or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Phoenix, AZ - HDTV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Phoenix, AZ - HDTV - Page 335

post #10021 of 10855
I am looking for some feedback from anyone who has a TIVO Series 3 and subscribes to NFL Red Zone in Phoenix area. I signed up again this year last week but I am not getting the channel. I am receiving all other channels I subscribe to (premium HBO etc.) so I'm not sure why it's not coming in? I've called Cox and they resent the subscription signal and re-paired the cable cards and still nothing. They today stated that I need a Tuning Adapter to get this channel (although it obviously worked last year without it?) Can anyone tell me if they get NFL Red Zone and if so if you have a TIVO and did it require a channel adapter? Thanks
post #10022 of 10855
Civil law and criminal law are 2 entirely different things. Cox might have a hard time winning a lawsuit for breach of contract, but the state won't have any trouble convicting you of a crime. You don't get a free pass on auto theft charges just because the owner left the keys in the ignition of the car you stole.
post #10023 of 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinw1 View Post

I am looking for some feedback from anyone who has a TIVO Series 3 and subscribes to NFL Red Zone in Phoenix area. I signed up again this year last week but I am not getting the channel. I am receiving all other channels I subscribe to (premium HBO etc.) so I'm not sure why it's not coming in? I've called Cox and they resent the subscription signal and re-paired the cable cards and still nothing. They today stated that I need a Tuning Adapter to get this channel (although it obviously worked last year without it?) Can anyone tell me if they get NFL Red Zone and if so if you have a TIVO and did it require a channel adapter? Thanks

No SDV a year ago. If "Red Zone" is now on SDV, a tuning adapter will be required. "Red Zone" and "Red Zone HD" are both on SDV in San Diego.
post #10024 of 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyoteaz View Post

Civil law and criminal law are 2 entirely different things. Cox might have a hard time winning a lawsuit for breach of contract, but the state won't have any trouble convicting you of a crime. You don't get a free pass on auto theft charges just because the owner left the keys in the ignition of the car you stole.

If splitter and connection to TV were authorized or installed by Cox when cable TV service was paid for, and Cox failed to remove them when service was downgraded to HSI only, Cox would have no case. Customer said "disconnect TV service" and Cox failed to do so. This is far different than if a customer added a splitter and TV connection to an existing HSI line.
post #10025 of 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by domino92024 View Post

This is far different than if a customer added a splitter and TV connection to an existing HSI line.

Adding a splitter and cable to the connection provided you by Cox, in your swelling, is different than going to the connection box and connecting the cable to get service.

We are obviously not going to ultimately decide what is right or wrong in this forum. It will take an actual court case.
post #10026 of 10855
As long as you don't watch the cable, I agree. But if you are watching the cable without their consent....

There are some old cases where a delivery boy was accidentally delivering a newspaper to a house (wrong house). The owner took and read the newspaper. He was found to have breached a implied contract. He was deriving a benefit from the service. (again, this is civil law).

Quote:
Originally Posted by domino92024 View Post


If splitter and connection to TV were authorized or installed by Cox when cable TV service was paid for, and Cox failed to remove them when service was downgraded to HSI only, Cox would have no case. Customer said "disconnect TV service" and Cox failed to do so. This is far different than if a customer added a splitter and TV connection to an existing HSI line.
post #10027 of 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyoteaz View Post

Civil law and criminal law are 2 entirely different things. Cox might have a hard time winning a lawsuit for breach of contract, but the state won't have any trouble convicting you of a crime.

The point is, as mentioned above, the state, or the Feds, will have to prove to a jury that what is occurring is/was illegal. Just because the prosecutor says that it is doesn't mean that it is.

We can continue to argue this until we are all blue in the face. Until the state, or the Feds, actually go after someone, we won't know who was right, or wrong.
post #10028 of 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallen234 View Post

But if you are watching the cable without their consent....

Bingo. Implied consent because they knowingly do not trap the video channels and, as reported above, their customer support agents also know that.

If Cox didn't want you to watch the video channels, they would require that the installer put in the line a trap and log the trap serial number on the paperwork.

Enough arguing,
post #10029 of 10855
Thread Starter 
I don't want to belabor this because I am not a lawyer and, even if I was, it wouldn't matter because the final authority is the Supreme Court, and even that seems questionable these days. I do know what my persoanl experience has been and I've read legal interpretations of the regulations that say simply connecting a TV to a cable that is already installed is NOT theft of service. It is the responsibility of the cableco to disable the signal.

Now, I will say that back in the days when we were required to pay for multiple lines, connecting a splitter to attach additional TVs WAS considered theft of service. In fact, there was even a question many years ago as to whether adding a splitter to attach a VCR constituted theft and we all know there are still unanswereed questions regarding use of DVRs, etc.

The bottom line is that until a specific case is litigated in court, none of us can say it is legal or not, all we can do is express our opinion of what various laws and regulations say. Quoting statues is great for information, but is meaningless otherwise. Readers are free to make their own interpretations and do what they deem appropriate.

Also, cable, by it's own admissions, will often not disable signals for Premium Channels, etc., when subscriptions are cancelled. Sometimes it may take days, weeks or even months. IMHO, continuing to watch these signals until they are actually disabled is far from illegal. How many of us have watched a channel we weren't subscribed to when we stumbled across it and found it was active? Technically illegal? I don't know. Actionable? Find me a cableco that will pursue it or a court that will convict.

This is a ridiculous discussion and one I'm done with. Sure stirred things up though, didn't I?
post #10030 of 10855
I love this stuff! (reminds me of law school, not the practice of law). I dug a little deeper and it appears there is a federal statute on point (important language "No person shall...receive...any communications service offered over a
cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable
operator..."

47 U.S.C. § 553 : US Code - Section 553: Unauthorized reception of cable service
Search 47 U.S.C. § 553 : US Code - Section 553: Unauthorized reception of cable service
Search by Keyword or Citation

(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.
(2) For the purpose of this section, the term "assist in
intercepting or receiving" shall include the manufacture or
distribution of equipment intended by the manufacturer or
distributor (as the case may be) for unauthorized reception of any
communications service offered over a cable system in violation of
subparagraph (1).
(b) Penalties for willful violation
(1) Any person who willfully violates subsection (a)(1) of this
section shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not
more than 6 months, or both.
(2) Any person who violates subsection (a)(1) of this section
willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private
financial gain shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned
for not more than 2 years, or both, for the first such offense and
shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more
than 5 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.
(3) For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for
violations of subsection (a)(1) of this section, the prohibited
activity established herein as it applies to each such device shall
be deemed a separate violation.
(c) Civil action in district court; injunctions; damages;
attorney's fees and costs; regulation by States or franchising
authorities
(1) Any person aggrieved by any violation of subsection (a)(1) of
this section may bring a civil action in a United States district
court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) The court may -
(A) grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it
may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain violations of
subsection (a)(1) of this section;
(B) award damages as described in paragraph (3); and
(C) direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding
reasonable attorneys' fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.
(3)(A) Damages awarded by any court under this section shall be
computed in accordance with either of the following clauses:
(i) the party aggrieved may recover the actual damages suffered
by him as a result of the violation and any profits of the
violator that are attributable to the violation which are not
taken into account in computing the actual damages; in
determining the violator's profits, the party aggrieved shall be
required to prove only the violator's gross revenue, and the
violator shall be required to prove his deductible expenses and
the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the
violation; or
(ii) the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory
damages for all violations involved in the action, in a sum of
not less than $250 or more than $10,000 as the court considers
just.
(B) In any case in which the court finds that the violation was
committed willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or
private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase
the award of damages, whether actual or statutory under
subparagraph (A), by an amount of not more than $50,000.
(C) In any case where the court finds that the violator was not
aware and had no reason to believe that his acts constituted a
violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce
the award of damages to a sum of not less than $100.
(D) Nothing in this subchapter shall prevent any State or
franchising authority from enacting or enforcing laws, consistent
with this section, regarding the unauthorized interception or
reception of any cable service or other communications service.
post #10031 of 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

This is a ridiculous discussion and one I'm done with. Sure stirred things up though, didn't I?

Yep. Much livelier than my local thread. Though it should go back to being dull just like my local thread.
post #10032 of 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post

Adding a splitter and cable to the connection provided you by Cox, in your swelling, is different than going to the connection box and connecting the cable to get service.

But both are apparent violations of ARS 13-3709, section A.
post #10033 of 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallen234 View Post

As long as you don't watch the cable, I agree. But if you are watching the cable without their consent....

Oh? So if Cox fails to remove the wires they installed, I can't turn on my TV?
post #10034 of 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

I don't want to belabor this because I am not a lawyer and, even if I was, it wouldn't matter because the final authority is the Supreme Court, and even that seems questionable these days. I do know what my persoanl experience has been and I've read legal interpretations of the regulations that say simply connecting a TV to a cable that is already installed is NOT theft of service. It is the responsibility of the cableco to disable the signal.

Now, I will say that back in the days when we were required to pay for multiple lines, connecting a splitter to attach additional TVs WAS considered theft of service.

When I first got Cox HSI over 10 years ago (when it was called "@Home"), Cox installed the splitter and line to my TV, not me. If/when I drop TV service but keep HSI, removal of those items will be their, responsibility, not mine.
post #10035 of 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by domino92024 View Post

But both are apparent violations of ARS 13-3709, section A.

So, disconnect the cable from the cable modem and plug it into the TV. Their cable, single connection.

Like I said, it will take an actual court case to decide what is right or wrong.

Now back to the normal Phoenix discussions.
post #10036 of 10855
Let's say you have a guest over who left her diamond ring on your coffee table. If you keep it, it is theft. There is no such law as finder's keepers.

It doesn't matter that they make it easy for you.

Take a look at the Gizmodo apple prototype case. They guy who sold it to
Gizmodo is being prosecuted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by domino92024 View Post


Oh? So if Cox fails to remove the wires they installed, I can't turn on my TV?
post #10037 of 10855
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post

Yep. Much livelier than my local thread. Though it should go back to being dull just like my local thread.

I just got back from a month-long visit to Wisconsin, so that's what made me stir things up. I really don't read this thread much anymore, just check in now and then to see who's bitching about what.
post #10038 of 10855
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallen234 View Post

Let's say you have a guest over who left her diamond ring on your coffee table. If you keep it, it is theft. There is no such law as finder's keepers.

It doesn't matter that they make it easy for you.

Take a look at the Gizmodo apple prototype case. They guy who sold it to
Gizmodo is being prosecuted.

All of these arguments are apples and oranges. We all know how difficult it is to manuever the communications landscape. You can make all the claims you want, but unless you've fought it in court and won, you're no more an authority than the rest of us who disagree with your interpretation. I'm basing my interpretation on personal experience with cableco's on this specific matter, not some subjective interpretation of excerpts from regulations. You simply can't pull out a sub-sub-sub paragraph and say it applies just to support your argument. Any lawyer knows that's subject to challenge and the court will decide if it applies to the specific situation or not.
post #10039 of 10855
Not exactly much TV news in Phoenix these days. Few subchannel affiliation swaps, couple stations playing games to try to improve ratings on their (terrible) newscasts, Cox and D* occasionally throwing their subscribers a bone and adding a new HD channel.
post #10040 of 10855
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyoteaz View Post

Not exactly much TV news in Phoenix these days. Few subchannel affiliation swaps, couple stations playing games to try to improve ratings on their (terrible) newscasts, Cox and D* occasionally throwing their subscribers a bone and adding a new HD channel.

And Phoenix is not the only place where that is happening. People have a lot bigger things to worry about right now than the software running on their DVRs, etc. Funny though that there hasn't been much about the eSata problem with Passport and new drives lately.

I don't know if you still check in on the other AZ HDTV Forums, but it's basically totally dead and has been all year. Not many seem to care much anymore.
post #10041 of 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chere View Post

^^^ I guess I've been lucky up to this point but I just found out about this when I tried it today. Now how can I combine and watch both clear QAM and OTA at the same time without plugging, unplugging and interchanging cables to the back of my HDTV everytime I want to watch channels from one or the other?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpcgeek View Post

So you are asking for advice on how to steal cable?

post #10042 of 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

Funny though that there hasn't been much about the eSata problem with Passport and new drives lately.

I see that wink......

Cox did release a software update, that fixes this. I got the update, as a beta test a few weeks ago, works fine.
8240HDC Ext eSATA Firmware Update

My persistence finally paid off.
post #10043 of 10855
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan_CoxPHX View Post

I see that wink......



I don't read those other threads anymore, but I do see now that new stuff isn't being added here, so I might have to start again just to keep up with changes.
post #10044 of 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinw1 View Post

I am looking for some feedback from anyone who has a TIVO Series 3 and subscribes to NFL Red Zone in Phoenix area. I signed up again this year last week but I am not getting the channel. I am receiving all other channels I subscribe to (premium HBO etc.) so I'm not sure why it's not coming in? I've called Cox and they resent the subscription signal and re-paired the cable cards and still nothing. They today stated that I need a Tuning Adapter to get this channel (although it obviously worked last year without it?) Can anyone tell me if they get NFL Red Zone and if so if you have a TIVO and did it require a channel adapter? Thanks

Yes. I have a TIVO Series 3 with a CC and Tuning Adapter, I did have to make a call to Cox to pair them up correctly to get RedZone. Also the Tivo guide is somewhat messed up with channel assignments since the 700's were removed and all HD channels are in the 1000's. RedZone SD is 299 and HD is 1299 all other channels for RedZone in the guide are wrong.
Same deal for FSN AZ plus, theMtn and BTN...etc, etc.
post #10045 of 10855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallen234 View Post

Let's say you have a guest over who left her diamond ring on your coffee table. If you keep it, it is theft. There is no such law as finder's keepers.

And how is this even remotely similar? Cox installed some wires. Cox failed to remove these wires. I took nothing. Cox can remove their wires if they want. Can your above "guest" come back and get her ring. If so, where is the theft?
post #10046 of 10855
If you do not view their cable service, I agree. If you do,what you are "taking" is the cable service that they provide for a fee. Now Cox made it incredibly and ridiculously easy for you to do so, but you are still getting a benefit/service that you are not paying for.

It is similar to the newspaper analogy I posted earlier, if someone delivers a newspaper to your doorstep everyday, even though you didn't subscribe, and you read the newspaper, you will very likely be on the hook for the subscription price. There is actually some case law on this particular situation.




Quote:
Originally Posted by domino92024 View Post

And how is this even remotely similar? Cox installed some wires. Cox failed to remove these wires. I took nothing. Cox can remove their wires if they want. Can your above "guest" come back and get her ring. If so, where is the theft?
post #10047 of 10855
I really don't have a dog in this fight, I just find it interesting. I hope people don't think I care about this topic.

If someone hires me to defend them against Cox, I will argue "waiver", "laches" "unclean hands" "gift" "entrapment" etc. I just think Cox and/or the government has the much stronger position.

With respect to the "sub sub sub paragraph", it is from the penalty provision of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. It is THE federal law that covers "Unauthorized reception of cable service". It seems that all of the cable companies cite this on their web pages under cable theft:

http://www.timewarnercable.com/nynj/...lstatutes.html

http://www.cabletheft.com/




There is a federal case that has interpreted this section fairly strictly.
INTERNATIONAL CABLEVISION, INC. v. SYKES 997 F.2d 998 (1993) (this involved a "black box"), but the court found that:

Quote:


Third, § 553 does not and was not intended to provide a good-faith defense against liability. Section 553(a)(1) provides that "[n]o person" shall assist in the unauthorized interception of cable signals. Though the damages portion of § 553 allows the court to "reduce the award of damages" if it finds that the violator "was not aware and had no reason to believe that his acts constituted a violation," 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(C),

Based on my very limited research, I believe that it is a violation of federal law (and perhaps state law) to receive a cable signal that you are not paying for.

Now, you are certainly in a much better position to determine whether the cable companies actively seek to enforce or police this type of activity. Most of the case law I found involves cable companies seeking to prevent bars from showing PPV fights on residential account to patrons, etc. It probably isn't worth their effort to go after folks that receive these signals.

In fact, when you look at the "Criminal Resource Manual" (it's a manual DA's look at to determine when/how to enforce federal statutes), it says with respect to Sec. 553:

Quote:



Unauthorized Reception of Cable Service47 U.S.C. § 553
The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 added a new section, 47 U.S.C. § 553. This section prohibits receiving cable communications service without permission of the operator, thereby prohibiting the theft of commercial cable communications. The sale or distribution of equipment that would enable a person to receive, without authority, the reception of communications services offered over a cable system also falls within the proscription of this provision.

The Act provides for both criminal and civil penalties for violations of this section. The victim of an interception may bring a civil action in federal court for an injunction, damages, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Since there is a civil remedy for violations of 47 U.S.C. § 553, United States Attorneys should consider whether this civil remedy is an adequate alternative to prosecution.

I have highlighted the last paragraph to show that it doesn't seem to be a hot button item.

Sorry, if this is VERY off-topic. I am trying to to be belligerent, it just merely caught my interest. If it makes anyone feel better, I do admit to doing the old 3x5" card trick in the old black cable boxes (the ones with the dials) in the 80's.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

All of these arguments are apples and oranges. We all know how difficult it is to manuever the communications landscape. You can make all the claims you want, but unless you've fought it in court and won, you're no more an authority than the rest of us who disagree with your interpretation. I'm basing my interpretation on personal experience with cableco's on this specific matter, not some subjective interpretation of excerpts from regulations. You simply can't pull out a sub-sub-sub paragraph and say it applies just to support your argument. Any lawyer knows that's subject to challenge and the court will decide if it applies to the specific situation or not.
post #10048 of 10855
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallen234 View Post

With respect to the "sub sub sub paragraph", it is from the penalty provision of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. It is THE federal law that covers "Unauthorized reception of cable service". It seems that all of the cable companies cite this on their web pages under cable theft:

Sure they do, I would too.

Quote:


(this involved a "black box")

That's the point, there is always something more "positive" done than simply connecting a cable that the defendant did to receive the signal. We're talking about a customer who subscribes to HSI and finds the QAM signals are also there. He called the cableco and they said the signals might disappear anytime in the future. If we want to interpret things to suit our positions, then I'd say this is an implied consent for him to view those signals.

Quote:


I do admit to doing the old 3x5" card trick in the old black cable boxes (the ones with the dials) in the 80's.

Please, I don't even know what that is, but I can't stop laughing.
post #10049 of 10855
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

We're talking about a customer who subscribes to HSI and finds the QAM signals are also there. He called the cableco and they said the signals might disappear anytime in the future. If we want to interpret things to suit our positions, then I'd say this is an implied consent for him to view those signals.

In that case, I would definitely make that argument. Log the phone call into your own personal journal. i.e. At 12:30 p.m. on August 27, 2011, spoke with X from Cox who said.......


Quote:
Please, I don't even know what that is, but I can't stop laughing.

Back in the day, early 80's, they had black cable boxes with a single dial. There was a room between the top of the box and the front of the box that would allow you to pass a piece of paper through (i.e. it wasn't flush). If you took a 3x5 card that was folded and slipped it through the front of the box so the folder part would end up inside the box parallel to the front of the box (perpendicular to the top), it would trigger or interrupt some type of block that would then allow you to get every channel. I am not really sure what the physical mechanism was but it was very cool. Then one time, the 3x5 card fell into the box completely, I was horrified that when my parents turned in the box, I would get arrested!
post #10050 of 10855
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallen234 View Post

I am not really sure what the physical mechanism was but it was very cool. Then one time, the 3x5 card fell into the box completely, I was horrified that when my parents turned in the box, I would get arrested!

That is so funny, I'm still laughing. Nice story and memory!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Local HDTV Info and Reception
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Phoenix, AZ - HDTV