TOCOM Cable boxes
Gary Steed
>> got cable here in NYC (American Cable VIsion of Queens).
>i am also interested in this. in particular, i would like to know
>if the cable company has any means of detecting whether a box is
>"online". i have thought of buying a second box for my bedroom
>and avoiding the outrageous monthly rental fees the cable company
>charges but have been hesitant because of images of the fbi breaking
>into my bedroom and confiscating my cable box :-)
This is my understanding of how they work from my dealings with the
cable company and talking to others in the cable business. Each box has
an address, which is programmed into it before they give it to you. Once
you connect it to the cable, they can communicate with it using using a
broadcast message that contains your address. The message is sent out
to all boxes on the cable system but only the box with the matching
address listens/hears it. As far as I know (and please correct me if
I'm wrong) the communication is one-way only. The cable company can
send your box messages but your box can't send anthing back to the
cable company. Thus, they have no way of detecting whether your box
is 'on-line'. The box has a feature built in to look for the cable
signal. If it doesn't detect it, it will go into an error state. On
my box the number 04 (the 0 looks like the top half of an 8) appears
when this happens. This error can be cleared up by connecting the
cable and calling the cable company to reset it, or just waiting
up to two hours and it will clear itself up. It doesn't look for the
cable signal all of the time, just a quick check once in a while,
so disconnecting breifly won't hurt.
As far as adding a second box, you only need it if you subscribe
to any premium channels (HPO,Showtime, etc..) or plan to use order
any Pay-per-View channels. If you don't, and you have a cable-ready
TV, you can connect the cable straight to the TV. You can get a
splitter from a lot of different stores that will do the trick.
I found that the picture was better if I didn't use their box
for basic channels. I only use their box as a tuner for my VCR which
isn't cable-ready. I don't get any of the premium or pay-per- view stuff.
Hope this helps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Steed Hewlett-Packard Co.
CC&S Network Engineering
Unix: st...@hpcc26.corp.hp.com Palo Alto, CA.
Mike Rosenberg
>
> As far as adding a second box, you only need it if you subscribe
>to any premium channels (HPO,Showtime, etc..) or plan to use order
>any Pay-per-View channels. If you don't, and you have a cable-ready
>TV, you can connect the cable straight to the TV. You can get a
>splitter from a lot of different stores that will do the trick.
>I found that the picture was better if I didn't use their box
>for basic channels. I only use their box as a tuner for my VCR which
>isn't cable-ready. I don't get any of the premium or pay-per- view stuff.
>
That's very interesting. There is a rumor here in New York (Manhanttan)
that Paragon cable will start scrambling basic service early in 1992
(perhaps January). I am very upset about this. Among other things this
will have the following ramnifications:
1) If you want remote control, you have to pay Paragon for the privilege.
($2 a month per remote).
2) If you want to watch one channel and record another, you will need
to have two cable boxes, and probably two televisions and two VCRS.
If you simply hooked up two boxes, one each to the set and VCR, the
remote will probbably affect both (unless you cover the remote area
on the second box....this starts to sound silly doesn't it).
3) Does your set have picture-in-picture capability? Not any more, unless
you rent another cable box. I'm not even sure if this functionality
can be maintained if you use the cable company supplied remotes.
In general, this is a real disaster. I have just talked to Paragon
and confirmed that they do indeed plan to scramble basic service sometime
soon. Does anyone out there currently have scrambled basic service?
Comments anyone?
Mike Rosenberg
m...@Morgan.com
Vidiot
<
<In general, this is a real disaster. I have just talked to Paragon
<and confirmed that they do indeed plan to scramble basic service sometime
<soon. Does anyone out there currently have scrambled basic service?
<Comments anyone?
Sounds like it is time to talk to the city fathers and if that doesn't work,
it is time to do a class-action lawsuit, claiming that your investment has
been made useless and costly to do the same thing. You entered into the
cable system thinking that your equipment would be useable and there isn't
another source to get the same services.
It is about time that people start taking the cable companies to court over
this lousy practice.
--
harvard\ att!nicmad\ spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
rutgers/ decvax!nicmad/ INET:<@spool.cs.wisc.edu,@astroatc:brown@vidiot>
Jon Rosen
>that Paragon cable will start scrambling basic service early in 1992
>(perhaps January). I am very upset about this. Among other things this
>will have the following ramnifications:
>1) If you want remote control, you have to pay Paragon for the privilege.
> ($2 a month per remote).
>2) If you want to watch one channel and record another, you will need
> to have two cable boxes, and probably two televisions and two VCRS.
> If you simply hooked up two boxes, one each to the set and VCR, the
> remote will probbably affect both (unless you cover the remote area
> on the second box....this starts to sound silly doesn't it).
>3) Does your set have picture-in-picture capability? Not any more, unless
> you rent another cable box. I'm not even sure if this functionality
> can be maintained if you use the cable company supplied remotes.
The only exception I take to the above is that you don't need to
pay them for the remote privilege... Unfortunately, you do have to
pay somebody... Rent their remote for one month, buy a Memorex
(or Radio Shack or other) universal remote and program it...
Then return theirs... To the best of my knowledge, they have no
way of shutting off remote control usage on a box-by-box basis...
Alos, you may want to keep one remote from them in case your
universal goes on the fritz and needs to be reprogrammed but you
can control all your other boxes from universals and have the
(at least moral) satisfaction of knowing you are not being
extorted by your cable company beyond the cost of the box...
Of course, you still need several boxes (sigh)...
Jon
PS, our remote rents for $2.95 so consider yourself lucky...
Jon Rosen
>In article <24...@s5.Morgan.COM> m...@Morgan.COM (Mike Rosenberg) writes:
><
><In general, this is a real disaster. I have just talked to Paragon
><and confirmed that they do indeed plan to scramble basic service sometime
><soon. Does anyone out there currently have scrambled basic service?
><Comments anyone?
>
>Sounds like it is time to talk to the city fathers and if that doesn't work,
>it is time to do a class-action lawsuit, claiming that your investment has
>been made useless and costly to do the same thing. You entered into the
>cable system thinking that your equipment would be useable and there isn't
>another source to get the same services.
Nice idea but not likely... First of all, you always have the "reasonable"
alternative of saying "screw you, cable company" so what have you lost?
I doubt you could find any legal basis for the right to have perfect TV
signals placed into your home... Your equipment has not been "taken"
from you, even in the legal sense, since by simply putting up an antenna
(remember those things from a simpler time?) you can once again use all
of the features you want (i.e., one signal feeds all of your TV/VCRs
and multiple channels can be received)... And its free...
Second, the cities and the feds made an interesting "devil" pact some
years back in which the cities gave up the right to regulate the cable
companies in exchange for some increases in franchise fees and the
like... Thus, cable companies are now regulated principally by federal
law and those laws (in the post-Reagan years) are notoriously lax in
protecting ANYONE...
I think any civil law suit against cable companies on these issues
would be tossed... The best you can do is lobby the feds to put
local control of cable companies back in place, but I doubt it will
happen... <sigh>
Jon
Gary L Dare
>that Paragon cable will start scrambling basic service early in 1992
>(perhaps January). I am very upset about this.
So you should, but by that time maybe a competing satellite system
will be in place (you know, that one that was supposed to have been up
this past autumn ... (-;) so you won't have to deal with Paragon.
It's amazing that the south Manhattan people get about 70 channels on
Manhattan Cable while us poor (north Manhattan) people get 33 for the
same price on Paragon ... hopefully, I'll be out of New York a long
time by the time Paragon pulls this stunt.
I had heard rumours from various sources that Paragon Cable in North
Manhattan has one of the highest cable theft rates on the continent.
(Then again, look at the population density of this place!) Makes you
wonder a lot of things ...
gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare "Ich bin *ein Berliner*!"
> g...@cunixD.cc.columbia.EDU <I am a donut!>
> g...@cunixc.BITNET - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Bill Rubin
> Then return theirs... To the best of my knowledge, they have no
> way of shutting off remote control usage on a box-by-box basis...
> Alos, you may want to keep one remote from them in case your
> universal goes on the fritz and needs to be reprogrammed but you
> can control all your other boxes from universals and have the
> (at least moral) satisfaction of knowing you are not being
> extorted by your cable company beyond the cost of the box...
> Of course, you still need several boxes (sigh)...
My cable company (Cablevision) can and definitely does turn off the
remote control capability on the Jerrold boxes they use. I had the
remote for one month (for free) then returned it. I recently bought a
new TV with a pre-programmed universal remote, but could not get it to
work with the cable box. I then borrowed a friend's remote (he
programmed his universal remote so he doesn't need it) and it still
would not work.
> Jon
>
> PS, our remote rents for $2.95 so consider yourself lucky...
Ours rents for $6 a month. Talk about obscene.
Bill Rubin
ru...@ibm.com
scott
>In article <24...@s5.Morgan.COM> m...@Morgan.COM (Mike Rosenberg) writes:
>>That's very interesting. There is a rumor here in New York (Manhanttan)
>>that Paragon cable will start scrambling basic service early in 1992
>>(perhaps January). I am very upset about this. Among other things this
>>will have the following ramnifications:
>>1) If you want remote control, you have to pay Paragon for the privilege.
>> ($2 a month per remote).
>
>pay them for the remote privilege... Unfortunately, you do have to
>pay somebody... Rent their remote for one month, buy a Memorex
>(or Radio Shack or other) universal remote and program it...
>Then return theirs... To the best of my knowledge, they have no
>way of shutting off remote control usage on a box-by-box basis...
>Alos, you may want to keep one remote from them in case your
>universal goes on the fritz and needs to be reprogrammed
It seems like there might be a market niche for a Learning Remote with
SAVE capability. I've seen some of those programmable remotes: there's
enough space to put in a 2" microfloppy disk drive, or perhaps a memory
card (made by Canon (?) and others) or even a bubble memory chip.
Alternatively, it could come with a small serial port which connects to
a "standard" RS-232C port on a desktop computer to download settings. The
Trainable Master Controller that Steve Ciarcia built in the (March 1987?)
issue of Byte magazine had exactly this capability.
It wouldn't be hard to add this feature, and would prevent those of you
in the unfortunate situation described above from having to re-rent the
cable company's remote every time you change batteries in your Smart Remote.
--
Scott Coleman tm...@uiuc.edu
"Unisys has demonstrated the power of two. That's their stock price today."
- Scott McNealy on the history of mergers in the computer industry.
Mark Goldberg
>It wouldn't be hard to add this feature, and would prevent those of you
>in the unfortunate situation described above from having to re-rent the
>cable company's remote every time you change batteries in your Smart Remote.
Here's an alternative. Depending on the prices of programmable remotes,
you could buy two instead of one. When one dies due to dead batteries,
use the other to reprogram it. This may be cheaper and/or less hassle
that re-renting a remote.
=========David Taylor Research Center (a U.S.Navy lab) - Annapolis, MD=========
, , __ | "Everyone is entitled
/|/| /| |) |/ / _. /\ | |\ |) [~ |) /~_ | to MY opinion."
/ | /~| |\ |\ \__/ \/ |_ |/ |) [_ |\ \_/ | gold...@oasys.dt.navy.mil
Ron Christian
Somebody suggested that a simple answer to bad cable service is to
disconnect the cable and put up an antenna. Whether that option is
valid depends on where you live. Even if good reception is available,
some communities have banned outside antennas as "eyesores". (And
some even ban satellite dishes with the same excuse.) Sometimes the
only options are poor service from a monopolistic cable system, or
rabbit ears.
I use rabbit ears.
Ron
Vidiot
<alternative of saying "screw you, cable company" so what have you lost?
<I doubt you could find any legal basis for the right to have perfect TV
<signals placed into your home... Your equipment has not been "taken"
<from you, even in the legal sense, since by simply putting up an antenna
<(remember those things from a simpler time?) you can once again use all
<of the features you want (i.e., one signal feeds all of your TV/VCRs
<and multiple channels can be received)... And its free...
Putting up an antenna will not get you MTV, ESPN, USA, TNT, etc. The cable
company is your only choice.
<Second, the cities and the feds made an interesting "devil" pact some
<years back in which the cities gave up the right to regulate the cable
<companies in exchange for some increases in franchise fees and the
<like... Thus, cable companies are now regulated principally by federal
<law and those laws (in the post-Reagan years) are notoriously lax in
<protecting ANYONE...
Unfortunately this part is true, that is why a civil suit is mentioned.
<I think any civil law suit against cable companies on these issues
<would be tossed... The best you can do is lobby the feds to put
<local control of cable companies back in place, but I doubt it will
<happen... <sigh>
A few years ago I would have agreed that a civil suit wouldn't have made it.
But today's technology is remote control. You are hit with ads to purchase
products that have record this/watch that, watch this in the big picture/
watch this in the little picture, etc, etc, etc. You spend many dollars
getting that equipment, knowing that it works on your cable system. Then
along comes another company that takes over and basically says FUCK YOU.
Well, your only choice is to fight back.
If my cable company went and did that, you can bet your life that I would be
in court real fast. But, my company (at this point in time) is installing
boxes on each of the houses that are "user interfaces". The cable goes into
the box and the user has an access point to connect his stuff too. The idea
of the box is that the cable company can put their equipment into it. What
that equipment is needs to be determined. But, they are looking into a
system that is basically like addressable taps. The feed into the house will
be a clean feed, ie, the purchaser will only get the channels that are paid
for. But, those channels will ALL be available, which will allow for usage
of all the owners hi-tech equipment.
My parent company is TCI. At this point in time, they appear to be receptive
to the user. Both HBO and Showtime do not require boxes, making it very
easy to program one channel and watch another, etc.
The original user needs to get together with a lawyer and many other people
and get that suit started right away. You never know if it will work until
you try it. The first thing that is needed is a restraining order. This will
keep the company from doing anything until the problem is resolved.
If there was a second cable company in town, that company could clean up the
business by advertising that they ALLOW FULL PROGAMMABILITY OF BASIC CHANNELS.
A very good advertising campaign that should bring in a few customers from the
"OTHER" company. But, a majority of cities don't have dual service.
I've said my peace. This issue gets me hot under the collar.
Jeffrey Weiss
>...
>It's amazing that the south Manhattan people get about 70 channels on
>Manhattan Cable while us poor (north Manhattan) people get 33 for the
>same price on Paragon ...
provides about 33 regular and 9 premium channels. And I thought *you*
guys were getting 70 channels!
BTW, can somebody please e-mail to me the brand name and model number of the
boxes used by Manhattan cable in NYC. Much appreciated.
--
j...@mckinsey.com (...mit-eddie!mck-csc!jw)
Jeffrey Weiss
Rob Finley
>In article <1990Dec27.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> sc...@blueeyes.kines.uiuc.edu (scott) writes:
>>It wouldn't be hard to add this feature, and would prevent those of you
>>in the unfortunate situation described above from having to re-rent the
>>cable company's remote every time you change batteries in your Smart Remote.
>
>Here's an alternative. Depending on the prices of programmable remotes,
>you could buy two instead of one. When one dies due to dead batteries,
>use the other to reprogram it. This may be cheaper and/or less hassle
>that re-renting a remote.
Even better: find a remote (usually one less expensive...) that may
learn but already knows. My Phillips TV came with a smarter remote
that already knows a wild variety of Cable boxes AND VCR's. All I have
to do is tell it which brand I have by a five-button combination or
if that fails (or I can't find the manual 8-), I just hold down three
buttons and wait until the channel display starts incrementing and let go...
I sympathize with the consumers who have even the normally free channels
scrambled. Once they get you to use the box, It would be very easy for
ALL of the stations to be scrambled.
Two arguments against using the boxes (especially Scientific Atlanta)
is that I end up with a noise burst when changing channels (kindof hurts with
headphones) and somehow my remote won't let me go back and forth between two
channels...
Go to your local retail outlet (even Radio Shack) and thumb through the
manuals (God forbid you would get a correct answer from the salesperson...)
in the midst of the programming information.
Good luck!
-----
"Lets go kick some Earthling butt!" -- Spaced Invaders
quintro!bpdsun1!r...@lll-winken.llnl.gov
uunet!tiamat!quintro!bpdsun1!rmf
Rob Finley
I found an overview of smart remotes in a recent Video magazine.
If you can find the Jasco Control-1 (model HE8255), this lists at $75 and
and is pre-programmed for most anything. Philips AK9033GY01 either learns
new ones or is already pre-programmed.
Bummer. If the remote can learn, the article doesn't mention that it may
already know...
Jeffrey Weiss
>you could buy two instead of one. When one dies due to dead batteries,
>use the other to reprogram it. This may be cheaper and/or less hassle
>that re-renting a remote.
as standard equipment with my Philips TV's) will retain their learned settings
for quite some time during battery changing. I assume they use either an
internal lithium battery or one of those low-voltage-many-microfarad
capacitors for backup. Do other brands REALLY leave you hanging??? This
seems unreasonable since remotes require battery changes NOT infrequently!
Rob Finley
On My last visit to Wal-Mart, they had a pre-programmed universal remote
for $50 bucks. Don't think of it as 16 months of remote rental, think of
it as something that controls more than just that &^%#$$$@ box!
Enjoy...
scott
>In article <51...@oasys.dt.navy.mil> gold...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mark Goldberg) writes:
>>Here's an alternative. Depending on the prices of programmable remotes,
>>you could buy two instead of one. When one dies due to dead batteries,
>>use the other to reprogram it.
>
>as standard equipment with my Philips TV's) will retain their learned settings
>for quite some time during battery changing. I assume they use either an
>internal lithium battery or one of those low-voltage-many-microfarad
>capacitors for backup. Do other brands REALLY leave you hanging??? This
>seems unreasonable since remotes require battery changes NOT infrequently!
That "battery change" backup covers you for battery changes, but what happens
when something breaks? What if the remote has a minor glitch that leaves it
undamaged but makes it "forget" its programming? What about a human error
which causes the programming to be wiped out?
There are lots of reasons why a "save to disk" or "upload to PC" capability
would be useful in a learning remote, even one with the backup capability you
describe. To paraphrase the famous saying, "Stuff Happens." ;-)
Howard Chu
>SAVE capability. I've seen some of those programmable remotes: there's
>enough space to put in a 2" microfloppy disk drive, or perhaps a memory
>card (made by Canon (?) and others) or even a bubble memory chip.
>Alternatively, it could come with a small serial port which connects to
>a "standard" RS-232C port on a desktop computer to download settings. The
>Trainable Master Controller that Steve Ciarcia built in the (March 1987?)
>issue of Byte magazine had exactly this capability.
Just get an HP-48SX, and program it yourself. I always remember my frustration/
confusion when working in my living room, and aiming my HP41 at the stereo or
TV instead of picking up the proper remote. With the 48 and its built-in IR
interface, you get the best possible solution - a hand-held computer that can
save your work to external media.
It's easy enough to build a kit that can attach to a regular computer as well,
but that's likely to defeat the portability aspect...
--
-- Howard Chu @ University of Michigan
Flame all you want - we'll take more.
Juri Munkki
>In article <1990Dec27.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> sc...@blueeyes.kines.uiuc.edu (scott) writes:
>>It seems like there might be a market niche for a Learning Remote with
>>SAVE capability.
>
>confusion when working in my living room, and aiming my HP41 at the stereo or
>TV instead of picking up the proper remote. With the 48 and its built-in IR
>interface, you get the best possible solution - a hand-held computer that can
>save your work to external media.
I think this needs clarification. The HP48SX has an infrared receiver and
a transmitter, but currently the software only supports a HP specific
protocol for communication between HP48SXs and another for the HP IR
printer.
Second, you can't program the 48SX into a learning remote without some
amount of machine code. Fortunately good cross-assemblers are available,
but unfortunately documentation on the hardware is scarce. Just learning
how machine code works on the 48SX can take a long time.
It seems that writing a learning remote program for the HP48SX is possible
and there should be a huge market for it. The transmitter is probably close
enough to the HP28S transmitter and even the HP28S can be used as a remote
controller for all Philips products, if you have the correct software.
I think a shareware or commercial learning remote program for the HP48SX
could make a lot of $$$. The software shouldn't cost more than $35, if it's
in RAM or more than $70 for a ROM card version.
For more information on the HP48SX, read comp.sys.handhelds.
____________________________________________________________________________
/ Juri Munkki / Helsinki University of Technology / Wind / Project /
/ jmu...@hut.fi / Computing Center Macintosh Support / Surf / STORM /
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A1 gerard pinzone (ee)
C.O.R.E. remotes. They were totally programable. Alas, the company went
out of business. They were $200 when they were out and I heard they
were selling for $100 about a year ago. Good luck in finding one!
==========Gerard Pinzone=======================gpin...@george.poly.edu=========
_______ ________ ________ Just on the border of your waking mind
/ ___/ / _____/ / __ / There lies another time
/ ___/ / /____ / __ / Where darkness and light are one
/______/ /_______/ /__/ /__/ And as you tread the halls of sanity
East Coast Anime You feel so glad to be unable to go beyond
ELO: "Prologue" -=- Daicon IV I have a message from another time...
Bennett Broder
In article <20...@oolong.la.locus.com> j...@locus.com (Jon Rosen) writes:
%In article <24...@s5.Morgan.COM> m...@Morgan.COM (Mike Rosenberg) writes:
%>That's very interesting. There is a rumor here in New York (Manhanttan)
%>that Paragon cable will start scrambling basic service early in 1992
%>(perhaps January). I am very upset about this. Among other things this
%>will have the following ramnifications:
%>1) If you want remote control, you have to pay Paragon for the privilege.
%> ($2 a month per remote).
%>2) If you want to watch one channel and record another, you will need
%> to have two cable boxes, and probably two televisions and two VCRS.
%> If you simply hooked up two boxes, one each to the set and VCR, the
%> remote will probbably affect both (unless you cover the remote area
%> on the second box....this starts to sound silly doesn't it).
%>3) Does your set have picture-in-picture capability? Not any more, unless
%> you rent another cable box. I'm not even sure if this functionality
%> can be maintained if you use the cable company supplied remotes.
%
%The only exception I take to the above is that you don't need to
%pay them for the remote privilege... Unfortunately, you do have to
%pay somebody... Rent their remote for one month, buy a Memorex
%(or Radio Shack or other) universal remote and program it...
%Then return theirs... To the best of my knowledge, they have no
%way of shutting off remote control usage on a box-by-box basis...
%Alos, you may want to keep one remote from them in case your
%universal goes on the fritz and needs to be reprogrammed but you
%can control all your other boxes from universals and have the
%(at least moral) satisfaction of knowing you are not being
%extorted by your cable company beyond the cost of the box...
%Of course, you still need several boxes (sigh)...
%
%Jon
%
%PS, our remote rents for $2.95 so consider yourself lucky...
If the box in question is a TOCOM, then your best knowledge is wrong.
With the TOCOM system, the cable operator can shut off remote control
capabilities. My cable company (Monmouth Cablevision) charges $5.00
a month for remote service, although they provide remotes for all
outlets for a single $5.00 fee. The day after I cancelled remote service
and returned the remote control the only thing my universal control could
do was operate the parental lock feature. Since I have an A/B switch and
only use the TOCOM to receive scrambled broadcasts, I use the TV and VCR
remotes for most of my viewing, and only have to rise from my easy chair
to fiddle with the TOCOM when viewing channels that are scrambled.
I am not pleased with my cable companies policies on scrambling.
They scramble some premium services, such as Disney, Playboy and Bravo,
and they scramble all channels newly added to basic cable such as AMC, TNT,
and the Discovery channel. Other premium services, like HBO, CINEMAX
and SHOWTIME are controlled using traps on the phone pole. The reason
for this is due to their list of priorities. Their highest priority
seems to be preventing the theft of cable services. Their second highest
priority is getting TOCOM convertors into all subscriber households in
the hope that they will order those outragously overpriced pay-per-view
movies and special events. Way down at the bottom of the list of priorities
is providing a service that is convenient to use. In the computer
industry, it took about ten years for vendors to realize that legitimate
users who pay for computer software should not be inconvenienced by
copy protections schemes. I sincerely hope the cable industry learns this
lesson soon. As a person who does not pirate cable service, I am outraged
at the fact that I have to use A/B switches and fancy wiring schemes
just to enjoy the features on my cable compatible television and VCRs.
Fortunately, our cable company will soon be negotiating a new contract
with our town, and I hope that our town will insist on an end to the
abhorent practice of scrambling basic cable channels.
--
Bennett Broder Monmouth College
..princeton!moncol!ben Computer Services
..rutgers!petsd!moncol!ben W. Long Branch, NJ 07764
Mike Yang
>If the box in question is a TOCOM, then your best knowledge is wrong.
>With the TOCOM system, the cable operator can shut off remote control
>capabilities.
My cable operator uses TOCOM boxes, but doesn't charge for remote use.
However, all this talk about remote operator control over the boxes
prompted me to ask once and for all what they can and cannot do, and
whether leaving the box on has any effect on this.
When I first got my box, I hooked it up to the second RF input of my
TV since I only wanted it to decode the pay station I purchased. The
first few days, I received all of the pay stations as a promotion and
then only the ones I purchased.
I was away on vacation for a week and turned off my box as they
instructed to do when not in use. When I returned, it wouldn't work
when turned on. I called the operator and they told me to turn it
off, and then they tried to "send it a signal" but with no effect. I
exchanged the box and things worked again. Once again they reminded
me to keep the box powered off when not it use.
When I got home, I realized that they couldn't ping the box because it
wasn't reachable when my TV wasn't switch to its aux input (it appears
to be a physical relay). Since I was once again receiving all the pay
channels (I assume as another promotion), I decided to check if they
could control the box if left on. I left my box on all the time to
see if they could turn off the ones I wasn't paying for.
Well, it's been 5 months now and I still receive all of them. We've
had a couple of power failures, but the box seems to come up in a
powered-but-no-channel-selected state when the power is restored.
So, is it true that operators can't control a TOCOM box when the power
is on, or did exchanging boxes just confuse my company in my personal
case? If the former, you could return the remote and they couldn't
turn off remote capability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Yang Silicon Graphics, Inc.
mi...@sgi.com 415/335-1786
Mark Friedman
>In article <24...@s5.Morgan.COM> m...@Morgan.COM (Mike Rosenberg) writes:
>>That's very interesting. There is a rumor here in New York (Manhanttan)
>>that Paragon cable will start scrambling basic service early in 1992
>>(perhaps January). I am very upset about this. Among other things this
>>will have the following ramnifications:
>>1) If you want remote control, you have to pay Paragon for the privilege.
>> ($2 a month per remote).
>
>The only exception I take to the above is that you don't need to
>pay them for the remote privilege... Unfortunately, you do have to
>pay somebody... Rent their remote for one month, buy a Memorex
>(or Radio Shack or other) universal remote and program it...
>Then return theirs... To the best of my knowledge, they have no
>way of shutting off remote control usage on a box-by-box basis...
>Alos, you may want to keep one remote from them in case your
>universal goes on the fritz and needs to be reprogrammed
I don't know about Paragon and their cable boxes, but my cable company
(Continental Cablevision in Arlington, Ma.) CAN shut off remote
control capability on a box-by-box basis.
-Mark
--
Mark Friedman
MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
545 Technology Sq.
Cambridge, Ma. 02139