Just discovered "free" cable. - Page 3 - AVS Forum

AVS Forum > HDTV > HDTV Technical > Just discovered "free" cable.

HDTV Technical

Super Eye's Avatar Super Eye
10:52 PM Liked: 20
post #61 of 136
03-28-2012 | Posts: 959
Joined: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

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!"

Maybe that's because North American cable companies are rated as the most hated industries in North America.

Maybe if cable-cos started treating their customers more fairly maybe the average Joe wouldn't feel like sticking it to the man. Maybe if cable-reps-in-disguise stopped calling innocent folks thieves and criminals for something that is obviously the cable co's fault, maybe the average Joe's attitude would change. Funny how the cable industry thinks that the average Joe has an obligation to disconnect the coax from his TV and call the cable co to make sure they know that he is getting extra channels or be busted yet the cable co thinks that they have no obligation to do anything to protect HBO's feed from reaching the guy's home - knowing that he has a live Internet feed legally coming into his home.

Top 10 Most Hated Industries Per BBB
http://theserviceleader.wordpress.co...tries-per-bbb/
1 - Television Cable & Satellite

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pf_article_112464.html
1. Television -- Cable & Satellite

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-...a-2011-12?op=1
3rd most hated company Time Warner
4th most hated company Comcast
5th most hated company Charter Communications
14th most hated company Cox Communications
15th most hated company Dish Network

You get the picture, right?

Good thing that the majority of people aren't scared of cable's false and misleading scare tactics, know their rights and refuse to bow to the cable industry and will legally stick it to them any chance they get
BCF68's Avatar BCF68
12:29 AM Liked: 19
post #62 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 2,463
Joined: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Eye View Post

You get the picture, right?

Good thing that the majority of people aren't scared of cable's false and misleading scare tactics, know their rights and refuse to bow to the cable industry and will legally stick it to them any chance they get

A) stealing cable is not legal

B) if you do not like your cable company's prices or service you right is to not purchase their service. Not to take it for free.

I'm not sure how you justify theft of service no matter how badly a company treats you. Pay TV is not a right. If you don't like the costs then get an antenna, buy DVDs/blu-ray, use LEGAL services like Netflix and Hulu or do without. Those are your choices.
Super Eye's Avatar Super Eye
02:43 AM Liked: 20
post #63 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 959
Joined: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

A) stealing cable is not legal.

He is NOT stealing cable. He is paying for an active feed. The cable co is sending unprotected signals down his active line, signals that he chose not to subscribe to, signals belonging to third parties including HBO’s feed. Paying for a feed and having the feed plugged into a none-tampered with legal QAM tuner does not spell theft. However the cable co may be liable for selling a feed with HBO’s signal unprotected and available to subscribers not subscribing to HBO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

B) if you do not like your cable company's prices or service you right is to not purchase their service. Not to take it for free.

This is exactly what he has done. My grammar isn’t perfect but I’m literate. He contacted the cable co and told them to disconnect his TV portion of the feed and gave back the TV box. Apparently he is happy with his cable-internet portion feed and told them to keep the Internet feed live. The cable co is sending third party unprotected signals down the same line he is subscribing to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

I'm not sure how you justify theft of service no matter how badly a company treats you. Pay TV is not a right. If you don't like the costs then get an antenna, buy DVDs/blu-ray, use LEGAL services like Netflix and Hulu or do without. Those are your choices. .

Stop saying I justify theft of service. This is not true. No one has shown me a single case were a person has been convicted under these circumstances. A) Paying for a feed. B) Cancelling a portion of the feed by contact and giving back the cable box and not using any illegal device to decrypt the signal he cancelled. C) Not tampering with the cable co’s property.

I’m not sure how you justify the cable company not living up to their obligation to protect HBO’s signal in a feed they are selling. If the HBO signal really is in the clear– the cable co is guilty here, failing to protect HBO’s signal. If he can get HBO in the clear then chances are many others on the system also can - simply by connecting a basic feed (they are paying for) to any legal QAM turner that comes with all new TVs. If so, the cable co is failing to protect HBO’s signal and should be held liable. HBO must be losing a lot of money thanks to the cable co’s stupidity– $$ for shows HBO are paying for.

Lay off the little-consumer-Joe and look in the mirror Mr. the cable man.
Beerstalker's Avatar Beerstalker
09:05 AM Liked: 23
post #64 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 1,978
Joined: Mar 2005
As far as I know the cable companies have no way of blocking the clear QAM channels without also blocking internet service. So if you have internet service the clear QAM channels will also be there. However, hooking this cable up to your TV and using it to get cable TV is most certainly theft of services. This is exactly why they want to be able to scramble all QAM channels including locals. They are sick of people with internet only service stealing their clear QAM channels. If you want those channels for free then put up an antenna. Otherwise you need to sign up for life line cable TV service (usually this actually ends up being cheaper then having cable internet alone anyway).

Just because nobody can find an exact case where this has happened doesn't mean it isn't reality. If you're that certain that it isn't illegal why don't you call up your local police department and ask them.

BTW, using your neighbors WiFi without their permission is theft of service also.

Pretty much any time you get a service for free that you should be paying for it is considered theft of service.
Ratman's Avatar Ratman
09:33 AM Liked: 333
post #65 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 14,792
Joined: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerstalker View Post

BTW, using your neighbors WiFi without their permission is theft of service also.

No difference actually...
If you don't encrypt or add security to your router, then it's your problem.
bill57's Avatar bill57
09:47 AM Liked: 10
post #66 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 18
Joined: Apr 2007
"call up your local police department and ask them".
The local police are too preoccupied with enforcement of traffic laws to care about that issue. In my story in Post 58, the cable company did not instruct my parents to disconnect anything or not watch what was still available. Obviously, once a termination of service is requested, the cable company doesn't care if you watch what you are no longer paying for until they get around to turning it off.
WilliamZX11's Avatar WilliamZX11
10:53 AM Liked: 19
post #67 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 2,513
Joined: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerstalker View Post

BTW, using your neighbors WiFi without their permission is theft of service also.

For a guy so concerned with legality, it seems like you would know that letting your neighbors use your WI-FI with your permission is also considered theft of service.

Or didn't you ever read the TOS you agreed to when you signed up for internet service?
Beerstalker's Avatar Beerstalker
01:16 PM Liked: 23
post #68 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 1,978
Joined: Mar 2005
Sorry if you guys think I'm trying to be a PITA or anything like that. I'm just trying to let people know that this is considered theft of service. And yes, using your neighbors internet with their permission is illegal too, assuming you are doing it all the time instead of getting your own internet service. If you're at their house visiting, etc. then it wouldn't be.

Anyway the only reason I brought it up in the first place is I was under the impression that it is not allowed to talk about doing illegal things on this forum, but it sure seems like that rule isn't being enforced much here anymore. On DBStalk threads about doing illegal things, or things against the providers terms of service are usually locked right away and the poster is warned not to do it again.

That all said, I'm not trying to be a goody two shoes or anything like that. I'm not going to lie and say that I didn't watch cable for a few days after I terminated my service before they cut it off, or I haven't used unprotected WiFi on ocassion if it was available and I needed to look something up. I'm also not saying that the cbale company is ever going to come after anyone and try to press charges against them for this. I was just trying to point out that doing this is considered illegal and this might not be the best place to talk about it.
bill57's Avatar bill57
01:33 PM Liked: 10
post #69 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 18
Joined: Apr 2007
I'm sure the original post was presented with the spirit and intent of sharing information that members (like me) might find of interest, which is far different from a "how to" primer on skirting the law (which is not allowed and would accordingly be pulled). Thanks, OP for posting this.
Ken H's Avatar Ken H
02:53 PM Liked: 14
post #70 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 45,876
Joined: Nov 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerstalker View Post


Anyway the only reason I brought it up in the first place is I was under the impression that it is not allowed to talk about doing illegal things on this forum, but it sure seems like that rule isn't being enforced much here anymore.

Again, because most cablecos offer a bundle of Internet & TV for less than Internet alone, in my opinion this a grey area, and suitable for discussion at AVS.
Super Eye's Avatar Super Eye
03:38 PM Liked: 20
post #71 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 959
Joined: Sep 2009
The cable companies aren't ever / haven't ever come after anyone for this because they don't have a legal case, period. That's why no one will ever pull out an actual case with an actual conviction and instead will use silly make believe scare tactics.

Lets see there are 313 million people in the US. At any given time cable co are providing service to 62 million homes and not one conviction for this? Gee I wonder why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerstalker View Post

If you're that certain that it isn't illegal why don't you call up your local police department and ask them.

OK, I just did this for fun. None emergency information desk only of course.

Quote:


COP:
Police department, Officer (his name) speaking, how may I help you?

ME:
Good day sir. A few days ago I cancelled my cable TV service but kept my Internet service coming on the same cable feed from the same cable company. I just turned on my TV and am still receiving channels. I'm concerned that I may be breaking some law.

COP:
Sir, you must disconnect any cable supplied set-top-box and return it to the (cable co name) company.

ME:
Officer I have done that on the day I downgraded my service.

COP:
So how can you still be receiving channels sir?

ME:
I always had my own legal 3-way splitter on my feed 1 going to the Internet, 2 going to the cable box which I returned and 3 going into the back of my set to receive clear QAM/

COP:
Sir, what is this QAM device, is this some illegal cable box device?

ME:
No officer. Every television purchased in the last few years comes with a legal QAM tuner.

COP:
Sir have you tampered with any cable feed coming into your home?

ME:
No officer.

COP:
So you gave back the cable box and you have no illegal device connected?

ME:
That's correct officer.

COP:
I'm going to put you on hold sir:

COP:
Sir, as long as you cancelled part of your subscription and gave back any equipment that the (name of company) asked for as long as you haven't tampered with anything I don't see a problem here. I've been with the department 28 years and in this time we have never been asked to come after anyone in your situation. This is a civil matter and if you're worried about it you may contact (name of company) to straighten it out. I'm not a judge or lawyer but in my long career as an officer I have never heard of the department going after anyone in your situation.

ME:
Thanks for your time sir.
(I heard load laughter on his end just before hang-up.


Ratman's Avatar Ratman
03:58 PM Liked: 333
post #72 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 14,792
Joined: May 2002
Try to bring a lawsuit against someone using your WiFi that is "open".
Too funny.
AntAltMike's Avatar AntAltMike
04:47 PM Liked: 30
post #73 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 3,634
Joined: Nov 2001
I'm not going to participate in this devolving discussion further, except to mention that when the Digital Millennium Cable act or whatever it's formal title is was passed, there were a lot of internet threads claiming that under a literal reading of it, any unauthorized decoding of digital data was illegal.

Regarding what the cable companies did to bully people in the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a lot of huffing and puffing but little actual blowing. I remember a local cable company bluffing a local Radio Shack store in western Massachusetts into discontinuing the sale of two-way splitters because selling them was abbetting signal theft.
WS65711's Avatar WS65711
05:05 PM Liked: 96
post #74 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 4,258
Joined: Mar 2003
More people should "Just discover" free OTA. The world would be a better place . . .
Desert Hawk's Avatar Desert Hawk
07:29 PM Liked: 11
post #75 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 983
Joined: Oct 2007
Thwe story about Cox Cable in Bakersfield and the VCR was printed in our local newspaper The Bakersfield Californian back in the mid 80s. Maybe someday I will try to find the article on the microforms at the library, or maybe I have it stashed somewhere in a pile of old newspaper clippings at my house. At the time we had two cable companies serving different parts of Bakersfield (Warner Amex and Cox, both later acquired by Bright House). In the weeks leading up to the start of the audit the cable companies ran lots and lots of ads in the paper warning everybody about what was going to happen, as well as offering a no-questions-asked amnesty period. I do have copies of some of those ads, but I don't have a scanner. Awhile after the audit started, the story about the late night supposed extra tv set appeared in the paper.
olyteddy's Avatar olyteddy
09:20 PM Liked: 283
post #76 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 3,626
Joined: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerstalker View Post

As far as I know the cable companies have no way of blocking the clear QAM channels without also blocking internet service. So if you have internet service the clear QAM channels will also be there. However, hooking this cable up to your TV and using it to get cable TV is most certainly theft of services. This is exactly why they want to be able to scramble all QAM channels including locals. They are sick of people with internet only service stealing their clear QAM channels. If you want those channels for free then put up an antenna. Otherwise you need to sign up for life line cable TV service (usually this actually ends up being cheaper then having cable internet alone anyway).

Just because nobody can find an exact case where this has happened doesn't mean it isn't reality. If you're that certain that it isn't illegal why don't you call up your local police department and ask them.

BTW, using your neighbors WiFi without their permission is theft of service also.

Pretty much any time you get a service for free that you should be paying for it is considered theft of service.

Sure they can. My modem only uses from 567 MHz to 591 MHz. They could, if they wanted to, filter out any or all of the rest of the spectrum. And I believe that it's people like the OP that are going to push the cable companies to scramble even the locals.
Super Eye's Avatar Super Eye
10:25 PM Liked: 20
post #77 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 959
Joined: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

I believe that it's people like the OP that are going to push the cable companies to scramble even the locals.

If cable cos could encrypt everything today, including basic, the majority of cable cos would of done this long ago.

Are you aware that Cablevision petitioned the FCC for a right to Eliminate ClearQAM (New York franchise--Bronx and the majority of Brooklyn) back in 2009? Are you aware that cablevision was granted the waiver and is encrypting everything on that NY system?

Maybe you also know that as of March 2012 fourteen cable executives from various cable companies are at the moment petitioning the FCC to allow them to encrypt the local channels.

You can blame any individual you want. But the fact is the majority of cable cos are fighting hard to eliminate the locals from clear-QAM. For the good of every customer they say.

http://www.ncta.com/ReleaseType/Medi...asic-Tier.aspx
Ken H's Avatar Ken H
10:40 PM Liked: 14
post #78 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 45,876
Joined: Nov 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by olyteddy View Post

And I believe that it's people like the OP that are going to push the cable companies to scramble even the locals.

No, that's a minor consideration these days. And again it will be a moot point relatively soon because if the cablecos get their way, which it looks like they will, all digital systems will be allowed to encrypt all channels.

Better let the FCC know if you disagree, and soon. Not that it matters....
BCF68's Avatar BCF68
11:02 PM Liked: 19
post #79 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 2,463
Joined: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

No, that's a minor consideration these days. And again it will be a moot point relatively soon because if the cablecos get their way, which it looks like they will, all digital systems will be allowed to encrypt all channels.

Devil's Advocate here, but how is this different than what DirecTv and DishNetwork do? Somehow paying for a box on each TV for these services is accepted, but if cable tries to do it people get their panties in a wad. It seems the same rules should apply to all.
Ken H's Avatar Ken H
11:15 PM Liked: 14
post #80 of 136
03-29-2012 | Posts: 45,876
Joined: Nov 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

Devil's Advocate here, but how is this different than what DirecTv and DishNetwork do? Somehow paying for a box on each TV for these services is accepted, but if cable tries to do it people get their panties in a wad. It seems the same rules should apply to all.

Indeed.
Sammer's Avatar Sammer
12:20 AM Liked: 10
post #81 of 136
03-30-2012 | Posts: 748
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

Devil's Advocate here, but how is this different than what DirecTv and DishNetwork do? Somehow paying for a box on each TV for these services is accepted, but if cable tries to do it people get their panties in a wad.

Small dish DBS started out as all digital while cable was still analog and evolved to having cable ready tuners. The panties in a wad comes from the fact that we were told that a 1996 law (still technically in effect) would prevent losing cable ready functionality when cable went from analog to digital. In other words we were lied to.
AntAltMike's Avatar AntAltMike
04:50 AM Liked: 30
post #82 of 136
03-30-2012 | Posts: 3,634
Joined: Nov 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerstalker View Post

... On DBStalk threads about doing illegal things, or things against the providers terms of service are usually locked right away and the poster is warned not to do it again.....

That's because DBSTalk has more wusses moderating there.
ybsane's Avatar ybsane
04:54 AM Liked: 22
post #83 of 136
03-30-2012 | Posts: 1,221
Joined: Oct 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

Devil's Advocate here, but how is this different than what DirecTv and DishNetwork do? Somehow paying for a box on each TV for these services is accepted, but if cable tries to do it people get their panties in a wad. It seems the same rules should apply to all.

Their signal is still encrypted, even though it is digital DVB-S modulation. You can not legally have a dish with lnb and a carded receiver pick up their signal. Now if they un-encrypt some of their signals and you can receive with a receiver with out card system its legal FTA.
WS65711's Avatar WS65711
06:07 AM Liked: 96
post #84 of 136
03-30-2012 | Posts: 4,258
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

Devil's Advocate here, but how is this different than what DirecTv and DishNetwork do? Somehow paying for a box on each TV for these services is accepted, but if cable tries to do it people get their panties in a wad. It seems the same rules should apply to all.

Exactly. And that's why (in addition to the frequent thunderstorms we get here) I've never even considered getting Satellite TV. It's not because I don't want to pay for a box at each TV, it's because I don't WANT a box at each TV. But if/when Cable requires a box at each TV that will be a game-changer. You can bet the CableCo's will lose business.
BCF68's Avatar BCF68
07:08 AM Liked: 19
post #85 of 136
03-30-2012 | Posts: 2,463
Joined: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammer View Post

Small dish DBS started out as all digital while cable was still analog and evolved to having cable ready tuners. The panties in a wad comes from the fact that we were told that a 1996 law (still technically in effect) would prevent losing cable ready functionality when cable went from analog to digital. In other words we were lied to.

No you weren't. Times change. Laws change.

In Sept 2007 the FCC passed a rule that cable companies had to provide analog for 3 years after the digital to analog OTA conversion. So that's June 2012. So unless it is extended cable companies can end analog and everyone with a old SD CRT TV will need a box even if cable TV left the channels in the clear. So if you need a box either way what difference does it make?

Also state the law that says cable companies can't encrypt EXPANDED basic. Sure maybe the BASIC tier has to be in the clear but how many people just have that? 5%?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WS65711 View Post

It's not because I don't want to pay for a box at each TV, it's because I don't WANT a box at each TV.

Well I want $100 million and to hook up with Mila Kunis but in life you don't always get your way.
WS65711's Avatar WS65711
07:33 AM Liked: 96
post #86 of 136
03-30-2012 | Posts: 4,258
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

... Well I want $100 million and to hook up with Mila Kunis but in life you don't always get your way.

But it's better to have never had the $100 million and Mala Kunis, than to have had it and lost it, aye?
Ratman's Avatar Ratman
08:16 AM Liked: 333
post #87 of 136
03-30-2012 | Posts: 14,792
Joined: May 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCF68 View Post

No you weren't. Times change. Laws change. In the 1950's there were laws preventing blacks and whites form getting married. Up until the 1990's in some places gays could be put in prison for having sex.

Where the ^*&% did that come from???
What does that have to do with "cable"?

Buddy... you should work on your analogies.
bill57's Avatar bill57
08:42 AM Liked: 10
post #88 of 136
03-30-2012 | Posts: 18
Joined: Apr 2007
Who is Mila Kunis?
WS65711's Avatar WS65711
08:53 AM Liked: 96
post #89 of 136
03-30-2012 | Posts: 4,258
Joined: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill57 View Post

Who is Mila Kunis?

I dunno.. I thought her name was Maria actually . . .
mgkdragn's Avatar mgkdragn
09:06 AM Liked: 740
post #90 of 136
03-30-2012 | Posts: 11,037
Joined: Oct 2006
My CATV provider still passes an analog signal and we still use it sometimes when taping something on VHS .. yes, I still have several VCR's ..

When the digital signal is either cancelled or temp suspended, the analog feed is still there .. and in my case, it is still there because I get phone and Internet thru the same CATV provider .. if I were getting no service from them, I would have no analog feed .. and any modern TV or VCR can lock in on those channels .. CATV companies are fully aware of this for the most part .. and it does not constitute theft of Cable .. when the provider is aware, and the user has not done anything to physically alter the feed, it is the responsibility of the provider to block content .. or not.

As Ken mentioned, this scenario will change in the future ..

I'll also mention that I currently pay for digital service / and the bonus analog feed, which does not require a box, is a nice bonus .. however, the logic most of the CABLECOS are using to discontinue the analog feed is conservation of bandwidth .. it's likely more of a profit motive as it relates to DVR use / rental and what not ..

Closed Thread HDTV Technical

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3