Cable Co's, traps, oh my....

[adam1991]

[Split thread - STC]

I remember years ago I discovered I could avoid paying for cable TV just by having an internet connection through the cable line....and I'm cheaper than George Costanza. But of course, that's cable theft, and cable theft is illegal.

You know, if the cableco comes up to you and hands you something, is that theft?

That the cableco chooses not to put filters on the tap to prevent you from seeing their signal, that's a business choice they've made. They have made the choice to send a valid video signal into your home, and not bill you for it.

I'm not responsible for the choices the cableco makes. I'm a customer, and they send a signal into my home; so be it.

If I am an internet customer and I have asked for and am paying for the 8 megabit service, yet speedtest shows me at 20 megabits down, what would you say to that?

It's no different than unfiltered video signals also coming down the wire. It's their network, their wire; if they choose to give me something I haven't asked for, that's completely on them and I will happily take it every time.

If it were important to them, they would make alternate business choices *not* to give it to me.

I am under zero obligation to be polite and not take what they've chosen *as a business* to give me.

[staknhalo]

I remember years ago I discovered I could avoid paying for cable TV just by having an internet connection through the cable line....and I'm cheaper than George Costanza. But of course, that's cable theft, and cable theft is illegal.

You know, if the cableco comes up to you and hands you something, is that theft?

That the cableco chooses not to put filters on the tap to prevent you from seeing their signal, that's a business choice they've made. They have made the choice to send a valid video signal into your home, and not bill you for it.

I'm not responsible for the choices the cableco makes. I'm a customer, and they send a signal into my home; so be it.

If I am an internet customer and I have asked for and am paying for the 8 megabit service, yet speedtest shows me at 20 megabits down, what would you say to that?

It's no different than unfiltered video signals also coming down the wire. It's their network, their wire; if they choose to give me something I haven't asked for, that's completely on them and I will happily take it every time.

If it were important to them, they would make alternate business choices *not* to give it to me.

I am under zero obligation to be polite and not take what they've chosen *as a business* to give me.

Just because they make it easy, doesn't mean you should delude yourself into thinking it's anything but theft; plain and simple. And I'm not trying to white knight you, I torrent sh*t all the time. But I'd be the first to admit it's theft and I do it simply because I can. The fact that torrenting is so easy doesn't make it right anymore than what you do. If you got arrested for robbing someone's house, you aren't going to beat the rap simply because they left the front door open.

[STC]

...is that theft?...

I must say your comments are a bitter pill to swallow after hearing what you had to say on my laptop post some time ago adam1991.

[richard1980]

47 U.S.C. § 553: "No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law."

There's no doubt about it. Connecting the cable line to the TV without being specifically authorized to do so by the cable company is definitely illegal, regardless of what signal is coming through the line and if it's filtered/encrypted or not.

I too am confused by Adam's apparent double standard.

[adam1991]

...is that theft?...

I must say your comments are a bitter pill to swallow after hearing what you had to say on my laptop post some time ago adam1991.

Hardware does not equal video signal.

Plus, if any business CHOOSES to give you something you didn't ask for, that's THEIR problem.

Consider the mail: if someone sends you something you didn't ask for, it's yours to keep. That's codified into law. Many charities send you calendars, labels, whatever--just because they sent it, doesn't mean you have an obligation to pay them for it. Never mind if they ask or not, you've not the obligation.

So now we have a cableco making a business choice not to filter the signal, even though they easily can? And this is video signal, not hardware. It's something you can't give back once you take it, and it's something that your taking of it doesn't cause them to lose it to sell to others.

If Microsoft sent you a copy of Windows in the mail, unasked and unsolicited, it's yours to keep and do with what you want with no further obligation on your part--no matter what Microsoft may say.

[adam1991]

47 U.S.C. § 553: "No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law."

There's no doubt about it. Connecting the cable line to the TV without being specifically authorized to do so by the cable company is definitely illegal, regardless of what signal is coming through the line and if it's filtered/encrypted or not.

I too am confused by Adam's apparent double standard.

So if the cable company chose to put up a big video screen in my neighborhood for a bit "thank you customers!" party, but didn't want non-customers like me to view it, intending it to be viewed only by its subscribers, I'm violating the law if I see it?

Of *course* that's ridiculous--but strictly speaking, the cableco could do that and could prosecute anyone who *isn't* a customer who dared to view it. After all, those people would be receiving the communication offered over the cable system, yet the cableco would not be authorizing them.

I noticed you didn't comment on my broadband question: if you're paying for 8 megabit service but discover you're actually getting 20 megabit service, are you stealing? Or did the cableco make a business decision not to spend the money on physically differentiating between 8 megabit and 20 megabit service, and chose to provide only the one service? That could be a valid business plan that makes them the most money. That kind of thing actually happens all the time...companies get whatever money they can from their customers, differentiating not on the product but only on the prices they can get individually from each customer.

I mean, if you're paying for only the 8 megabit service, you can't call and complain that you're only getting 10 megabit bandwidth; that privilege is reserved for the 20 megabit paying customers.

So the cableco has made a business decision: even though a customer says "I don't want your TV service," the cableco sends it down regardless. IN THE CLEAR. There's no "intercepting" going on; they've simply chosen not to spend the money to put traps on your line. I need do nothing other than use a normal TV--no DMCA violation here, no hacking an encryption scheme, no climbing the pole myself to modify their equipment or their signal. Nada.

Of course, I can't call and bitch about TV picture or signal quality--just like the broadband example.

Go ahead, prosecute me. They won't, of course, because they know they have no standing and it would fail--just like with the broadband example.

[adam1991]

Oh--and regarding the laptop:

Well I get to keep it

They would loose more money exchanging it for the cheaper model now that it has been opened. They also admitted it was their mistake. They labelled the wrong model at $298 and will honour the price they sold it to me at.

So now you have direct experience with the business decision of "it would cost them too much to do it that way, so I win". This kind of business decision happens every minute of every day. And if the cable company makes that decision with respect to traps on the line--"yeah, he's not paying for TV, but it would cost us too much to trap his line, so he'll get it anyway"--so be it.

And remember: hardware can be retrieved and sold at the desired price. TV signal is way, way different. But the business decision making process is the same.

[richard1980]

So if the cable company chose to put up a big video screen in my neighborhood for a bit "thank you customers!" party, but didn't want non-customers like me to view it, intending it to be viewed only by its subscribers, I'm violating the law if I see it?

Of *course* that's ridiculous--but strictly speaking, the cableco could do that and could prosecute anyone who *isn't* a customer who dared to view it. After all, those people would be receiving the communication offered over the cable system, yet the cableco would not be authorizing them.

It would be unreasonable to expect a screen in a public domain to not be seen by the general public. So right off the bat the cable company is specifically authorizing the general public to view the screen. If you were an attorney for the cable company, would you seriously consider walking into court with the argument you stated? Not only would you be laughed out of the courtroom, but that would most definitely be career suicide.

I noticed you didn't comment on my broadband question: if you're paying for 8 megabit service but discover you're actually getting 20 megabit service, are you stealing?

If the cable company knows about it and willingly provides you a 20 Mbps connection for the cost of an 8 Mbps connection, that is not stealing. But if they don't know about it, then yes, it's stealing, whether written into law or not (you should know right from wrong). Whether or not it is intentional stealing is a different question. Intentionally hacking into your modem or hacking into their system to increase your bandwidth is definitely illegal. But just sitting around being the average ignorant customer that has no idea how fast data is moving over the network? The ISP probably isn't going to do anything except for lower your bandwidth cap once they figure out the mistake. They'd have a hard time proving you knew you were getting more bandwidth than what you were paying for.

So the cableco has made a business decision: even though a customer says "I don't want your TV service," the cableco sends it down regardless. IN THE CLEAR. There's no "intercepting" going on; they've simply chosen not to spend the money to put traps on your line. I need do nothing other than use a normal TV--no DMCA violation here, no hacking an encryption scheme, no climbing the pole myself to modify their equipment or their signal. Nada.

When you pay for internet service only, you are paying for the signal to be received by your cable modem. You are not paying for the right to redirect that signal to a TV. The simple act of connecting the line to your TV without authorization is what makes it illegal. That's a proactive step that you must take, and if you take it, you are guilty of stealing cable service. And if you are paying for TV service, you have to look at whether or not the service agreement allows for splitting the signal to multiple outlets. Some cable companies do not allow this unless you pay additional outlet fees.

I honestly can't believe we're having this conversation. This is almost as ridiculous as the time the guy told me he wasn't doing anything illegal by making copies of DVDs he got in the mail from Netflix.

And for the record, I can't say I've never stolen cable TV service. But I don't try to pretend I didn't do it, and I don't try to justify my actions by twisting the truth around to suit my needs.

[STC]

If this were happening to you, I'd suggest you call your cable co and tell them that you can view TV and I’m very confident they would trap the line. Your conscience would tell you that taking an honest approach is the best way forwards. I mean how would you sleep at night...?

Take the old UK BBC terrestrial TV analogue service built on principal of a licence fee and not on a commercial model.
You can pick it up pretty much anywhere on the mainland with an aerial. You can do this without paying the license fee. You're saying 'that's okay, it's not hardware, I am within my rights to watch'.

No, you are absolutely not! If your cable company are not blocking service to your abode, and you are watching it for free, that doesn't make it 'okay'.

[adam1991]

If the cable company knows about it and willingly provides you a 20 Mbps connection for the cost of an 8 Mbps connection, that is not stealing.

Thank you for making my point.

[adam1991]

Take the old UK BBC terrestrial TV analogue service built on principal of a licence fee and not on a commercial model.
You can pick it up pretty much anywhere on the mainland with an aerial. You can do this without paying the license fee. You're saying 'that's okay, it's not hardware, I am within my rights to watch'.

No, you are absolutely not!

That was always a screwball model that the UK subjects allowed themselves to put up with.

Imagine requiring a license to see the color blue on a billboard.

[richard1980]

If the cable company knows about it and willingly provides you a 20 Mbps connection for the cost of an 8 Mbps connection, that is not stealing.

Thank you for making my point.

When you can figure out how to tune TV channels with your cable modem, then I will have made your point. You are making the assumption that just because the TV signal is being transmitted to your home that the cable company is authorizing you to connect that signal to a TV and view it. That is not true. By paying for the internet service, you receive authorization to connect that signal to a cable modem, and only to a cable modem. You do not receive authorization to connect that signal to a TV. If you connect the signal to a TV without authorization to do so, you are committing active cable theft.

Here's an article you might like: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-930356.html. This guy Doug in the article seems to have the same attitude you have.

[STC]

Imagine requiring a license to see the color blue on a billboard.

What a good idea! Let's make that the law then that too would be illegal!

[adam1991]

If the cable company knows about it and willingly provides you a 20 Mbps connection for the cost of an 8 Mbps connection, that is not stealing.

Thank you for making my point.

When you can figure out how to tune TV channels with your cable modem, then I will have made your point.

My cableco offers two basic tiers at the bottom: one gives a handful of channels (locals plus a superstation plus religious stuff), the other offers 75 channels. Neither tier requires a converter box.

If I am subscribing to and paying for the lowest tier, what say you about my daring to tune my TV to a channel I'm not paying for?

[staknhalo]

I say it might be easy, it might be doable but it's still illegal; bottom line.

[adam1991]

I say it might be easy, it might be doable but it's still illegal; bottom line.

It's illegal to hit the "up" button on my remote and see something that the purveyor simply wishes that I would pay for, but which the purveyor has made a business decision not to keep me from seeing under any circumstances?

Yeah. Good luck with that.

Same with the broadband example. Good luck with that.

And again: we're not talking a physical product which, once sold, is not available to be sold to anyone else--like a computer. (And yet, the business in question made a business decision to let that go at a ridiculously low price...)

[staknhalo]

I say it might be easy, it might be doable but it's still illegal; bottom line.

It's illegal to hit the "up" button on my remote and see something that the purveyor simply wishes that I would pay for, but which the purveyor has made a business decision not to keep me from seeing under any circumstances?

Yes. You even know it is. If you really don't (which I don't believe), call you cable company; explain to them what you are doing and see what they say.

[adam1991]

Huh. I will do that.

[richard1980]

My cableco offers two basic tiers at the bottom: one gives a handful of channels (locals plus a superstation plus religious stuff), the other offers 75 channels. Neither tier requires a converter box.

If I am subscribing to and paying for the lowest tier, what say you about my daring to tune my TV to a channel I'm not paying for?

Yes, that is illegal. It is covered in 47 U.S.C. § 605. Basically, even though the signal may be unencrypted, the fact that a pay-per-tier system exists makes it illegal to watch those channels that you do not pay for.

It's also covered in 18 U.S.C § 2511.

[adam1991]

But what obligation does the provider have to ensure that, during normal operation of my set, I don't see such channels?

Keep going...