATV---->                              
           -----| Cable Box|-----> TV VHF in

Another solution might be to use a channel 3 passband filter on the 
output of the cable box to eliminate interference to channels 2 and 4.
This along with a decent band reject filter for channel 3 on the other 
side should be sufficient, and should work.  The cost of the filters 
required for the signal levels you will be working with are probably 
going to be a tad expensive though.

 * 1st 1.01 #721s * GrapeVine/Ferret Face BBS * North Little Rock, Arkansas
                                                  
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: schroede@eagle (Ray Schroeder)
Subject: Re: Max number of channels on cable?
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Organization: Sangamon State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:49:50 GMT

Currently the MMDS systems (wireless cable) are limited to no more than
a dozen or twenty channels.  The actual number depends upon the educational
ITFS frequencies that may be used by a commercial provider in a given
market.  However, I just read in MultiChannel News of a new system that
is being tested at a higher microwave frequency.  It has the potential
to allow for forty or so channels.  Also being tested is a cellular
system that will allow for coverage in a broader area and in areas where
line of site is limited due to terrain or high rises.

				--Ray
--

			+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
			+	Ray Schroeder				+
			+	Dir. TV Office/Assoc. Prof. Com.	+
			+	Sangamon State University		+
			+	Springfield, Illinois 62794-9243	+
			+	217-786-6799				+
			+       schroede@eagle.sangamon.edu		+
			+  	70712.1413@compuserve.com		+
			+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1748 misc.consumers:17567
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Max number of channels on cable?
Date: 10 Oct 92 03:00:11 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <23800003@hpgrla.gr.hp.com> daveje@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Dave Jerzycki) writes:
<
<
< How does this discussion on capacity apply to the wireless cable services?
< We subscribe to a company called TVCN out of Denver.
< They have a receiver mounted on a mountain near Boulder. If you are
< within line of site to their dish, you can get a pretty good signal.
< We have a small microwave antennae mounted on our roof. All in all the service
< and picture quality is pretty good.

They have a transmitter on a mountain.  If it was a receiver you wouldn't see
anything.

The number of channels available on a wireless system is small.
-- 
      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
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: sam@rmtc.Central.Sun.COM (Sam Falkner)
Subject: Re: Update on Status of Cable TV Re-Regulation Bill
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 21:25:07 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!

as far as stupid political hype, i'll take cable tv {,de,re}regulation
over an anti-flag-burning amendment any day.  what a nightmare.

when people on this group joke about a 27th amendment for cheap cable,
at least they're kidding.

- sam
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1768 sci.electronics:16950 rec.radio.amateur.misc:16846
From: csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv,sci.electronics,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Will this work?
Date: 12 Oct 92 00:13:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: plains.21111
Distribution: usa
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <BvvIpE.9t5@ssesco.com> elmquist@pez.ssesco.com (Chris Elmquist) writes:
>I'd like to build this filter/combiner circuit to eliminate A/B switching
>ahead of a cable ready TV...
>
>                         ------------
>                   -----| ch 3 notch |------
>                  |     | filter     |      |
>CATV from  -------*      ------------       *----- to TV or VCR
>street            |                         |
>                  |      ------------       |
>                   -----| CATV tuner |------ 
>                        | box        |
>                         ------------
>
> *= two port splitter/combiner
>

[some deleted]

>I am wondering if the output of the tuner box is much wider (in frequency)
>than just channel 3...  

Mine is.  It bleeds over heavily into channel 2 and a little into channel 4.
You can see a very poor picture on ch2 and the audio is near perfect on ch2.
Ch4 has a little audio and a barely noticible video signal.  BTW, if it
matters, this is on a mechanical tuner...

>will I need a really wide notch in order to kill
>all of its output ?  

Probably a ch2 and ch4 notch band-reject filter on the output of the 
cable box would work, of the ch2 and ch4 on cable are strong signals.
I am talking about those filter that the cable TV gadget companies 
sell to block a channel from the cable.

>Perhaps several filters would be needed in series
>to completely kill the channel 3 from the street ?

One notch filter might be enough.

>Would the channel 2
>and channel 4 from the street bleed over into the channel 3 output from
>the tuner box ?

Probably not.

>Has anyone done this or know of an off-the-shelf solution to this apparently
>simple (and annoying) problem...

I bought a Tru-Spec channel 3 combiner from MCM Electronics a while back
for about $15.  It is supposed to do exactly what you ask.  It has a cable
input, a ch3 input, and a combined output.  It is supposed to reject ch3
from the cable input, filter the ch3 input to only ch3 (no bleed over into
2 and 4) and then combine the two signals.  But it doesn't work.  It doesn't 
block the channel 3 from the cable enough.  You can see significant ghosts 
of the old cable channel 3 in the combined channel 3 from the cable box.  
I even took the top off and tried to tune the filter circuts by spreading 
some of the air-core inductor windings to change inductance.  I improved 
it's ch3 rejection slightly this way, but ghosts of the old ch3 and hum 
bars were still plainly visible...
From: stuam@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr O A Machado)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: What's the system in Scotland?
Date: 11 Oct 1992 16:46:16 +0100
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <1b734gINN4ba@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa716@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Scott Fields) writes:
>NTSC?  Pal?  Secam?

>Does anyone know?


PAL


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I can't take pleasure from killing - but there's |      Orlando Machado
 just some things you gotta do..."          - TCM |  stuam@csv.ac.warwick.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------