eem@jc3b21.UUCP (Emery E. Mandel) (02/18/86)
Earlier this year, HBO and Cinemax started scrambling their satellite signals. They said that they were losing millions because people were able to get their signal and not pay for it through "relatively inexpensive" backyard satellite dishes. Did they think about how much satellite dish sales would go down? Did they think about how people might turn to home video rather than cable and satellite programming? Did they think about signal distortion because of the additional scrambling and descrambling taking place? Did they think about how customers they had on CABLE might have discontinued service because of disgust with the greedy attitude of HBO? How about the black market for satellite signal descramblers? They probably didn't think much of that, either. Congress could pass legislation which would ban satellite scrambling but what would be the end result? HBO might file a lawsuit against the federal government. Oh no! HBO is on the warpath! They're suing our government for 10 million of our tax dollars! Meanwhile, that same 10 million could go to some better cause. One of the first thoughts to come to mind is to NASA or to Medicare. Well, HBO might sue...but it would make them look bad. You wonder if they care what they look like, though. After all, they've already scrambled. What will they think of next? Emery Mandel "Gee, sure is warm down here in Florida..."
terry2@ihlpm.UUCP (Nelson) (02/26/86)
Emery Mandel writes: > Earlier this year, HBO and Cinemax started > scrambling their satellite signals. They said that > they were losing millions because people were able > to get their signal and not pay for it through > "relatively inexpensive" backyard satellite > dishes. > > Did they think about how much satellite dish sales > would go down? (mild dish flame on) Why should HBO care about sagging dish sales? Those once flourishing dish sales were literally at HBO's expense. Who do you think is paying indirectly for HBO's losses? I'll bet I'm paying more for HBO because of those lost revenues from satellite dishes. > Did they think about how people > might turn to home video rather than cable and > satellite programming? What people? You mean the people who paid $2000+ for a satellite dish knowing they would get HBO (and others) free? What about MOST HBO viewers who regularly pay for the service through their cable company? Sounds like Mr. Mandel is a satellite dish owner who has enjoyed HBO "free" and is now upset that he'll have to pay for it like most people. Note that the $2000+ paid for the dish and the electronics does not pay for, or contribute to, the programming that dish owners receive. Furthermore they all knew that when they paid for them.. > Did they think about > signal distortion because of the additional > scrambling and descrambling taking place? I have not notice ANY audio or video degradation on my cable since the scrambling started. > Did they think about how customers they had on > CABLE might have discontinued service because of > disgust with the greedy attitude of HBO? Greedy? Hmmm.. Just who is being greedy here? HBO is just trying to get everyone who watches it to pay for it. Doesn't sound too greedy to me. However, dish-owners who get upset because they can't get HBO free anymore........ > How about the black market for satellite signal > descramblers? They probably didn't think much > of that, either. Oh yes they did. As previously described on the net the scrambling method is fairly sophisticated (read not cheap). (flame off) > ... > Emery Mandel A personal retraction to Mr. Mandel IF he is not a dish owner otherwise it stands. > "Gee, sure is warm down here in Florida..." I wish I could say the same for Illinois!! -- ..ihnp4!ihlpm!terry2 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "All this is | Terry Nelson | because of me Keep | AT&T Bell Laboratories | and not my It | Naperville, Illinois | employer!" Warm =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
andre@nrcvax.UUCP (Andre Hut) (03/02/86)
Well, Showtime has started some scrambling tests, and I have noticed
that whenever they do this, a little black circle appears in the lower
right-hand corner. This is very annoying. Does anyone know what this
is, or what it is for?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ihnp4-\
sdcsvax-\ \
Andre' Hut sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!andre
hplabs--/ /
ucbvax!calma-/
Network Research Corporation
923 Executive Park Dr. Suite C
Salt Lake City, Utah 84117
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (03/08/86)
Scrambling was considered to affect 4 groups of dish owners. Hotel and Bar owners (who derive indirect revenue from sattelite programs) Rural owners (who cannot recieve these services any other way - no cable) Suburban and Urban owners (who have access to cable but use dishes to get "free cable"). Special interest owners (who wish to recieve services not carried by their local cable company) in this case, they really fit in the same catagory as the rural owners. Hotel and Bar owners should be liable reguardless of whether the signals are encoded or not, scrambling simply ensures that they will have to pay for the attractions. Ideally, they should subsidize the other groups (Rural especially). Rural owners should be able to get scramblers/codes for nominal fees. The assumtion is probably that they weren't necessarily pirating the service, just trying to get it the only way they could. There is no threat to cable companies in this case. The alternative would have been to force encryptors to provide cable service to anyone who wanted it. This is not really practical when "aunt Mable's farm" is 200 miles from the nearest cable company. In this case, the dish owner might even consider normal cable rates to be reasonable. Suburban/Urban dish owners gambled that the dishes would be amortized before scrambling occurred. Unless the cable companies choose to give a "distribution discount" to dish owners, it is likely that these dishes cannot be further amortized. The bright spot here is that if a single "standard decoder" is adopted, the dish owner can "shop around" to get the best price for "key codes" from a cable company. A dish owner in New York can get the codes from an operator in Denver Colorado and have it charged to his VISA card by phone. If the local company wants $15/month and Denver wants $5/month, a $200 decoder would be amortized in less than 2 years. A $1000 dish would take almost ten years. Of course if the same discounts apply to a number of services, the amortization would be much faster. The other bright spot is that programs that couldn't otherwise be shown (X rated, politically offensive,...) may be allowed because the encryption makes the signal inoffensive to anyone who has not specifically requested that program/service. Whether this is actually how things work out or not, it is worth considering before flaming at the insensitivity of congress and sattelite owners to ALL dish owners. I would be interested in hearing flames if the Rural/Special groups end up getting burned.
tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) (03/11/86)
... What is a line eater ...
Since I have recently subscribed to this group, this may have been
answered before, but...
A cable company charges each customer for a premium service (eg. HBO)
a fee; the provider (HBO) charges the cable company that same amount, but
only up to a certain number of subscribers (say 3,000) with the excess
being pure profit for the cable company. (These figures were accurate
when last I checked.) Now the question: When a dish owner subscribes
directly they pay the "full" amount regardless of how many dish owners
subscribe; Why can't there be a dish clearing house (a dish "cable"
company) that pays the fee requested (eg. 3,000 x $13 or whatever) but
charges each dish owner their FAIR SHARE plus a small profit. I think
the amounts HBO are charging dish owners is ludicrous and exhorbitant
($12.95 for just HBO) when they don't have ANY extra costs expended to
provide you that service!
References: from Electronic Engineering Times 3 March 1986 pg 11
HBO Hotline (800) HBO-DISH
The Black Box Solution (a how to build your own descrambler)
4014 Central Ave.
Hot Springs, Ark. 71913 (501)321-1845
-- Glenn Tenney
UUCP: {hplabs,glacier,lll-crg,ihnp4!ptsfa}!well!tenney
ARPA: well!tenney@LLL-CRG.ARPA Delphi and MCI Mail: TENNEY
As Alphonso Bodoya would say... (tnx boulton)
Disclaimers? DISCLAIMERS!? I don' gotta show you no stinking DISCLAIMERS!jimb@tekcbi.UUCP (Jim Boland) (03/12/86)
Mr Video claimed: >> HBO is currently not in stereo. >>They don't send it out in stereo from New York. Currently, only Movie Channel >>has stereo. >HBO is distributed in digital stereo. A direct result of the M/A Comm >Cypher IIencoding/decoding system. But, not all cable companies (mine >included) do not put up the stereo audio on the FM band. >One of the guys at our head-end put up HBO on the FM band, while it was still >mono. After the scrambling went 24 hours, he put in the spare stereo exciter >and we had stereo. But, the powers that be said that it had to be pulled, as >further study was needed. For no extra cost we had stereo. Oh Well!!! I knew that HBO intended to go digital stereo when they started scrambling. Therefore, I called them when they did and they said it was in the plans but they were not stereo as of yet. Occasionally they feed concerts in stereo for the cable systems, but that is on a separate feed with separate audio. When David Anthony of DataSpan said (on the net) that he had a Cypher decoder, I asked if it were in stereo and he said replied no. Then I saw your Mr. Video's posting that his cable company had it for a while and I said to myself, "Self, what gives?". So, once again, I called HBO and put the question to them again. The answer from them is "No. We are not in digital stereo yet. We have not fed it yet. We intend to but the date is unknown". I don't know what Mr. Video's cable company did. HBO 1-800-426-3474. In article <747@well.UUCP>, tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) writes: > > A cable company charges each customer for a premium service (eg. HBO) > a fee; the provider (HBO) charges the cable company that same amount, Nope. I don't know what the fee is now, but a few years ago it was appx. $3-$4 per customer depending on cable company. > but only up to a certain number of subscribers (say 3,000) with the excess > being pure profit for the cable company. (These figures were accurate > when last I checked.) Nope. As above, per customer. There may have been special "deals" as incentives for some operators, but that is not the general rule. > Now the question: When a dish owner subscribes > directly they pay the "full" amount regardless of how many dish owners > subscribe; That's right. They pay the same average going "retail" price. > Why can't there be a dish clearing house (a dish "cable" company) That's being discussed and planned. > I think > the amounts HBO are charging dish owners is ludicrous and exhorbitant > ($12.95 for just HBO) when they don't have ANY extra costs expended to > provide you that service! They have the costs of collecting and administering that fee. Perhaps $12.95 is a little high, but the charge should be higher than the wholesale price. Remember, part of the cable operators "high" price includes his collection price. From <1669@brl-smoke.ARPA> (Brint Cooper) >Heard on late-night, antenna-received TV: "And with every satellite TV >system ordered from BirdView, we'll give you a scrambler absolutely >free!" >I wonder if they really meant that? Sales are down. In order to bring them up, they gotta try something. Either raise the price of the system by about $350 (wholesale price of descrambler), or cut down your margins. or possibly a combination of both. It's legit. from <365@tikal.UUCP> (Roger Lanphere) >Referring to an article on pg. 11 of ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING TIMES, issue >371, March 3, 1986: > The BLACK BOX SOLUTION company claims it has cracked the MA/COMM Video- >cypher II technology for decrypting satellite video transmissions. > BLACK BOX representatives were recently at the conference of Society >for Private and Commercial Earth Stations (SPACE) selling manuals which >detailed how to descramble THE VIDEO PORTION ONLY for a price of $49.95. The details of this were posted to net.video a few months ago. And for free. There is no black magic to the video portion. They are using the same basic methods that ON-TV (Oak) and others have used for several years. There is only so much (analog) that you can do to the video. However, what good is video without audio??? >An estimated cost of building the >descrambler circuitry is approximately $90-$100 in components. They also >claim that their method of descrambling also allows other formats such >as the OAK and ORION formats currently used by X-rated pay TV services >and Canadian satellite broadcasts to be descrambled also. True. In fact, there is a surplus store in Portland that sells old Oak (On-TV) boxes for $10-$15 that can be modified to do that. > Please note however that while this method descrambles the video portion >of the picture, THE AUDIO IS STILL SCRAMBLED. BLACK BOX claims that by >late March they will have the audio solution worked out I doubt it. > BLACK BOX states: "The use of the BLACK BOX solution to decode scrambled >TV signals may be illegal. Let me paraphrase that for you. change the words "may be" to "IS". > Yes, I own a satellite dish and NO WAY will I purchase a videocypher II >box and then pay a cable company for monthly program service!!! I would >really like to see someone prove that I'm using an illegal decoder box As in the case of the rooftop HBO's and court decisions, they didn't have to prove it. Granted, It would be difficult to prove, but seeing as how there won't be any boxes which will have audio, there is no reason to go after you. Yep, I have a dish and I will get a videocyper II when the rest have started using it. Right now, I could care less about HBO/Cinemax. I much prefer the Movie Channel. These are only my opinions.
gnome@olivee.UUCP (Gary Traveis) (03/13/86)
> > Why should HBO care about sagging dish sales? Who do you > > think is paying indirectly for HBO's losses? I'll bet I'm paying > > more for HBO because of those lost revenues from satellite dishes. > I agree. HBO (and other programmers) should not care what happens to > dish sales as that is not the market they are interested in. They are > in the business of supplying programming for cable viewers. That programming > costs money and that money must come from somewhere. Owners of satellite > dishes do not possess any "rights" to view that programming without paying, > contrary to their belief and any laws which have been passed. However, I > doubt that you are paying more for HBO because of lost revenues. > And besides, HBO has publicly stated that they are not after the individual > dish owner. They are after the bars, taverns, hotels, and motels - the ones > who use one dish to feed many people without paying. > WRONG. True, programming does cost money, but you will find that the cost of HBO to customers has been steadily rising. This trend was well on its way long before the general public had access to the "inexpensive dish" technology. It's called "what the market will bear". Also wrong is the line that states that HBO is not after the individuals with dishes. HBO's standard policy is to use a firm that hires local geeks (for minimum wage) to drive around neighborhoods taking pictures of any antennas that look suspicious. How do I know this? Because I got the chance to see that pictorial list that they carry. If an antenna looks like one of the drawings on the list -- CLICK. The photos and addresses are forwarded to a discount trash-bin legal office that sends out hundreds of letters threatening criminal prosecution to those who don't settle-up, take down the antennas, and subscribe. Many HAMs in my area (myself included) have run into this problem because the mobile zombies can't tell the difference between a microwave dish for amateur use and a dish used to watch commercial broadcasts. > >Did they think about how people > > > might turn to home video rather than cable and > > > satellite programming? > > > > What people? You mean the people who paid $2000+ for a satellite > > dish knowing they would get HBO (and others) free? That avoids the question! As compared to one (1) satellite receiver store in this immediate area, there are no less than 9 videotape rental shops within a one mile radius around where I work (in Cupertino). Why pay HBO's extreme prices for random garbage on at wierd hours when you can watch what you want, when you want, for $1-$3 ? Yes, the reason why HBO is getting less subscribers is the same reason why tape rental places are doing so well. > They even use the argument that it was american taxpayers > who paid to put up the satellite and therefore the american people should be > able to watch anything that is up there. > Happily, there are also many dish owners who do not agree to any of this > crazy logic. >... > Basically, If I have a dish and happen to see something up there, then I > see it. If that program supplier doesn't want me to see it, he will > scramble it. Fine. No problem. Most of the stuff will be eventually > scrambled. I am not worried... Unfortunately, sat' movie companies (HBO in particular), and cellular telephone companies have the idea that (instead of scrambling) they can push (or buy) the lawmakers into making receiving equipment illegal. The signals that they claim as their own go through your property (and you) 24 hours a day and, like erecting a drive-in in your back yard, if they don't want you to watch, they should either scramble the signal or block your "view". Companies like HBO (or their thugs, I should say), would rather spend their money on lawyers instead of scramblng equipment. In the long run, they usually end up doing both. I personally don't care about HBO, most of their programming if crap. I DO care about idiot corporate fools trying to make the airwaves ILLEGAL to receive! Under fire are dishes (microwave), scanners (because of their ability to receive in the cellular telephone bands), and general coverage receivers (because they can pick up cordless phones). There are existing laws about reception for profit and disclosure or rebroadcast. These older laws are much less hysterical than the laws that are being pushed-for recently. Unfortunately, companies like HBO tend to be technologically lazy and legally topheavy. --->> Amateur Radio from DC to Blue light! --->> Gary (The usual disclaimers about employers and such...)
rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (03/13/86)
In article <747@well.UUCP> tenney@well.UUCP (Glenn S. Tenney) writes: >... What is a line eater ... >Since I have recently subscribed to this group, this may have been >answered before, but... > >A cable company charges each customer for a premium service (eg. HBO) >a fee; the provider (HBO) charges the cable company that same amount, but >only up to a certain number of subscribers (say 3,000) with the excess >being pure profit for the cable company. (These figures were accurate >when last I checked.) Now the question: When a dish owner subscribes >directly they pay the "full" amount regardless of how many dish owners >subscribe; Why can't there be a dish clearing house (a dish "cable" >company) that pays the fee requested (eg. 3,000 x $13 or whatever) but >charges each dish owner their FAIR SHARE plus a small profit. I think >the amounts HBO are charging dish owners is ludicrous and exhorbitant >($12.95 for just HBO) when they don't have ANY extra costs expended to >provide you that service! This is actually a very good idea, considering that it actually costs MORE for HBO to process billings from each subscriber. Since all that is required is to have the monthly code change sent/phoned to each dish owner, there might be a good profit in a "dish code clearing house"! Actually, a cable company or two could actually start competing in national magazines for the lowest "dish code" prices :-) Seriously, it's a good idea!! Any cable operators like it?
brown@nicmad.UUCP (03/13/86)
In article <541@tekcbi.UUCP> jimb@tekcbi.UUCP (Jim Boland) writes: >Mr Video claimed: >>> HBO is currently not in stereo. >>>They don't send it out in stereo from New York. >>>Currently, only Movie Channel has stereo. > >>HBO is distributed in digital stereo. A direct result of the M/A Comm >>Cypher II encoding/decoding system. But, not all cable companies (mine >>included) put up the stereo audio on the FM band. > >>One of the guys at our head-end put up HBO on the FM band, while it was still >>mono. After the scrambling went 24 hours, he put in the spare stereo exciter >>and we had stereo. But, the powers that be said that it had to be pulled, as >>further study was needed. For no extra cost we had stereo. Oh Well!!! > >I knew that HBO intended to go digital stereo when they started scrambling. >Therefore, I called them when they did and they said it was in the plans but >they were not stereo as of yet. Occasionally they feed concerts in stereo >for the cable systems, but that is on a separate feed with separate audio. >When David Anthony of DataSpan said (on the net) that he had a Cypher decoder, >I asked if it were in stereo and he said replied no. Then I saw your Mr. >Video's posting that his cable company had it for a while and I said to >myself, "Self, what gives?". So, once again, I called HBO and put the question >to them again. The answer from them is "No. We are not in digital stereo yet. >We have not fed it yet. We intend to but the date is unknown". >I don't know what Mr. Video's cable company did. HBO 1-800-426-3474. I still claim it. Here is the reason why. About a week after HBO went full time scrambling, I tuned in HBO on the FM receiver. The first thing I found was that it changed frequency. I believe that was because of logistics. 90.5 and 90.9 were swapped, no big deal. Anyway, when I found HBO again, I sat and watched "Starman" in FULL stereo sound. I had already watched it in VHS Hi-Fi stereo, so I knew what it was like. Obviously "Starman" is not one of HBO's concert specials. A few days later I watched another movie in stereo. I do not know what it was, sorry. But, I have been taping and keeping "The Hitchhiker". That program was also in stereo, at least the music was. The lead-in music wasn't, but the program music was. I have the VHS Hi-Fi stereo tape to prove it. It wasn't one of these false stereo type of things. I know what our cable company has for equipment, as I know the engineer in charge of the head-end equipment. I just got the off phone with HBO Network Operations (1-212-512-1000) and she verified the fact that if the tape is stereo, it goes out in stereo. Also, she said that a release is going out to all affiliates on how to get the stereo audio to their customers. I knew my ears weren't fooling me. -- ihnp4------\ harvard-\ \ Mr. Video seismo!uwvax!nicmad!brown topaz-/ / decvax------/
jimb@tekcbi.UUCP (Jim Boland) (03/15/86)
In article <728@olivee.UUCP>, gnome@olivee.UUCP (Gary Traveis) writes: > > Also wrong is the line that states that HBO is not after the individuals > with dishes. HBO's standard policy is to use a firm that hires local > geeks (for minimum wage) to drive around neighborhoods taking pictures > of any antennas that look suspicious. How do I know this? Because > I got the chance to see that pictorial list that they carry. If > an antenna looks like one of the drawings on the list -- CLICK. > The photos and addresses are forwarded to a discount trash-bin > legal office that sends out hundreds of letters threatening criminal > prosecution to those who don't settle-up, take down the antennas, and > subscribe. It is true that this task is performed. I can't comment on the type of people they employ but in this town they did the picture taking by helicopter. They got a good lawyer, took the cases to court and "basically" won. All rooftop antennas were to come down. Microwave dish Distributors were ordered to pay fines. This was done not by HBO but by the local outfit who had the franchise to distribute the programming. Notice that this is for microwave fed programming from a local station on 2GHz. This did not apply to satellite signals as we have been discussing. > Many HAMs in my area (myself included) have run into this > problem because the mobile zombies can't tell the difference between > a microwave dish for amateur use and a dish used to watch commercial > broadcasts. You are absolutely correct. The problem then stems from the point of proving that you are "hammin'" and not "stealin'". However, those with a ham license and demonstrating that they had the proper equipment for ham tv were not pursued.