Cable "silver bullets"
John Alonzo Breen
cable companies were cracking down on cable theft by using what the
article referred to as a "silver bullet" - a signal that would cause
illegal descramblers to malfunction, but not affect "legal" ones.
Not that I'm planning to steal cable or anything, but does anyone know
how this works? I brought it up during a discussion at work today,
and my co-worker was very skeptical that it could be done (and I've
always wondered how they did it, too :-).
Thanks.
--
John A. Breen |
ja...@cec1.wustl.edu | This space unintentionally left blank
John F. Woods
>A while ago (maybe a year or so) I read an article about how some
>cable companies were cracking down on cable theft by using what the
>article referred to as a "silver bullet" - a signal that would cause
>illegal descramblers to malfunction, but not affect "legal" ones.
>Not that I'm planning to steal cable or anything, but does anyone know
>how this works? I brought it up during a discussion at work today,
>and my co-worker was very skeptical that it could be done (and I've
>always wondered how they did it, too :-).
It worked on one particular batch of illegal descramblers, which were
programmed to accept commands sent to any address. I think it was something
like the cable operators sent a command to shut down with an unused address;
the illegal descramblers promptly did so, causing their owners to call the
cable company and complain; the cable company said they'd send a repair
technician RIGHT OUT -- accompanied by the police.
Duke of Canterbury
: ja...@cec2.wustl.edu (John Alonzo Breen) writes:
: >A while ago (maybe a year or so) I read an article about how some
: >cable companies were cracking down on cable theft by using what the
: >article referred to as a "silver bullet"
: It worked on one particular batch of illegal descramblers, which were
: programmed to accept commands sent to any address. I think it was something
: like the cable operators sent a command to shut down with an unused address;
: the illegal descramblers promptly did so, causing their owners to call the
: cable company and complain; the cable company said they'd send a repair
: technician RIGHT OUT -- accompanied by the police.
Probably the quickest service that you'll ever get out of any cable company.
Hopefully the House will pass the cable bill with enough votes so that idiot
in the white house can't veto it and help his buddies out in the cable
industry...
mike
Khan
In article <lbkg3n...@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> bender@oobleck (Duke of Canterbury) writes:
>: technician RIGHT OUT -- accompanied by the police.
>
>Probably the quickest service that you'll ever get out of any cable company.
>Hopefully the House will pass the cable bill with enough votes so that idiot
>in the white house can't veto it and help his buddies out in the cable
>industry...
Sadly, the bill WAS passed, but there wasn't enough of a majority to
override the expected veto from President Bush.
Just one more reason I won't be voting for him in November. :-(
Carl Smith
>In article <lbkg3n...@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> bender@oobleck (Duke of Canterbury) writes:
>>Hopefully the House will pass the cable bill with enough votes so that idiot
>>in the white house can't veto it and help his buddies out in the cable
>>industry...
>
>Sadly, the bill WAS passed, but there wasn't enough of a majority to
>override the expected veto from President Bush.
While I am all for doing something about the high priced cable monopolies,
my opinion of the right way is not to regulate the monopoly, but to get rid
of it. Allow some competition. Then they will straigten up the act.
Anyway, I heard that the "cable bill" contained a section that allowed TV
stations to charge local cable companies for picking up their signal from
the air and sending it out on the cable. Well, most of us on this newsgroup
seem to think that we should be able to do what we want with our cable signal
once it enters our residence, including hooking up as many TV's as we want,
and maybe even descrambling pay channels that we aren't supposed to get, if
we are smart enough to do it. (I say this due to the number of TV descrambler
requests and replies...) Well, how can we ever expect to get the right to
do what we want with our cable signal if the cable tv company doesn't even
have the right to pick a station out of the air with an antenna and put it on
cable. I cannot hold the cable tv company up to such a double standard.
Of course, if I am wrong about the existance of this in the cable bill, you
are welcome to tell me so...
Dave Dennett
Duke Of * Hopefully the House will pass the cable bill with enough
votes so that idiot in the white house can't veto it and
help his buddies out in the cable industry...
It passed by a wide (greater than 2/3) margin, so it shouldnt matter
what Bozo does with his VETO papers. Strike up another mark for the
poor consumers...
---
. SM 1.05 A0045 . You are a person of firm, yet honest intentions.
Bohdan Tashchuk
>Anyway, I heard that the "cable bill" contained a section that allowed TV
>stations to charge local cable companies for picking up their signal from
>the air and sending it out on the cable.
This is one of those mystery special-interest provisions that is in there to
make someone very happy, but I'm sure it won't have ANY effect on the average
cable subscriber. Here's why:
Imagine that local station KBOZO tells the cable company to fork over $0.25 per
subscriber per month for the "privilege" of carrying their signal. All the
cable company then has to do is to itemize the $0.25 on the customer's bill
plus, say, a $0.25 additional markup. When the customer complains to the cable
company, they point him back to KBOZO. I'm sure that KBOZO will get the message
real quick, and if not then their advertisers will make sure they do.
So, either this provision is in to make some special-interest group very happy,
or there is something else in the bill that prevents the cable company from
passing on the cost.
Anyone know the REAL story?
Jeff Berton
> The problem isn't just that they are using the TV signal
> -- which is of course being sent over the public airwaves. But
> they are then using it is part of their product ("cable service")
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Best oxymoron I've heard in a long time. :-)
-------- Jeff Berton; jef...@voodoo.lerc.nasa.gov; (216) 977-7031 --------
--------- Aeropropulsion Analysis Office, NASA Lewis Research Center --------
------------- "If headquarters is interested, we're interested!" ------------
geo...@mech.seas.upenn.edu
just to add more fuel..
other provisions of the cable bill:
only 'basic' service is price regulated.
'basic' service is rather ambiguously defined
( proponents are convinced that cnn,espn, and mtv will remain basic - right )
cable company is required to carry the broadcast channels as part of basic.
( broadcast + public access is essentially the definition of basic )
Which broadcast chanels? anything I can pick up? networt affiliates? who knows?
< it imediately follows that the rates paid to the broadcasters would
need to be regulated, does it not? Imagine the implications of a network
having a chunk of its income determined by the FCC ( or the Federal Bureau
Of Dishing ot Cable Fees ) >
another interesting provision..
all basic subscribers must have Pay Per View compatable boxes.
>>to be implemented within a _10 year_ time frame <<
( is that PPV(tm)?...hmm ) Around here you already get a ppv box
just for asking. Can't we let it live or die on its merits?
I think Mr.Bush is right on this one...actually, i think this is yet
another dead in the water bill, designed by the democrats to make
the president look bad in an election year.
--
-george geo...@mech.seas.upenn.edu
Chuck Forsberg
option of "just saying no". That would tend to limit the money
involved.
What cable really hates about the bill is the 3rd party
non-discriminatory pricing provision that will allow video
dialtone, wireless cable and TVRO to compete effectively,
lowering prices and zapping cable profits. But of course Cable
can't bleed about *that* to the public.
At this point the main question is: will Bush veto the bill, and
if so will Congress override? If I were a cable company I'd let
this bill go into law. Otherwise the next Congress and Clinton
might do something really nasty to Cable, on a par with what
Cable has been doing to TVRO all these years.
(Note: I am not stating an overall opinion about Clinton or
Bush, merely making a guess based on available information.)
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406
Mark Zenier
: In <20...@plains.NoDak.edu> csm...@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:
:
: >Anyway, I heard that the "cable bill" contained a section that allowed TV
: >stations to charge local cable companies for picking up their signal from
: >the air and sending it out on the cable.
:
: This is one of those mystery special-interest provisions that is in there to
: make someone very happy, but I'm sure it won't have ANY effect on the average
: cable subscriber. Here's why:
The story I've heard is that this is a lever for stations that have spent
a ton of money advertising "Channel X" and then get cranked out of shape
when the cable company reassigns the signal. This makes is possible for
stations to negotiate (extort) their channel on the cable system.
I've noticed quite a variation from city to city. Here, in Seattle,
where its been cabled for 25 to 30 years, the stations are big on call
letters. But down in the San Francisco area, they only do the minimum
legal ID, and use Channel X. (Maybe it has to do with how long has that
area been cabled?)
In comments in a newspaper article, the local stations said they had
no intention of charging the cable systems. Especially since some of
the corporations that owned them also owned cable companies.
Mark Zenier ma...@ssc.wa.com
sorgatz
One point that you missed: THe bill calls for a regulated-access to the market
by the cable companies which includes provisions to yank the franchise on any
company that refuses to carry the nominal vhf/uhf network programming! This
whole thing was cooked up by the existing broadcast industry to guarantee them
a slice of the cable tv income. The NAB (National Assoc. of Broadcasters) and
the Writer's Guild (HQ in N.Y.) were major proponents of the bill since it will
give them (along with the networks and their affilliate stations) a windfall of
monies and the consumer is going to be totally screwed over. Cable TV in the
So. Cal. marketplace has always been an *ALTERNATIVE* to regular television,
I would not mind making the carrying of broadcast TV as an option (costs to
be paid by the customer wanting it), but to be forced into paying these assholes
in order to even GET the cable channels really sucks! It's just another example
of the socialistic trend in our government, I really don't want to support the
NAB or the Writer's Guild..this bunch *really* makes me puke! They are responsible
for the whole 'Norman Lear' etal style of crap sitcoms and they pretend that the
stuff is "art". My answer: CANCEL THE CABLE! REFUSE TO WATCH THE SHOWS OFF THE
AIR! WRITE THE SPONSORS and remind them that you will NOT BUY their products
because they are sponsoring such garbage!
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY +-------------------------+
TTI(sor...@soldev.tti.com) * Think Eco, not EGO! *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 +-------------------------+
(OPINIONS EXPRESSED DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF CITICORP OR ITS MANAGEMENT!)
Duke of Canterbury
: They are responsible for the whole 'Norman Lear' etal style of crap
: sitcoms and they pretend that the stuff is "art". My answer: CANCEL THE
: CABLE! REFUSE TO WATCH THE SHOWS OFF THE AIR! WRITE THE SPONSORS and remind
: them that you will NOT BUY their products because they are sponsoring such
: garbage!
read a book...
mike
Bob Hale
[ other poster's comments about cable bill deleted ]
>This is stupid. The cable company is providing a service by giving us a
>clear picture without having to go through all the work of putting a tacky
>TV antenna on our roof to receive those stations
You must be exceptionally lucky. ALL of the cable signals that I have
seen (various parts of California, Oregon, and Washington) have been
downright poor. SNRs are typically less than 30 DB, the video levels
are misadjusted (either too high or too low), and the audio varies
by 6 to 10 DB from one channel to the next. Some channels have less
than 20 DB video SNR and the audio is actually noisy.
I am awaiting some competition in the cable industry. A monopoly,
regulated or not, will not provide decent service.
Bob Hale ...!ucsd!btree!hale
...!btree!ha...@ucsd.edu ...!ucsd!btree!ha...@uunet.uu.net
Anthony Datri
>clear picture
Maybe yours does, but many don't.
> without having to go through all the work of putting a tacky
>TV antenna on our roof
Which many people already have anyway. I guess you have a car without
a radio, because the antenna would be "tacky", right?
>you gotta ground it etc... ) I would gladly pay a small fee for this ( the
>percentage of the monthly cable bill that is for these stations... )
If it's small, what's the rest for?
> for the convenience of a clear picture
Many cable operations do not provide a clear picture, and by requiring
a converter box also do not provide convenience.
>Warner Cable which is what I have here at school. They have a freekin box
>which you have to use even if you have a cable ready TV which makes using
>your VCR's features a nightmare!
This would seem to contradict your above statements.
> Where I used to live the individual feeds
>to a house carried HBO, CINAMAX ect. depending on what you ordered so you
>could plug it directly into your cable ready VCR or TV. Here the box
>determines what services you get and send out the proper signal on channel 3.
Your current company is by no means a rare exception.
Ted Wright
>Subject: Re: Cable "silver bullets"
>Date: 23 Sep 92 06:53:29 GMT
The Cable bill gives the local (broadcast) stations the option of either:
being carried on the cable without anyone paying them (the cable company
_must_ carry them), or trying to charge the cable company (in which
case the cable company can refuse to carry them).
The "rationale" part of the bill claims that it would be in the
interest of cable companies to refuse to carry broadcast channels.
If this were true, then it seems like the broadcasters might want
to pay the cable company to carry them, instead of the other way
around.
In any case, I think the bill will allow (maybe require) the cable
company to itemize customers bills. But, I don't know if consumers could
really put any pressure on the local broadcaster.
Ted Wright (wri...@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov)
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0
mQCNAiqvp90AAAEEAO0VFsrmnZhmALDOZEG6vPlTwB5jqM5swOkhDqJIOHOtyNug
2ZfCpsQUYcrVCKjGs4zaivEoiQxi+538mwNhL9HXQK+I3HR2xESzpJEoLiv62kMI
cwVbEw9QAuxY7Z01KHi+bNYhYQvzBczaVttPJdOTvNpbUCzWIeKXEM95WINbAAUR
tChUZWQgV3JpZ2h0IDx3cmlnaHRAbGltczAxLmxlcmMubmFzYS5nb3Y+
=uu9S
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
GREG KIMNACH
>
>Imagine that local station KBOZO tells the cable company to fork over $0.25 per
>subscriber per month for the "privilege" of carrying their signal. All the
>cable company then has to do is to itemize the $0.25 on the customer's bill
>plus, say, a $0.25 additional markup. When the customer complains to the cable
>company, they point him back to KBOZO. I'm sure that KBOZO will get the message
>real quick, and if not then their advertisers will make sure they do.
>
Yeah, but do you think that the cable company will then reduce the bill by
$0.25 after KBOZO et al withdraw their cut of the action? Very unlikely.
Greg
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ED-Beta: Simply THE BEST!
Remember: The crow flies in square circles.
"Either do or do not! There is no 'try!'"--Yoda
"It's not what we do, it's what we know. And we know what to do!"
--R. Lebron
Another version:
"It's not what you know, it's what you do. And you don't know what to do!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
dan edward abend
>No I don't love cable, as a matter of fact I am completly disgusted with
>Warner Cable which is what I have here at school. They have a freekin box
>which you have to use even if you have a cable ready TV which makes using
>your VCR's features a nightmare! Where I used to live the individual feeds
>to a house carried HBO, CINAMAX ect. depending on what you ordered so you
>could plug it directly into your cable ready VCR or TV. Here the box
>determines what services you get and send out the proper signal on channel 3.
>Yic...
Not only is the cable service in Columbus totally dominated by 2 major carriers
but they both use the annoying cable boxes and neither offers any type of
descrambler (pre-programmed to the cannels you pay for of course) so that
your cable-ready tuner may be used alon side your VCR (with PIP, etc...).
On top of all this, our local FOX affiliate doesn't even broadcast in stereo
and the cable company doesn't know. When I asked, they told me my TV had
a problem if it wasn't picking it up in stereo.
What can consumers do to get some change in these areas? I'm fed up...
Dan Abend (ab...@cis.ohio-state.edu) AMIGAphile
Audiophile/Videophile with an attitude
Tim Russell
>Yeah, but do you think that the cable company will then reduce the bill by
>$0.25 after KBOZO et al withdraw their cut of the action? Very unlikely.
Highly likely. First of all, you KNOW the cable company will have been
itemizing any royalties they're paying on customers' bills, and secondly
the FCC will be regulating them.
--
Tim Russell Omaha, NE trus...@unomaha.edu
One of the richest men in the world made his billions selling a toy "operating
system" that is more accurately described as a glorified bootstrap loader.
-- Phil Karn
Bob Raible - LSI Design
> One point that you missed: THe bill calls for a regulated-access to the market
>by the cable companies which includes provisions to yank the franchise on any
>company that refuses to carry the nominal vhf/uhf network programming! This
>whole thing was cooked up by the existing broadcast industry to guarantee them
>a slice of the cable tv income. The NAB (National Assoc. of Broadcasters) and
>the Writer's Guild (HQ in N.Y.) were major proponents of the bill since it will
>give them (along with the networks and their affilliate stations) a windfall of
>monies and the consumer is going to be totally screwed over. Cable TV in the
>So. Cal. marketplace has always been an *ALTERNATIVE* to regular television,
>I would not mind making the carrying of broadcast TV as an option (costs to
>be paid by the customer wanting it), but to be forced into paying these assholes
>in order to even GET the cable channels really sucks! It's just another example
>of the socialistic trend in our government, I really don't want to support the
>NAB or the Writer's Guild..this bunch *really* makes me puke! They are responsible
>for the whole 'Norman Lear' etal style of crap sitcoms and they pretend that the
>stuff is "art". My answer: CANCEL THE CABLE! REFUSE TO WATCH THE SHOWS OFF THE
>AIR! WRITE THE SPONSORS and remind them that you will NOT BUY their products
>because they are sponsoring such garbage!
>
>
cable companies have the right to elct not to carry stations that charge
for retransmission. I would definitely support my cable companies decision
not drop any station that was so avaricious as to charge the cable company,
especially when you consider the extra advertizing revenue the cable co.
prvides to the network. Perhaps the cable cos. will be allowed to excise the
network commercials and substitute their own! I don't know how this is going
to shake out, but I believe we're going to have to deal with it as consumers
since a presidential veto will probably be overridden.
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Robert J. Raible EMAIL:rai...@cbmvax.commodore.com
VLSI Program Manager or: {uunet|rutgers|pyramid}!cbmvax!raible
Commodore Business Machines "my comments, not Commodore's, ok ?"
Dave Patterson
> In article <1992Sep24.2...@ttinews.tti.com> sor...@avatar.tti.com (sorgatz) writes:
>> the franchise on any company that refuses to carry the nominal vhf/uhf
>> network programming! This whole thing was cooked up by the existing
>> broadcast industry to guarantee them a slice of the cable tv income.
>> WRITE THE SPONSORS and remind them that you will NOT BUY their
>> products because they are sponsoring such garbage!
> ... Perhaps the cable cos. will be allowed to excise the network
> commercials and substitute their own! I don't know how this is going
> to shake out, but I believe we're going to have to deal with it as
> consumers since a presidential veto will probably be overridden.
Maybe this is a bit naive, but why not forget 'em all, and get a
satellite dish?
-Dave Patterson
= #include <disclaimer.h> ===============================================
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| | "Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy! |
| ||| ||| | Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy! |
| o l i v e t t i a t c | Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy! |
| | - Ren & Stimpy |
============= {ucbvax, etc.}!hplabs!flash!olivea!davepat ================
geo...@mech.seas.upenn.edu
:I hope the cable companies drop the broadcast stations alltogether.
they would loose a significant portion of their subscribers.
--
-george geo...@mech.seas.upenn.edu
Phil Kim
Bob Niland
> I visited a video store this weekend and saw three different versions of
> Star Wars laserdisc:
> CLV P&S
Old chopped & squashed transfers, some time-compressed.
> CLV Widescreen,
New transfers at full running times. Excellent discs.
> and CAV.
Same as P&S CLV, unless you get the very expen$ive Japanese imports, which
are widescreen (but lacking English subtitles during alien-speak).
> The price for CLV P&S was $25, CLV Widescreen (LTX) $65, and CAV $60.
It is worth joining Columbia House LD Club just to get the CLV W/S trilogy
for $3.00 total. Buy two of almost any other "regularly priced" $30 titles,
and you'll come out ahead.
Regards, Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland Internet: r...@FC.HP.COM 3404 East Harmony Road
CompuServe: 71044,2124 Ft Collins CO 80525-9599
This article represents only the opinion[s] of its author, and is not an
official or unofficial position of, or statement by, the Hewlett-Packard
Company. The text is provided for informational purposes only. It is
supplied without warranty of any kind.
morpheus
> I hope the cable companies drop the broadcast stations alltogether. Then
> the broadcast stations' greed will backfire right in their faces.
> Instead of extra greed money gouged from cable companies (who will do
> nothing but pass it along to us), the broadcast stations will instead
> see an immediate and significant drop in the sizes of their audiences.
> That means their revenues actually go DOWN, since the smaller the
> audience the lower the advertising rates they can charge.
And then those of us who are in rural areas (or can't get decent reception
for whatever reason) lose all the broadcast stations. For instance, if I
disconnect my cable and use an antenna (on the roof) I get 2.5 channels (2
half-decent, one barely watchable). With cable I get all the broadcast
channels I could want and then some (ie, 3 FOX affiliates, etc...). And I
live in f'king New Jersey! What do you do if you live in Montana or
someplace? I'd pay a buck or two extra a month to keep these channels.
I'd rather go on the way I'm paying now, of course...
morp...@entropy.mcds.com <-> morp...@f208.n2606.z1.fidonet.org
Let's watch the world fall apart.
(the illuminati are still watching)
Khan
In article <em5PRB...@entropy.mcds.com> morp...@entropy.mcds.com (morpheus) writes:
>
>And then those of us who are in rural areas (or can't get decent reception
>for whatever reason) lose all the broadcast stations.
You're telling me that you live in a rural area which DOES get cable but
does NOT have broadcast TV? Isn't that a rather unusual situation? I
live in a fairly rural area - the city I live in has broadcast TV and
cable, but the surrounding rural communities do not get cable (but can
receive the TV broadcasts just fine).
>disconnect my cable and use an antenna (on the roof) I get 2.5 channels (2
>half-decent, one barely watchable). With cable I get all the broadcast
>channels I could want and then some (ie, 3 FOX affiliates, etc...). And I
>live in f'king New Jersey! What do you do if you live in Montana or
>someplace?
Take one years' worth of cable fees and buy yourself a satellite dish.
Then you'll get even MORE channels, BETTER picture, and it'll probably
cost you LESS in monthly fees.
H. Austin Hummel
|> I visited a video store this weekend and saw three different versions of Star Wars laserdisc: CLV P&S, CLV Widescreen, and CAV. Unfortunately, all three were out of stock. My question is this: Is CAV P&S or Widescreen? The price for CLV P&S was $25, CL|> V Widescreen (LTX) $65, and CAV $60.
Try mail order from Ken Crane's in california. They have good prices
and a very complete stock
Lance Franklin
}:
}:I hope the cable companies drop the broadcast stations alltogether.
}
}they would loose a significant portion of their subscribers.
Would they? Let's see...let the cable systems scramble the local channels
that want reimbursment, then pass the fee directly to those customers that
want the channel, for whom those channels would be unscrambled.
Now, how can anybody complain about this? Those cable subscribers who
already have an antenna for local signal reception don't have to pay
for something they already have. Local cable companies can pass the
cost of local channels to those subscribers who want them. Local TV
stations get money ONLY for those subscribers who receive their channels
over the cable.
Let's see who bitches the most about this plan. Cable, consumer groups
or Local TV.
Lance
--
Lance T. Franklin +----------------------------------------------+
(l...@ncmicro.lonestar.org) | "You want I should bop you with this here |
NC Microproducts, Inc. | Lollipop?!?" The Fat Fury |
Richardson, Texas +----------------------------------------------+
Martin Olivera
>
>Take one years' worth of cable fees and buy yourself a satellite dish.
>Then you'll get even MORE channels, BETTER picture, and it'll probably
>cost you LESS in monthly fees.
>
CMX, HBO, etc). So it's 24.06 * 12 = 288.72 / year. What kind of satellite
system could I get for that money?. I agree, though, that in the long run having
you own satellite dish will save you money. However, how much extra money would
I need to spend to get a descrambler, etc?
Martin
--
geo...@mech.seas.upenn.edu
:you own satellite dish will save you money.
:However, how much extra money would
:I need to spend to get a descrambler, etc?
in my brief look into going sattelite, it became apparent that to
_legally_ watch just 'basic' programs ( like CNN ) monthly charges
would quickly surpass a basic cable bill.
--
-george geo...@mech.seas.upenn.edu
Patricia R. Miskelly <prmiskel>
>>
>>And then those of us who are in rural areas (or can't get decent reception
>>for whatever reason) lose all the broadcast stations.
>
>You're telling me that you live in a rural area which DOES get cable but
>does NOT have broadcast TV? Isn't that a rather unusual situation? I
I don't know about most rural areas, but this situation is quite
common in small cities. I live in a small city, in a development
that mandates cable....no outside antennae at all. But, as it turns
out, those in the city that do have such antennae get lousy reception
anyway.
We are 40 miles north of Baltimore, which is the closest city with
broadcast TV.
>live in a fairly rural area - the city I live in has broadcast TV and
>cable, but the surrounding rural communities do not get cable (but can
>receive the TV broadcasts just fine).
>
>>disconnect my cable and use an antenna (on the roof) I get 2.5 channels (2
>>half-decent, one barely watchable). With cable I get all the broadcast
>>channels I could want and then some (ie, 3 FOX affiliates, etc...). And I
>>live in f'king New Jersey! What do you do if you live in Montana or
>>someplace?
>
>Take one years' worth of cable fees and buy yourself a satellite dish.
>Then you'll get even MORE channels, BETTER picture, and it'll probably
>cost you LESS in monthly fees.
I can't.....Homeowners' Association rules.
--
Pat Miskelly
pmi...@dan.apgea.army.mil
obe...@ptavv.llnl.gov
> You're telling me that you live in a rural area which DOES get cable but
> does NOT have broadcast TV? Isn't that a rather unusual situation? I
> live in a fairly rural area - the city I live in has broadcast TV and
> cable, but the surrounding rural communities do not get cable (but can
> receive the TV broadcasts just fine).
I think we need to teach the young'ens a little history here.
Most everyone has seen cable referred to as CATV, but I guess the meaning has
been lost. Community Antenna TV originated back in the 50s for rural areas with
limited broadcast TV reception. Places like the town I grew up in where you
need a 50 foot mast to get a snowy picture.
Back about the time I was busily being born some smart fellow got the idea of
putting up a BIG antenna on a nearby hill and hooking up the whole town.
Literally a Cummunity Antenna.
The original systems were cooperatives. Later on they became commercialized. As
a result, when I was old enough to care, I could watch Mighty Mouse at the
neighbors! (My father fixed TVs for a living... He was not about to actually
own one of his own.) At this time cable in cities was unheard of. After all,
there was no MTV, so in a city a pair of rabbit ears was often all that was
needed.
So, you see, LOTS of rural areas are cabled and have been for decades. It's the
city slickers who are new to the cable game.
R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: kobe...@llnl.gov (510) 422-6955
Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.
sorgatz
>for whatever reason) lose all the broadcast stations. For instance, if I
>disconnect my cable and use an antenna (on the roof) I get 2.5 channels (2
>half-decent, one barely watchable). With cable I get all the broadcast
>channels I could want and then some (ie, 3 FOX affiliates, etc...). And I
>live in f'king New Jersey! What do you do if you live in Montana or
>someplace? I'd pay a buck or two extra a month to keep these channels.
>I'd rather go on the way I'm paying now, of course...
Oh snivel, whimper, whine! You can't keep what you've got, not at the same
price. The bastards at the network/guild levels know that we've been "running
off to cable" and they want BLOOD! I say fuck em! I'd rather never watch TV
again than spend one penny keeping those slimeballs alive. If you want to see
that crap, YOU PAY FOR IT! Don't ask everybody else subsidize your pedestrian
tastes, because that's exactly what this amounts to. Dabbling in socialism
is like stepping in dog shit; by the time you can smell how bad it is, it's
almost impossible to wipe it all off! Ask anyone from the former "Soviet
Union"...
Khan
In article <91...@netnews.upenn.edu> geo...@mech.seas.upenn.edu writes:
>: I agree, though, that in the long run having
>:you own satellite dish will save you money.
>:However, how much extra money would
>:I need to spend to get a descrambler, etc?
>
>in my brief look into going sattelite, it became apparent that to
>_legally_ watch just 'basic' programs ( like CNN ) monthly charges
>would quickly surpass a basic cable bill.
Probably true - if you get them ALL. But how many of us actually watch
ALL of the channels we get? Conversely, how many cable systems bring in
ALL the channels we really want?
If I could get a dish, I'd pick and choose and only pay for the channels
I watch, and I'd get ALL the channels I wanted, not just those that the
cable company in its infinite wisdom has selected for me. Plus aren't
the vast majority of satellite channels unscrambled?
Ross Alexander
>off to cable" and they want BLOOD! I say [bleep!] em! I'd rather never watch TV
>again than spend one penny keeping those slimeballs alive.
It's an option. It's a *real* option. I haven't owned a TV in my
life (I'm 37 years old) nor have I watched one (apart from the
inevitable inadvertant bar-TVs or the odd VCR'd movie at a friends
place) since 1977. Entire series have come and gone in this time, and
I am unable to make smalltalk with my co-workers anymore. I am a
social pariah, and I don't know what brand of laundry soap to
purchase. On the other hand, it's added 4 hours a day to my life. A
small price to pay, indeed. Just say NO to TV, folks. Take back the
night!
regards,
Ross VE6PDQ
--
Ross Alexander r...@cs.athabascau.ca (403) 675 6311 ve6...@ve6mgs.ampr.org
m...@shamash.cdc.com
The original topic was a discussion about how the silver bullet worked
and how it could be defeated. What it has become, through the last
10e6 postings, is a series of "I've got nothing better to say about
a technical issue so I'll just bitch about the cost structure" messages.
Those of you which fit into this type of message profile, please pick
one of the following subject heading and move your thread!!!!!
Possible subject headings might include:
Cable TV - a discussion of cost structure
The high costs of Cable TV
Cable TV - My favorite bitches
Cable TV - What we can do to control costs
Fight back to control Cable TV's high costs
Cable TV -vs- Satellite Earth Station cost tradeoffs
Cable TV - cost, cost, cost
Cable TV - bitch, bitch, bitch
Please use meaningful subject headings. Flames about idiots not being able
to track a news-thread after a renaming has occured will be useless wastes
of bandwidth.
Just one person's opinion...
Ken Jongsma
But do you know why?
Because a few years back, the major cable companies (TCI, Time Warner, etc)
realized that dish owners were a major threat. So, they bought controlling
interests in most of the cable channels, signed "exclusive" agreements
with the major movie studios, and threatened channels like CBN (now the
Family Channel) that if they didn't scramble and charge for reception
they would drop them from their systems. (This even though they were
advertiser supported and didn't want to spend the money on scrambling.)
Can you say cartel?
The largest reason for supporting the cable bill in congress is not rate
regulation, but rather that it will allow equal access to the various
channels to alternative delivery systems (like the phone company and
dish agents.)
--
Ken Jongsma
Smiths Industries jon...@esseye.si.com
Grand Rapids, Michigan 73115...@compuserve.com
morpheus
> You're telling me that you live in a rural area which DOES get cable but
> does NOT have broadcast TV?
Yup.
> Isn't that a rather unusual situation?
I dunno. Is it?
> I live in a fairly rural area - the city I live in has broadcast TV and
> cable, but the surrounding rural communities do not get cable (but can
> receive the TV broadcasts just fine).
This area is mostly suburban to rural areas. There are no nearby TV stations
(except for a local cable channel), but there is a local cable company.
> Take one years' worth of cable fees and buy yourself a satellite dish.
> Then you'll get even MORE channels, BETTER picture, and it'll probably
> cost you LESS in monthly fees.
One year of cable fees for a satellite dish? Where can I get that kind of
deal? Last time I checked I was paying about $11 a month for basic cable.
If I can get a dish for $132, I'll get one as soon as possible.
Dave Richards
>>Take one years' worth of cable fees and buy yourself a satellite dish.
>>Then you'll get even MORE channels, BETTER picture, and it'll probably
>>cost you LESS in monthly fees.
>
>I can't.....Homeowners' Association rules.
You may want to check this on rec.video.satellite, but if I remember correctly,
association rules like that violate federal law. No one can legally prevent
you from installing a satellite dish. Of course, they can make your life a
living hell though. :-)
Dave
Larry E. Snyder
I live in a rural area with no cable service, and below a hill that keeps
broadcast TV away. I have a satellite dish, and I've looked into the economics
of it...
First, you can purchase an EXCELLENT system for $1500. It is easy to install
yourself, and doing so helps whenever there is maintenance to be done. True,
that's a lot of money, but I am sure that the audio and video quality is
WAY better than most cable companies. Full stereo sound and sharp, clear video.
Also, that system would have a current, legal VideoCipher II+ descrambler.
I get a package from Disney of the Disney Channel and most of the basic cable
channels for about $23 a month. I added a couple of others for about $4 a
month. Talking to folks with cable in the St. Louis area, they are paying
almost $40 a month for the same services. That's a difference of $13 a month.
So it WOULD take a long time to pay off the price of the dish, but the folks
in St. Louis have to settle on whatever quality they get from the cable
company, no stereo sound, and no Comedy Central, which means no one around here
knows what MST3K is and they just look at me funny when I say "Push the button,
Frank."
Anyway, I claim that it is almost as inexpensive as cable (more so over
about an 8-year period) and far better in quality and variety.
Larry
les...@monsanto.com
>
>
>
> --
> -george geo...@mech.seas.upenn.edu
>
>
Chris Best
> >you from installing a satellite dish.
> >
----------
What's probably going on here is this: you buy a house
and agree to abide by the covenants in place at the time.
Or, you rent/lease an apartment/condo, and it's in the
rental/lease agreement.
So, nobody is preventing you from installing a dish -
you're agreeing not to, as a condition of living there.
If you later change your mind, it's this very agreement
that prevents you.
Mark-T...@suite.com
kim...@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (GREG KIMNACH) writes:
> Unfortunately, you can be stopped from installing it. My uncle lives in
a
> neighborhood where basketball backboards/poles cannot be installed in
the
> front; my mother lives in a condo and was not allowed to install a
skylight
> in such a way that it would be visible from the street;.... A 10' sat.
dish?
> Forget it in many neighborhoods!
This same thing happened in my neighborhood, but with different
results. Apparently, there is some federal FCC ordinance which
overrules any local ordinances concerning installation of
satellite dishes. Though many homeowner associations and CCCs
explicitly prohibit dishes, all you have to do is give the FCC
a call (letter?). You'll have your dish, where you want it.
I wrote some of the specifics down at the time (a couple of years
ago). If there's interest, I'll try to find it.
William VanHorne
>> >No one can legally prevent
>> >you from installing a satellite dish.
>> >
>
>and agree to abide by the covenants in place at the time.
>Or, you rent/lease an apartment/condo, and it's in the
>rental/lease agreement.
>
the building of antennas by zoning rules, local ordinances, etc. This
ruling does *not* apply to deed covenants, which are deemed voluntary
restrictions. If you sign the deed, you agree to the antenna, skylight,
flagpole, toolshed, etc. restrictions.
---Bill VanHorne
--------------------------------------------------
Please try to use the word paradigm in every post.
Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------
Paul Ortega
>
>Sounds like you need to read the satellite "Scrounger's Guide." You can
>get a basic setup for NOTHING in some cases. Of course, it's old style
>stuff that nobody else wants, but it works, and it's still cheaper and
>better than cable.
>
OK, where can I find a copy of the "Scrounger's Guide"?
--
Paul Ortega | "Would you believe two cops
2015 Cedar Bend Dr., #1105 | in a rowboat?" - Maxwell Smart
Austin, TX 78758 |_________________________________
(512) 832-9197 ort...@cactus.org
Russ Rahn
In article <1992Oct6.1...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, wvh...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct6.1...@col.hp.com> c...@col.hp.com (Chris Best) writes:
|> >> >No one can legally prevent
|> >> >you from installing a satellite dish.
|> >> >
|> >
|> >What's probably going on here is this: you buy a house
|> >and agree to abide by the covenants in place at the time.
|> >Or, you rent/lease an apartment/condo, and it's in the
|> >rental/lease agreement.
|> >
|> There is a FCC ruling (PRB-1) that states that communities may not restrict
|> the building of antennas by zoning rules, local ordinances, etc. This
|> ruling does *not* apply to deed covenants, which are deemed voluntary
|> restrictions. If you sign the deed, you agree to the antenna, skylight,
|> flagpole, toolshed, etc. restrictions.
|>
|> ---Bill VanHorne
It seems to me that any lawyer worth a dime would be able to prove
that it is impossible to purchase, rent, or in any other way live in
these communities without signing one of these covenants. That would
make it invalid to include an item that cannot be restricted in that
covenant. It wouldn't stand up in court. You would be allowed to put
up your dish. Your life would soon be filled with problem neighbors.
That may be more of an annoyance than the dish is worth.
Russ
Charles H. Chapman
>|> >
>|> There is a FCC ruling (PRB-1) that states that communities may not restrict
>|> the building of antennas by zoning rules, local ordinances, etc. This
>|> ruling does *not* apply to deed covenants, which are deemed voluntary
>|> restrictions. If you sign the deed, you agree to the antenna, skylight,
>|> flagpole, toolshed, etc. restrictions.
>|>
>|> ---Bill VanHorne
>
>It seems to me that any lawyer worth a dime would be able to prove
>that it is impossible to purchase, rent, or in any other way live in
>these communities without signing one of these covenants. That would
>make it invalid to include an item that cannot be restricted in that
>covenant. It wouldn't stand up in court. You would be allowed to put
>up your dish. Your life would soon be filled with problem neighbors.
>That may be more of an annoyance than the dish is worth.
>
It *has* stood up in court many times. You don't have to live in
the community with the covenants. You can live somewhere else although
in some areas of the country it's getting harder and harder to find
subdivisions without covenants against antennas.
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: ccha...@matd.gatech.edu