Just discovered "free" cable. - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 05:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AntAltMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 3,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 25
My local cable TV company in Durham, New Hampshire used to put unscrambled HBO on a midband channel, and they would furnish a midband to UHF converter to subscribers. I had just bought an Advent 1000A VideoBeam TV that had twelve thimbwheel VHF tuners, and the highband tuners could be tuned down to the upper end of the midband, getting me free HBO. Back then, the only filters the cable company had were for FM, since they charged an extra $2 a month for FM service.
AntAltMike is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 05:33 AM
Member
 
Seanraff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You guys are funny!
I asked a legit question here a week ago and I got one irrelevant answer, this guy here asked an irrelevant question and gets over 100 even more irrelevant answers!
he canceled his cable if they keep sending it to him HE IS NOT STEALING IT!

Have fun with your click.....
Seanraff is offline  
post #33 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 05:47 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
MasterofBlasting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seanraff View Post

You guys are funny!
I asked a legit question here a week ago and I got one irrelevant answer, this guy here asked an irrelevant question and gets over 100 even more irrelevant answers!
he canceled his cable if they keep sending it to him HE IS NOT STEALING IT!

Have fun with your click.....

It is a bit strange what topics bring the most interest. When there are entire threads condemning cable companies for overcharging and price gouging their customers. And a trend of members here jumping on the "I cut the cord!" bandwagon, it's a bit confusing when so many people are against my situation.

I'm merely taking advantage of a system that has taken advantage of it's customer for a long time. The fact that they have to trap and filter the signal at your home, rather than not send it at all, goes to show how your "internet" only package cost is plenty to cover their equipment and transmission costs.

Consider this as me "sticking it to the MAN!"
MasterofBlasting is offline  
post #34 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 06:19 AM
Thread Ender
 
WS65711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Covington, LA OTA & Charter CableCard
Posts: 4,151
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 64
^^^

And that's all fine and dandy. But it really is pretty foolish of you to bring it out in a public forum such as this. And remember.. Someday when you grow up, you just might be "The Man".

Don't ever make the MISTAKE of buying a Samsung TV..
They consider THIS
normal on a two month old set..
WS65711 is offline  
post #35 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 06:47 AM
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgmv123 View Post

They do, but instead of Channel 14 being in the ~400MHz UHF spectrum, Cable Channel 14 is just above Channel 13 in the ~180MHz VHF spectrum. I think Cable Channel 54 is the same as OTA 14.

cable channels 65-125 are from UHF 14-68. So any TV with a UHF tuner that goes to 69 and up until the 80's they went to 83 could get in those cable channels if they existed back then.
BCF68 is offline  
post #36 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 06:48 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
MasterofBlasting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 295
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by WS65711 View Post

^^^

And that's all fine and dandy. But it really is pretty foolish of you to bring it out in a public forum such as this. And remember.. Someday when you grow up, you just might be "The Man".

This is hardly a "public" forum. Sure, anyone who does a quick google search could stumble upon this thread. But privacy lies in anonymity. The bit of information I have provided on my profile is hardly enough to track me down. Even if it were, would this thread really be enough to convict me of stealing cable service?

Assumptions and condescending remarks towards me won't make me look bad, but rather you.
MasterofBlasting is offline  
post #37 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 06:53 AM
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterofBlasting View Post

It is a bit strange what topics bring the most interest. When there are entire threads condemning cable companies for overcharging and price gouging their customers. And a trend of members here jumping on the "I cut the cord!" bandwagon, it's a bit confusing when so many people are against my situation.

I'm merely taking advantage of a system that has taken advantage of it's customer for a long time. The fact that they have to trap and filter the signal at your home, rather than not send it at all, goes to show how your "internet" only package cost is plenty to cover their equipment and transmission costs.

Consider this as me "sticking it to the MAN!"

Listen if I think McDonald's is charging too much my option is to not go to McDonald's. Not to have a friend/relative that works at McDonald's to give me free food.

That being said if they are sending a signal into your home that's on them. However if you know it's happening so you should call and ask about it. If they say it's ok and they want to give you a few free channels great for you. I can tell by the way you post that you know it's wrong so call your cable company and ask.

It could be they eventually catch you and charge you for all those months of "free" service.
BCF68 is offline  
post #38 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 06:57 AM
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterofBlasting View Post

This is hardly a "public" forum. Sure, anyone who does a quick google search could stumble upon this thread. But privacy lies in anonymity. The bit of information I have provided on my profile is hardly enough to track me down. Even if it were, would this thread really be enough to convict me of stealing cable service?

Assumptions and condescending remarks towards me won't make me look bad, but rather you.

The people running this site certainly have access to your IP address. That can tell them which ISP you have and they could notify your ISP which can use your IP address to find out who you are. You are not as anonymous as you think
BCF68 is offline  
post #39 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 07:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 236
OK. Retired cable guy here. Just to clear up channel allocations, here they are in Frequency order: 2-6,95-99,14-22,7-13,23-125. 95-99 exist where FM radio is, 14-22 in the gap between VHF Low and VHF High, 23+ beyond ch. 13. FWIW CATV allocation usually preserves the 'Guard Band' between ch 4 & 5 (~74-76 MHz) because automated airport beacons operate there (or at least they did).
olyteddy is offline  
post #40 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 11:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

The people running this site certainly have access to your IP address. That can tell them which ISP you have and they could notify your ISP which can use your IP address to find out who you are. You are not as anonymous as you think

Which we would not do unless compelled by legal means. Period.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #41 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 11:30 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,558
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

That being said if they are sending a signal into your home that's on them.

And that's exactly right! The OP has no responsibility IMO.
Ratman is online now  
post #42 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 11:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterofBlasting View Post

It is a bit strange what topics bring the most interest. When there are entire threads condemning cable companies for overcharging and price gouging their customers. And a trend of members here jumping on the "I cut the cord!" bandwagon, it's a bit confusing when so many people are against my situation.

I'm merely taking advantage of a system that has taken advantage of it's customer for a long time. The fact that they have to trap and filter the signal at your home, rather than not send it at all, goes to show how your "internet" only package cost is plenty to cover their equipment and transmission costs.

Consider this as me "sticking it to the MAN!"

Actually, you may be sticking it to yourself. Many cablecos have a bundle for Internet and local HD channels that is less than Internet alone (strange but true). I'd suggest checking with your provider to see if they have such an option.

This question comes up here on a regular basis. One time it turned out the cableco CSR the customer spoke with when downgrading the service didn't tell the customer, but went ahead and gave them the discounted bundle anyway to save them money. The customer thought he was getting something for nothing but learned he was paying less for more than what he expected.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #43 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 01:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seanraff View Post

You guys are funny!
I asked a legit question here a week ago and I got one irrelevant answer....

Hmmm. I thought I answered your question quite well. Check your AVS Private Messages.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #44 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 02:51 PM
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

Which we would not do unless compelled by legal means. Period.

Of course, but the OP's assumption that because this board uses usernames and not real names he is 100% anonymous is certainly not true.
BCF68 is offline  
post #45 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 03:36 PM
Advanced Member
 
Super Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyoteaz View Post

Federal:Federal code provides for a fine up to $1000 and/or up to 6 months in the slammer plus damages. Texas law considers it a class C misdemeanor, which is a fine up to $500, and it is a similar misdemeanor punishable by fine in other states. I seriously doubt anyone is stupid enough to actually go to trial for it because it would cost more for a lawyer than the fine would end up being, not to mention being a huge waste of the court's time. Plead it down to some meaningless BS, pay the fine and restitution, and move on. But is it really worth the potential hassle just to be a cheap bastard and not pay a few bucks a month for service, or a few more bucks one time to put up an antenna?

Anyone who follows my posts on here would know that I'm no representative for the cable industry. I rip those morons a new one any time they deserve it, which is a lot. I just think it's stupid whenever people claim innocence when they've clearly committed a crime, especially when it's a real crime that actually has a victim.

Federal:
Originally Posted by 47 USC 553
(a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or receiving service; assist in intercepting or receiving defined
(1) 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.
Texas state law, though other states typically have similar laws:

You're kidding, right?!?!

Or you're telling me that if I cancel my TV cable, keep my cable Internet, federal agents are going to come busting down my door to see if I still have the coax hooked at the back of the set? HA HA HA HA HA. And if I do that's grounds for conviction of theft?

Just as I thought, you can't show me not even one real-world conviction documented of anyone whom:
A) Phoned cable co to cancel TV portion of cable
B) Tells cable co to keep Internet portion of cable
C) Keeps the raw feed plugged into his TV and surprised to see channels still showing up.

Just how the heck are the feds going to bust me, other than busting down my door???
Really, please tell me?

Or just out of the blue I'm going to get a federal fine in the mail for stealing cable? The guy in this case IS NOT STEALING ANYTHING! Are you for real??
Any one to pay such a fine without any conviction would have to be a total imbecile. Any federal agency would be insanely stupid to issue such a ticket without any conviction. No federal agency would ever authorize anyone to bust down your door for this. The courts are backed up enough with real cases any district attorney would be a fool and would be fired to risk such a case as we're talking about here.

So again, how is this guy going to get convicted?

I say again the cable co is stupid, very stupid for having a clear QAM feed of HBO (if that is true) The cable co knows that the subscriber has a live internet feed which he is paying for - if the cable co chooses not to filter or encrypt the TV portion then they are stupid morons and perhaps liable to HBO and others for failing to protect their HBO and other feeds. The subscriber is not guilty of any crime.

And you're telling me that you aren't a rep of the cable industry? I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Please stop scaring AVS members with imaginary convictions.
Super Eye is offline  
post #46 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 04:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
Super Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

Cable TV operators use the UHF spectrum. I'm not sure back them but today they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Eye View Post

Yes but that was UHF. Not CATV

Quote:
Originally Posted by cgmv123 View Post

They do, but instead of Channel 14 being in the ~400MHz UHF spectrum, Cable Channel 14 is just above Channel 13 in the ~180MHz VHF spectrum. I think Cable Channel 54 is the same as OTA 14.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

cable channels 65-125 are from UHF 14-68. So any TV with a UHF tuner that goes to 69 and up until the 80's they went to 83 could get in those cable channels if they existed back then.

Well every Analog-Cable-Ready" TV I ever owned had a TV/CABLE or CABLE/ANT or UHF/CATV switch either in the set-up menu or a physical switch. I have never received any cable channels above 13 unless the switch was in the cable or CATV position. Plus my pre-cable ready TV sets could never receive any cable channel above 13.

Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

OK. Retired cable guy here. Just to clear up channel allocations, here they are in Frequency order: 2-6,95-99,14-22,7-13,23-125. 95-99 exist where FM radio is, 14-22 in the gap between VHF Low and VHF High, 23+ beyond ch. 13. FWIW CATV allocation usually preserves the 'Guard Band' between ch 4 & 5 (~74-76 MHz) because automated airport beacons operate there (or at least they did).

Sorry that's above my head. All I can say is that I can only receive analog cable channels above 13 with a cable-ready TV, not with an older VHF/UHF only TV set.
Super Eye is offline  
post #47 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 06:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Scooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Youngsville, NC USA
Posts: 5,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgmv123 View Post

They do, but instead of Channel 14 being in the ~400MHz UHF spectrum, Cable Channel 14 is just above Channel 13 in the ~180MHz VHF spectrum. I think Cable Channel 54 is the same as OTA 14.

UHF channel 14 is about cable channel 65 or so. (470 MHz)

You CAN put antennas on your owned and/or controlled property...
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Being A Beacon of Knowledge in the darkness of FUD
Scooper is offline  
post #48 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 07:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
coyoteaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: DFW
Posts: 4,182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

OK. Retired cable guy here. Just to clear up channel allocations, here they are in Frequency order: 2-6,95-99,14-22,7-13,23-125. 95-99 exist where FM radio is, 14-22 in the gap between VHF Low and VHF High, 23+ beyond ch. 13. FWIW CATV allocation usually preserves the 'Guard Band' between ch 4 & 5 (~74-76 MHz) because automated airport beacons operate there (or at least they did).

Most digital cable systems have the out of band channel used to send channel information, box authorizations, firmware updates, and the like in the 72-76MHz gap between channels 4 and 5, with Motorola using 75.25MHz and Cisco/SA typically using 72.25, though you'll sometimes see Cisco using the gap between channels 6 and 95 (88-90MHz) or just other random locations like 92.25.
coyoteaz is offline  
post #49 of 136 Old 03-27-2012, 10:24 PM
Advanced Member
 
Desert Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bakersfield California
Posts: 979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The former Cox Cable in Bakersfield was doing an electronic audit in the mid 80s. They detected what they thought was an extra tv set hooked up to limited basic service (pre 1993 cable companies could charge per tv set for limited basic). The police came to the house in the middle of the night and demanded to search the house, claiming that the results of the electronic audit was probable cause for the search. The search revealed that the "extra tv" was a VCR connected to a tv that was legitimately subscribed. Therefore no charges were filed, but if it had been an unauthorized extra tv hooked up then the people would have been arrested for cable theft. I don't know how it is possible, but supposedly cable technicians can detect how many devices are hooked up, as well as illegal descrambler boxes, from the pole using an oscilloscope or something to detect electronic backwash generated by every device. Does anyone know how this works?

How can we say "the digital transition is complete" when thousands of low power stations are still broadcasting in analog?
LOW POWER ANALOG NEEDS TO DIE NOW!!!
Desert Hawk is offline  
post #50 of 136 Old 03-28-2012, 01:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Rammitinski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Posts: 17,437
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Nowhere left to go anymore on the OP, and drifting in and out of total tangent territory now.

Time to lock?
Rammitinski is offline  
post #51 of 136 Old 03-28-2012, 02:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AntAltMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: College Park, MD
Posts: 3,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Hawk View Post

The former Cox Cable in Bakersfield was doing an electronic audit in the mid 80s. They detected what they thought was an extra tv set hooked up to limited basic service (pre 1993 cable companies could charge per tv set for limited basic). The police came to the house in the middle of the night and demanded to search the house, claiming that the results of the electronic audit was probable cause for the search. The search revealed that the "extra tv" was a VCR connected to a tv that was legitimately subscribed. Therefore no charges were filed, but if it had been an unauthorized extra tv hooked up then the people would have been arrested for cable theft. I don't know how it is possible, but supposedly cable technicians can detect how many devices are hooked up, as well as illegal descrambler boxes, from the pole using an oscilloscope or something to detect electronic backwash generated by every device. Does anyone know how this works?

They were using a Time-Domain-Reflectometer, or TDR. There may have been other technical means used in addition to that, and while other means for ascertaining a multi-device load is something I have speculated on previously, I don't think my further ruminations on the topic would be useful here. A TDR shows, on a display screen, the distance to each "imperfection " on a transmission line, and a person with some expertise at evaluating the squiggle on a TDR can spot a splitter and each end load.

The partial reregulation of 1993 alluded to by Desert Hawk was part of a "trade" of sorts, that empowered the cable companies to retain their monopoly on descrambler/decoder boxes in exchange for submitting to rental rate regulation, based on a rigid cost formula. That was when the box and remote charges on your cable bill went way down and from having round or familiar charges for cable boxes go from being charges like $4.95 a month for a box and 2.95 for a remote control, replaced by charges like $2.71 for a box and maybe $1.23 for a remote. They used to rent the remotes separate from the set top box, and while you could then buy a remote for less than 2 years rental, that option was only useful to people who wanted to have multiple remotes because if you just rented the box with no remotes, the cable company could and often would electronically disable the remote function.

It wasn't until cable companies started using 550 MHz systems that the cable band overlapped the UHF band, and it wasn't until the late 1980s or early 1990s that there was enough programming available for cable companies to use channels that overlapped the UHF spectrum. Since UHF channels are 2 MHz off the nearest cable channels, a UHF tuner would need to have an automatic fine tuning (AFT) range of 2 MHz to catch and lock onto analog cable TV "ultraband" channels.

By, I'd say, the late 1990s, every TV I serviced had over 2 MHz of capture range when set on "cable TV" and could reliably lock onto UHF channels when set in cable mode, but some didn't have that much AFT range utilized when set on UHF, probably because they assumed that the frequencies of the UHF channels were near perfect.

I remember that the Jerrold cable boxes used to develop channel 3 and 4 output frequencies that were just a little low because that was supposed to make them a little friendlier to the AGC of that era than if they were a little high, but the Sony TVs were "smart" enough to see that those outputs were out of spec, and while they would initially lock onto them, about every fifteen to twenty seconds, they would rescan their capture range looking for a closer frequency match, so in a market where I did a lot of commercial work (over half a dozen bar customers), we had to use another device, like an old 35 channel mechanical tuner box or a VCR, to interface the Jerrold Starcom outputs with the TVs.

I have scanned for digital channels with dozens of modern, cable TVs, and while only a few of those tuners would lock onto and process 8VSB signals when they were exactly "on channel", like broadcast channels 2-13, and those which I electronically frequency shifted to superband, hyperband and ultraband channels, but I have never found a single digital tuner that had the 2+ MHz of capture range that pre-digital TV tuners had.
AntAltMike is online now  
post #52 of 136 Old 03-28-2012, 02:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Jedi Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Macon, GA
Posts: 1,627
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratman View Post

From my experience with Comcast, it may take a few weeks (months?) to filter/trap unsubscribed channels. Enjoy what you have as long as it lasts.

I cancelled Comcast (completely) about a year 1/2 ago. It took them 4 months to disconnect service completely (at the pole).

Back in 2008 when I cancelled Cox It took them a few weeks to disconnect the service from the box in the yard. The free TV I'm excited about is the 14 channels (6 in HD) I pick up OTA with my antenna. It includes my favorite channel MeTV. I'm also excited about my big DVD and video game collection.

Broadcast TV - a vital national public resource
Jedi Master is offline  
post #53 of 136 Old 03-28-2012, 03:11 AM
Advanced Member
 
Super Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 950
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 18
There are millions of blogs on the Internet. Many are anonymous and the majority are unsubstantiated silliness.

The police cannot come to your house in the middle of the night and demand to search your house because a cable company tells them that you may have a TV hooked up to a live outlet. This would not substantiate probable cause to search without a warrant.

Please let’s use some common sense here. Thank God that the majority of folks can differentiate between documented cases and nonsense. There are very few circumstances were police could actually demand to search your premises without a warrant. They better have some “exigent circumstances” Maybe a life in imminent danger, that kind of stuff, certainly not a cable company’s silly cable-pole audit.

Judges are very careful when handing out warrants and I doubt that any judge would write out a warrant for a middle of the night premises search to look for a live cable outlet. Most cops are aware of this and would never-ever do a warrant-less search if they suspected that it was an unlawful search as they would be held liable.

Thank God that we have real journalists that actually research 4th Amendment issues and real cases. If this case really exists then please supply some real proof to links /documents of this case. Silly anonymous blogs are fun to read but that’s all they account to - unsubstantiated silliness

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Hawk View Post

The former Cox Cable in Bakersfield was doing an electronic audit in the mid 80s. They detected what they thought was an extra tv set hooked up to limited basic service (pre 1993 cable companies could charge per tv set for limited basic). The police came to the house in the middle of the night and demanded to search the house, claiming that the results of the electronic audit was probable cause for the search. The search revealed that the "extra tv" was a VCR connected to a tv that was legitimately subscribed. Therefore no charges were filed, but if it had been an unauthorized extra tv hooked up then the people would have been arrested for cable theft.

Super Eye is offline  
post #54 of 136 Old 03-28-2012, 04:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RCbridge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Limerick Pa
Posts: 1,902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 14
This conversation has gotten pretty deep.
The OP claims 150 plus channels in the clear.
Who is your cable company?
What type of TV do you have?
In my area it is a minimum of a DTA to get anything.
RCbridge is offline  
post #55 of 136 Old 03-28-2012, 04:30 AM
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCbridge View Post

This conversation has gotten pretty deep.
The OP claims 150 plus channels in the clear.
Who is your cable company?
What type of TV do you have?
In my area it is a minimum of a DTA to get anything.

he already stated it's Suddenlink
BCF68 is offline  
post #56 of 136 Old 03-28-2012, 05:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
Sammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Canonsburg, PA
Posts: 748
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

Which goes back to the upcoming FCC ruling on all digital cable systems being allowed to encrypt all channels with zero exceptions. From what I can tell, including the major broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC) supporting it, it looks like it will be put into effect. In other words at some point in the near future, issues like this will be a moot point.

While I don't support increasing encryption until there's a much healthier market for third party devices, I suspect you are right that the FCC will rule in favor of the cable companies being allowed to encrypt the local broadcast channels. A possible compromise for the FCC might be insisting that any local channel at the request of the broadcaster and any PEG channels be in the clear.
Sammer is offline  
post #57 of 136 Old 03-28-2012, 07:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCbridge View Post

This conversation has gotten pretty deep.
The OP claims 150 plus channels in the clear.
Who is your cable company?
What type of TV do you have?
In my area it is a minimum of a DTA to get anything.

Counting digitized FM radio stations and other music channels and out of market channels and the On Demand slate channels and repeats of some of the channels I get over a hundred here. But we pay for the 'lifeline' tier.
olyteddy is offline  
post #58 of 136 Old 03-28-2012, 06:04 PM
Member
 
bill57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Amazing how many people apparently live in fear. Well, that makes for a very orderly society. Similar to the OP's story, my two very elderly parents dropped down from regular "basic" service to the most basic "life line basic". My mother was concerned when all the channels kept coming in and called the cable company. They assured her that she wouldn't be charged. Nine months later, only the life line channels came through. During that time, I never feared that I might have to visit my 88 year old mother in jail.
bill57 is offline  
post #59 of 136 Old 03-28-2012, 06:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill57 View Post

Amazing how many people apparently live in fear. Well, that makes for a very orderly society. Similar to the OP's story, my two very elderly parents dropped down from regular "basic" service to the most basic "life line basic". My mother was concerned when all the channels kept coming in and called the cable company. They assured her that she wouldn't be charged. Nine months later, only the life line channels came through. During that time, I never feared that I might have to visit my 88 year old mother in jail.

That's because she had a great lawyer....

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
post #60 of 136 Old 03-28-2012, 08:31 PM
 
BCF68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,463
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill57 View Post

Amazing how many people apparently live in fear. Well, that makes for a very orderly society.

it's not about living in fear it's about the whole "give me stuff for free" mentality. It's one thing to say "Oh gee I'm getting channels I shouldn't maybe I better check about this" and "Yeah I'm getting to stick it to the man. F--k 'em. Free stuff forever! I'm entitled!"
BCF68 is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Technical

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off