Just discovered "free" cable. - Page 3  

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No difference actually...
If you don't encrypt or add security to your router, then it's your problem.

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.


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

Try to bring a lawsuit against someone using your WiFi that is "open".
Too funny.

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.

More people should "Just discover" free OTA. The world would be a better place . . .

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.

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.

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

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....

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.

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.

That's because DBSTalk has more wusses moderating there.

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.

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.

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%?


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?

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

Buddy... you should work on your analogies.

Who is Mila Kunis?

I dunno.. I thought her name was Maria actually . . .

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 ..