Just discovered "free" cable. - Page 4  

From IMDB bioraphy:

Auditioned for "That '70s Show" (1998) at age 14. Though actors had to be at least 18 to get the part, she truthfully claimed she would be 18 on her birthday, not specifying which birthday, and won the role.

Melody Patterson successfully pulled off a similar stunt when she auditioned for the part of Wrangler Jane in F-Troop.

http://www.louisvillecardinal.com/media/home-alone.jpg

never watched That 70's show?

https://www.google.com/search?q=mila...w=1440&bih=783

I wonder if the cable industry as a whole (and their people posting at open forums) know how asinine their “silly analogies” and “make believe scare tactics” seem to the average joe cable subscriber.

A) I do not or have I ever worked for any cable company

B) Calling me asinine is flame trolling and you should get a ban

C) my analogies are fine. I can't help if you don't understand them.

No one is calling you anything. They are saying what you said will seem asinine to the average joe cable sub.

I just tried to explain why some people are upset but never said that things never change. Analog TV sets don't get any cable without at least a DTA or external QAM tuner where I live now. Also I never said there was any law against encrypting expanded basic and can assure you that many (but not all) of the "Digital Starter" tier channels here are encrypted. If early cable cards hadn't been so horrible to the point of poisoning that market maybe we would be having a different conversation.

A number of comments have been edited or deleted.

Play nice. Or else.

Well said!

Legal beagle, straight arrows; take a long walk off a short pier.

Also he implies I'm a shill for the cable companies. Calling or implying someone a shill is an insult.

I agree. Let this be a warning to all; no more accusations or implications than opinions here are from cableco employees. Although it can happen, that's not the case here.

NONE of us are as anonymous as we think!!

Cable TV audit consist of dis-connecting those who are not paying for cable and placing the correct trap on those accounts that need it. The ones who where not paying are noted and than someone will go back to those and check to see if they are connected again. That is when action is taken, the ones without the correct traps are not that big of a priority as some of you think. People who vandalize pedestals,Apartment boxes,etc..are the ones who will get the fun of going to court. Same goes for an ex-employee or contractor who goes around hooking up people for a few bucks and makes a habit of it.

That is what I have seen working for four different CATV companies over 25 years.

Thank you for adding a bit of common sense to this discussion.

I came across a blatant illegal hookup once. They had run a line from a splitter on the neighbors house and across the driveway. It then went up the side of their house and into an open second story window. I called up to them and they vehemently denied being hooked up until I started pulling on that cable...

Since when has "getting away with something due to someone else's inattention or ignorance" equalled "what's right"?
Since when did "not getting arrested or prosecuted' equal "legal"?
How does "getting away with something" equal "justifiable"?
If the poster did his due diligence, he's "technically" in the clear, but to continually enjoy cable TV that he is not paying for is wrong, even if not "technically" illegal. If he called the company, told them of the situation, and was told "don't worry about it", then that would be different.
Can we really pick and choose the laws that we agree with and are willing to observe? Rationalizing certain behaviors is a slippery slope. We're all guilty (including your truly), but it should not be automatic behavior.

We don't have to abide by what other people think is morally right or wrong, in fact I couldn't care less what the few people that disagree with the OP's situation think. All I have to abide by is the law. No one has shown me a single conviction of a case like the OP's case and I bet there are at least 5 percent of subscribers in the same situation at any given time. That's 5% of 62 million homes subscribed at any given time. That's over 300,000 subscribers in a similar situation as the OP at any given time and no one can come with a single conviction from 300,000 so called lawbreakers? Right!

If we could choose criminal convictions based on what we as individuals think is right or wrong then all the cable cos would of been arrested long ago and their CEOs would be in prison because the polls show that most subscribers disagree we almost everything the cable cos do. Yes a large amount of subscribers believe many things are wrong with what cable cos get away with. Fortunately for me and my fellow citizens the law does not make decisions based on what you as an individual may think is right or wrong.

May I both agree with you and thank you for underscoring my point. Is (minimal) legality the standard of behavior? Is interpretation of the law up to the individual? Are we excepted from obedience to the law if that law is not enforced?
There are a lot of dumb (and worse) laws on the books, and cable company behavior can be odious. But we can rise above that, not use bad behavior as lowest common denominator of acceptability.
Once again, I am no exception. I've violated "morals" laws in Idaho and Utah (where pretty much EVERYTHING is illegal). Stupid (and unenforced/unenforceable) laws have been with us as long as there have been laws.
My intent is not to get preachy. All I'm saying is that we (as individuals) should search our hearts for guidance rather than find excuses for behavior that we get away with.

So being able to get away with something determines if it's ok or not? You know in some places it is against the law to cheat on your spouse. In 99.999999% of the cases a cheating spouse will never be put in jail or on trial. That doesn't make it ok to cheat on your spouse. In your bizarre world it is apparantly.

You are entirely missing the point. Just because no one's been arrested or prosecuted doesn't mean it's right.


Justifying your behavior because of how the cableco run their business doesn't make it right either.

But many people don't think what the OP is doing constitutes as bad behavior. This is just it, we as individuals have our own interpolation of what constitutes as bad behavior. This could be based on religious beliefs; on the way we were brought up, on they way we are treated, etc. That is why it's important to understand what is lawful behavior and what is unlawful behavior and we must let the law decide and shouldn't allow here-sayers at open forums to convict an individual. In fact calling someone who has not been convicted of any crime a criminal constitutes as very bad behavior in my opinion. Shouldn't we rise above that as well?

In the minds of the average consumer - what many of the large corporations are doing constitutes as bad behavior. Big banks foreclosing people's homes as soon as they legally can. In my moral opinion they don't have to foreclose so fast and should give the little guy a chance instead of sticking it to the little guy as soon as they legally can. Cable companies are morally guilty of many things. These corporations and the people representing them should not be surprised when the public starts disrespecting them and when the little guy is going to try and getaway with anything he legally can get away with. I'm surprised that you don't understand this. Rise above? Really? You have a right to if you wish. Good luck to you.

May not be right in your mind but it’s perfectly all right as far as I’m concerned. And as long as no one can show me any conviction than I have to assume its perfectly legal as well.



You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine.

But the fact is opinions won't stand up in a court of law and people in this thread stated that the activity of the OP is illegal yet no one has proven that to be the case and that’s all I’m interested in – the legality of this thread.

If I live in a “bizarre” world then you and your silly analogies must come from some strange loony world. It’s getting tiring you crying to the mods when in fact you’re the one starting the name-calling.

The law is society's distilled basic (but not all-inclusive) morality. The fact that some violate it doesn't give others the license to "bend' it.
I meant no judgment of the OP. However, the other posters got into a (sometime) heated discussion of right/wrong/legal/illegal. Accusations of "theft"
accomplish nothing. I think we've come unmoored from our inner sense of right and wrong. That's the real issue.

crabboy, for the record I respect the way you represent your point of view.

Thank you. I believe that if we spent more time judging ourselves we would spend a lot less time judging others.

You're contradicting yourself.

When you sign up for cable service, you agree to the terms of service of the cableco. You get a document that shows what the service is and what it costs you.

Either you hold up your end of the agreement or not; it does not matter if the cableco legally goes after those who violate the agreement or if anyone has ever been 'convicted' of violating it.

This has nothing to do with one's opinion.

There are many bad laws on the books. There are two ways they are dealt with:

1) change the law. This is hard & expensive.
2) don't enforce the law. Cheap & easy.

3. It's the selective enforcement that gets you every time. Especially when you are selected for enforcement.

I agree with others, just because you didn't get in trouble for something, doesn't mean it's right.