Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!ria!uwovax.uwo.ca!telecom-request From: bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws Message-ID: Date: 17 Mar 91 07:57:09 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. Lines: 23 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 212, Message 1 of 10 In article , johnk@opel.com (John Kennedy) writes: > Have there been any cases involving a subscriber who has, say, an > entire house wired for watching the output of a VCR, yet the incoming > cable is attached to only that one device, the VCR? Lots of folks have those 'RABBIT' boxes that ferry the output of the cable box to remote rooms, and relay the infa-red control signals back to switch channels. That must be legal considering the 'nice' stores that sell it. Locally here they encode and charge for the regular channels - even WGBH channel 2, the educational one. But they will give you a healthy hunk of wire to fish where you wish because they only do crude installs. They generally assume they will get to crunch the F fittings on later, but many just do their own. It is time for competition in the cable industry to force the issue of letting all those 'cable ready' TVs be usable without boxes. Maybe when the telco wants to provide TV or the cable folks want to do phone service everyone should write and show up for DPU hearings. Fat chance it will do any good, but just sometimes it may.