Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:01:38 -0600, CJT wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:37:56 -0400, krw wrote:
[snip]

A one-off for personal use is allowed.

No, it is not.


Yeth it is ;-)

cite?

My personal patent attorney, over lunch, during a discussion of
cable-buster boxes. Many years ago, prior to the institution of
theft-of-service laws.

If you were correct, why would theft-of-service laws be necessary?


To prosecute people who tamper with the CATV physical plant, which
was happening LONG before there was any scrambling equipment. I've seen
photos were some dumbass hacksawed the shield off the .750" CATV
trunkline. Then he connected it directly to his TV set. The high RF
levels blew out the RF amp, and the 30 VAC 30 A power supply set the
input circuit on fire. Most of the system went down when he opened the
shield, so it wasn't very long before the damage was found. Then, the
stupid SOB tried to sue the CATV company for the damage to his TV, and
not having warning labels that the lines were carrying AC power.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:17:56 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:01:38 -0600, CJT wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:37:56 -0400, krw wrote:
[snip]

A one-off for personal use is allowed.

No, it is not.


Yeth it is ;-)

cite?

My personal patent attorney, over lunch, during a discussion of
cable-buster boxes. Many years ago, prior to the institution of
theft-of-service laws.

If you were correct, why would theft-of-service laws be necessary?


To prosecute people who tamper with the CATV physical plant, which
was happening LONG before there was any scrambling equipment. I've seen
photos were some dumbass hacksawed the shield off the .750" CATV
trunkline. Then he connected it directly to his TV set. The high RF
levels blew out the RF amp, and the 30 VAC 30 A power supply set the
input circuit on fire. Most of the system went down when he opened the
shield, so it wasn't very long before the damage was found. Then, the
stupid SOB tried to sue the CATV company for the damage to his TV, and
not having warning labels that the lines were carrying AC power.

I did that to a neighbor's TV once... lit it off with a KW pumped into
a 50' long V-beam on 2-meters ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:17:56 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
Gave us:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:01:38 -0600, CJT wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:37:56 -0400, krw wrote:
[snip]

A one-off for personal use is allowed.

No, it is not.


Yeth it is ;-)

cite?

My personal patent attorney, over lunch, during a discussion of
cable-buster boxes. Many years ago, prior to the institution of
theft-of-service laws.

If you were correct, why would theft-of-service laws be necessary?


To prosecute people who tamper with the CATV physical plant, which
was happening LONG before there was any scrambling equipment. I've seen
photos were some dumbass hacksawed the shield off the .750" CATV
trunkline. Then he connected it directly to his TV set. The high RF
levels blew out the RF amp, and the 30 VAC 30 A power supply set the
input circuit on fire. Most of the system went down when he opened the
shield, so it wasn't very long before the damage was found. Then, the
stupid SOB tried to sue the CATV company for the damage to his TV, and
not having warning labels that the lines were carrying AC power.


Hard line cable service carries a 60V DC supply.