HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 02:49:14 GMT
 <laird.715466064@stable.ecn.purdue.edu> <Btz9EB.KEG@news.orst.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.


In article <Btz9EB.KEG@news.orst.edu>, stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
|> In article <laird.715466064@stable.ecn.purdue.edu> laird@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird) writes:
|> >I want a descrambler that will sit in the loop of my TV and
|> >descramble whatever I tune to WITH THE TV'S TUNER.  I can get to
|> >the signals coming out of the tuner, and those going back to the
|> >display circuits; I just need a descrambler to go in between.
|> 
|> You will not find a commercial product such as this, for several
|> reasons. 
|> 1. Cable companies would never provide such a unit, since it would
|> remove their control over what signals you were able to view. 
[...]
|> 2. Installation of such a device would require extensive modification
| >to the user's television.
[...]
|> >I got only stupid non-answers before.  
|> 
|> This is a marvelous way of enticing people to respond to you. I saw your
|> first posting. When you ask a stupid question, in a stupid way, you 
|> get stupid answers.
|> 
|> 

I can get what is described, here, right now. Our local encrypted service
provides two kinds of decoders, one with a tuner and one without. The 
basic model with no tuner sits between your tuner and monitor and 
decodes whatever it receives. No modifications are required, provided your tv has
A/V inputs and either has baseband video tuner out (as opposed to monitor out) or
you use the video out from a vcr's tuner.

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
future, as more channels are offered, it will be possible to have the card
control which channels may be decoded. 

This is the VideoCrypt system, which is not the scrambling method normally used
in the US, so you may have to relocate if you want it. Even so, it's a
counter-example to Mr Stanley's response.

--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
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1286 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:154
From: bc338569@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Brian Catlin)
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:40:35 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <BtyytA.DLs@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep2.170848.10491@mcc.com> amck@mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
>>In article <Btxpp4.C98@cmptrc.lonestar.org> andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart) writes:
>>>   
>>>   Do you KNOW that they would like to charge me an ADDITIONAL FIVE DOLLARS
>>>   for each TV set hooked up in the house?  No additional services, just
>>>   more extensions.
>>
>Tell me, do you think that the phone company should charge you $5 extra
>per month for EACH and EVERY PHONE you have connected to your phone line
>in your home? Even if you OWN those phones? I notice that the phone company
>doesn't try to charge you for having a phone jack in your bedroom as well
>as your living room. Why should the cable company be any different?

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.  If you get enough people connecting extra
sets when the tap-off is only made for one, then the signal will be below
acceptable limits by the time it reaches the next amplifier or the end of the
line.

I for one, however, believe that the only requirement you should have, when
adding a new tv, is to let the cable company know about it so they can increase
the power.  The cost, of course, should come out of their own pocket.

Just my 3/4 of a cent opinion,
B. J. Catlin
bc338569@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu
*** Re-regulate the cable industry to the max!!! (I love to see them squirm) ***
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: aj008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Aaron M. Barnes)
Subject: New Sony 696HF VCR's for $329!
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 19:10:50 GMT


Thats right-NEW 696HF's for $329.

All you have to do is send your request for information to this ge
ntleman:

interpol@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

He told me about this,but did not specify the dealer.
I am sure he would appreciate any and all responses.

Thanks.
-- 
Aaron Barnes
aj008@cleveland.freenet.edu
Part 15 will take over broadcasting one frequency at a time!
Howard Phillips for President!
Newsgroups: uiuc.consumers,rec.video.cable-tv,alt.cable-tv.re-regulate
From: andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Andy Hart)
Subject: Re: Cablevision lies
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:55:51 GMT
Organization: CompuTrac Inc., Richardson TX

   
   So what did re-regulating the cable companies do for me?  I cheered it on
   when I heard about it, but I don't know the details.

   I have lived in my present location for 2 and a half years.  In that time 
   my monthly cable bill ( for "extended" basic "regular" service ) has gone
   from 13.95 to 25.35 a month!  They dropped ESPN and added some BS channel
   no one will ever watch.  They "reorganized"  their bloody channel number     
   assignments "to better serve me".  Now I have to carry around a silly
   translation table to convert from the channel numbers in the newspaper
   TV guide to their channels.               

   I hate them (cable companies) with a white-hot never-ending passion.

   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.

   Do you KNOW that they would like to charge me an ADDITIONAL FIVE DOLLARS
   for each TV set hooked up in the house?  No additional services, just
   more extensions.  Forget it!  If it comes into the house, it's MINE to 
   do with as I please.  At last count, I had 4 sets in the house and garage.
   Do you think I'm going to pay over $40.00 a month!

   I hate them, hate them, hate them.....  < degenerating into incoherent rage >


   -- Andy   (My opinions are my own, but if you'd like to borrow them...
		hep yo self. )

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Andrew Hart                   |  CompuTrac, Inc.                 |
|   (214) 234-4241                |  222 Municipal Drive             |
|   andy@cmptrc.lonestar.org      |  Richardson, TX  75080           |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky rec.video.cable-tv:1284 alt.cable-tv.re-regulate:153
From: 6069870@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: What's the real bullet story?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 21:39:24 GMT

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~~~~









Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski)
Subject: Re: What's the real bullet story?
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:20:41 GMT

While reading article <13241@ncrcan.Canada.NCR.CA>, I noticed that
mandreol@ncrcan.Canada.NCR.CA (mandreol) said the following:
 >What exactly is the FM Trap?  I have the switch on my Radio Shack line amp
 >and never new what is was.

An FM Trap is simply a notch filter that removes signals in the FM broadcast
band (approx. 88-108 Mhz) from the signal coming from the wall jack.  So for
those boxes that send (de)authorization signals at 108 Mhz or so, an FM trap
effectively shuts all such signals off.
-- 
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club        | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable TV Regulation
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:44:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES

In article <17u7efINN1p7@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>>  Congress is considering
>>>legislation in September that could force cable companies to pay
>>>broadcast TV stations (ABC, CBS, NBC) as much as $1 billion a year.
>
>If cable companies have to pay the networks, they'll presumably pass that
>cost on to the subscribers in the form of a rate increase.
>-- 
I don't see how this statement alone can account for a $23-$51 DOLLAR
increase in a cable bill.  (ie: I can't see the networks wanting
$7 per year per subscriber.)

IMO, the cost reflected by this statement accounts for a $0.50 cents
maximum per month total raise and that is a rather generous guess.  Look
at what the cable companies pay per subscriber for A&E, CNN, and other
basic level satellite programming, and you will see that my 50 cents
guess if far over what the network affiliates would get.

I use the term Network affiliates, because I don't think that the networks
themselves will get any on the cable funds directly from the cable 
operators.

tweek@netcom.com
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:23:44 GMT

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?

Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: Cable descrambler vs. channel selector
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:03:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.115345.7255@bluemtn.COM> gregp@bluemtn.UUCP (Greg Philmon) writes:
>At least one cable company here in Atlanta offers a small inline device
>that descrambles only a channel or two.  

Is this really a descrambler, or just a filter? Are the channels they
"descramble" truly scrambled, or are they protected by an interfering
squealer?
From: ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu (Dave Seaman)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Why converter needed w/ cable-rdy TV?
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:41:15 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

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?

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?

--
Dave Seaman
ags@seaman.cc.purdue.edu
From: bhouser@sc9.intel.com (Brad Houser)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: MTS Decoder Question
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:53:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: ichips.1992Aug31.225314.18872
Reply-To: bhouser@sc9.intel.com
Organization: Intel Corporation, California Technology Development


In article <Aug.27.18.55.37.1992.1730@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, 
hatamian@gandalf.rutgers.edu (ShAhin) writes:
>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.

The VCR is remodulating the video and audio on to channel 3 (or 4).  Most
VCR's (even ones that decode MTS) will _NOT_ pass the MTS subcarrier, since
it is actually in a different signal space.

If you were not tuning with the VCR, the signal would be passed unaltered, but
then you would need another way to tune.

>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? 

Not unless the MTS Decoder can select channels.  Otherwise the decoder
will only see channel 3, or whatever channel it is able to decode.

>You see
>I don't know how a MTS is set up, but I assume it has it's own audio
>tuner.

MTS works similarly to FM stereo.  A combined Left plus Right channel is sent 
where the mono audio carrier normally be, a Left minus Right is sent on a 
sub carrier that is shifted in frequency from the carrier, and there is another 
subcarrier that is called SAP for secondary audio programming.  (This can be
used to carry an audio signal in another language.)  During decoding, the 
channels are separated by adding and subtracting:

	(L+R) + (L-R) = 2L
	(L+R) - (L-R) = 2R


>
>Any help is appreciated.
>
>--Shahin
>
--
[Brad Houser                               <This space for rent>     ]
[                            bhouser@sc9.intel.com                   ]
[+1-408-765-0494                                                Woof!]
From: dlukas@thalamus.bu.edu (David Lukas)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Why converter needed w/ cable-rdy TV?
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:31:14 GMT
Reply-To: dlukas@thalamus.bu.edu (David Lukas)
Organization: Boston University

In article <cchapman.124.714851636@matd.gatech.edu>, cchapman@matd.gatech.edu (Charles H. Chapman) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug25.211502.17@acavax.lynchburg.edu> teague@acavax.lynchburg.edu writes:
|> >From: teague@acavax.lynchburg.edu
|> >Subject: Why converter needed w/ cable-rdy TV?
|> >Date: 26 Aug 92 02:15:02 GMT
|> >
|> >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.
|> >---
|> 
|> He only needs the box to descramble any premium channels (HBO, Cinemax,
|> Showtime, etc) that he may be getting.  If he's not getting any premium
|> channels then he doesn't need the box and the cable company is probably
|> just trying to rip him off.
|> 
|> 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

This is not necessarily true.  Many cable systems scramble more than
just the premium channels.  They may scramble some of the "basic"
channels if they have more than one tier of "basic" service, or they
may do it in order to discourage illegal hookups.  My cable company was
flamed extensively on this group when they announced their intention
to scramble everything except the religious and shopping channels (so
even local over-the-air stations would have been scrambled on the cable).

They backed down after a lot of negative feedback.  But many of the
"basic" services (like MTV, CNN, etc.) are scrambled and cannot be
received by my cable-ready set without a converter.  Our system offers
a lower tier of service with just the over-the-air, religious and
shopping channels and CNN Headline News (but not regular CNN).  If they
didn't scramble, people would be able to get all of the channels while
just paying for the low-tier service.  This wouldn't bother me at all,
but the cable company doesn't like the idea.
From: donrm@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Don Montgomery)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:44:25 GMT
Subject: Re: 59u = CATV ??
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv

In rec.video.cable-tv, giacobbe@pilot.njin.net (Jeff Giacobbe) writes:

>     Question:  I am assuming that this "59 U" coax was originally
>     installed for a roof antenna, but can it be used for a cable-tv signal
>     as well ( I think 59 U is a 75 ohm cable) ??

I wouldn't use it for cable TV unless it had a 100% foil shield.  If your
RG-59/U is plain old braid without a foil jacket, it'll leak enough signal
to get your cable company's attention (and probably the FCC's, if it inter-
feres with another service).

If you're lucky, you might be able to use the old cable to "fish" in some 
more contemporary line. 

While you're renovating the system, get rid of the screw terminal wallplates
and install coaxial F connectors.  Keep the signal in coaxial cable and make 
sure the shield is carried all the way to the receiver.

Visit your local Radio Shack store.  They'll have everything you need.

Don Montgomery, Santa Rosa, CA
donrm@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com
From: prmiskel@apgea.army.mil (Patricia R. Miskelly <prmiskel>)
Newsgroups: rec.video.cable-tv
Subject: Re: Cable TV Regulation
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:25:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Edgewood

In article <1992Aug26.195049.7536@u.washington.edu> sieferme@u.washington.edu writes:
>There has not been much discussion lately of the Cable Re-Regulation
>Bill currently creeping its way through Congress.  So, here is
>the text of a note I received yesterday with my cable bill from
>my local cable company (Viacom).  There have also been similar
>commercials on TV sponsored by the cable industry, propagating
>the same message.  It's truly staggering how many half-truths
>(quarter-truths, one-eighth-truths, etc.) can be put into a 
>single note.  Enjoy!  This is submitted for discussion; please
>don't flame me, since I think that this whole message is
>pure drivel.
>
>Note:  I capitalized the parts of the note which were printed
>in BOLD print.
>
>----------cut here-------------------------------------------------
>
>CONGRESS WILL ACT ON LEGISLATION IN SEPTEMBER THAT
>COULD RAISE, NOT LOWER, YOUR MONTHLY CABLE RATES.
>
>As a cable subscriber, you may be required to fund a billion-dollar
>bonanza for network TV broadcasters.  Congress is considering
>legislation in September that could force cable companies to pay
>broadcast TV stations (ABC, CBS, NBC) as much as $1 billion a year.
>
>What will you get?  The same network programming, the same
>commercials - AND THE TAB.  Meanwhile, your neighbors who don't
>subscribe to cable will get the networks for free.
>
>Putting the government into cable TV also will increase cable's 
>operating and regulatory costs, which could lead to higher cable bills.
>
>THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ESTIMATES THIS 
>LEGISLATION COULD MEAN INCREASED COSTS OF $23 TO $51 PER YEAR
>FOR EACH CABLE SUBSCRIBER.
>
>Stop this bill from becoming law.  Contact your U.S. Senators NOW.
>
>Cable companies recognize there may be a rationale for some rate
>guidelines, but this extreme bill is bad for consumers and cable.
>THIS BILL WILL SEND YOUR RATES UP, NOT DOWN.
>
>NOW IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO STOP THE CABLE TV BILL.  To contact your
>U.S. Senators, call the U.S. Capitol Operator at 1-202-224-3121.  Or
>write you Senators in care of:  U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510.
>
>National Cable Television Association.
>
>--------end of text------------------------------------------------
>

This is just about word for word the same thing I received from my
cable company, Comcast Cablevision of Maryland.  There was not one
word of explanation as to exactly how the bill would raise my rates.

They also included a postcard for me to sent to a senator.

They could at least have explained............  8-)

Pat Miskelly
pmiskel@dan.apgea.army.mil

-- 
Pat Miskelly
pmiskel@dan.apgea.army.mil
Newsgroups: rec.video,rec.video.production,kw.general,uw.general
From: bmaraldo@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Commander Brett Maraldo)
Subject: 16mm Film -> 1/2" Video Transfer Question
Organization: Unit 36 Research
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:18:48 GMT


	I have a short (15min) 16mm black and white print that I want to 
transfer for VHS video.  I have access to a movie theatre with ELMO 16mm
projectors.  Can I simply project the movie on the screen, perhaps up
close to get a brighter image, and video tape it with a standard camera?
Will I get aliasing?  If this will not work do you have any suggestions
how I can do this transfer (cheaply)?
	Please email me as I do not normally read the .video newsgroups.

Thanks,
Brett Maraldo
Plexus Productions


-- 
               --------     Unit 36 Research     ---------
	                "Alien Technology Today"
  	 	      bmaraldo@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca
  	           {uunet!clyde!utai}!watserv1!bmaraldo
From: baldwa@ondine.adobe.com (Sanjay Baldwa)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Canon E250 Camcorder
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:25:17 GMT
Reply-To: baldwa@adobe.com
Distribution: rec
Organization: Adobe Systems, Mountain View, CA, USA

Hi,

I am thinking of buying Canon E250. If you have used it then please let me
know how you found it?
What are other similar Camcorders? How are the optics?

Thanks,

Sanjay
--
baldwa@adobe.com  or  ..!decwrl!adobe!baldwa
Xref: sparky rec.video:10620 rec.video.production:1366
From: root@cvbnet.prime.com (cvbnet)
Newsgroups: rec.video,rec.video.production
Subject: Re: Assemble Edits
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:03:12 GMT


Thanks for your comments Jeff!
 
killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff Killeen):
>
> Are you sure this is adding time code or is it adding timing pulses?  For $240
> adding VITC would be the buy of a lifetime .....
 
Yes it does add VITC (according to the engineer at Azden that I spoke with).
He said I could move all around the copy and pick edit points since it had VITC now.
 
Of course when you make your master, I ASSume at that point, 
it IS counting frames. How else????   
 
A lot of people are getting confused about the setup I explained... 
 
1. Once you have your Hi8 raw tape in you camera, you don't remove it. 
2. Once you put a tape in the vcr, you don't remove it.  
3. You make a copy of the Hi8 through the VE100 to the vcr.
4. You assemble on the vcr. 
5. You hit "assemble".    
 
The VE100 now rewinds both tapes and executes assembles from Hi8 to vcr. 
BTW it uses LANC for the camcorder control and IR for the vcr. 
 
Sounds nifty doesn't it? 
 
>
> The only issue is accuracy.  On a budget you need to make a choice of which you
> value more...
>       Assemble edits but a accept a loss of frame accuracy.....
>       Gain accuracy but give up assemble......
> 
> Unless there is some magic in this unit I personally would take accuracy over
> assemble edits.  I never realized how important 5-10 frames could be until I
> started editing.
 
I don't want to edit by hand but I want to use a method that will 
at least be more accurate than editting by hand. If I could get  
3-5 frame accuracy for 300 bucks....sounds good to me. 
 
joe