Comcast in Court, AT&T Gets Greedy 251
raindr writes "The Detroit News has this article on how comcast is going after people with modified Cable TV boxes.These fines (170k) seem a bit much to me." They apparantly send out a "bullet" to deactivate modded boxes. In other coax news,Shynedog writes "Boston.com is running a story about AT&T broadband users in the Northeast who are complaining about the unfair price hike that has been imposed on subscribers who own their own modems.
It the wake of recent customer complaints, AT&T has started offering coupons to offset the monthly increase, but only for the next six months."
Hrrm... (Score:1, Informative)
2. Get caught
3. Get punished
Yeah sounds about right.
Re:Hrrm... (Score:2)
And pay about 170 times the value of what you stole, which seems pretty excessive to me. If we're going to put people into debt for most of their lives for stealing what probably amounts to less than $1000 worth of merchandise, why don't we just chop their hands off, too?
Re:Hrrm... (Score:2)
Since this is a civil suit, you can be pretty sure that this figure will be adjusted down. It's common to start of high as a scare tactic and hope that the issue will be settled out of court.
Also, bear in mind that Comcast could have chosen to press criminal charges, which would have resulted in both a hefty fine AND time spent in jail.
i read somewhere... (Score:1)
Just forget about tv, its not worth it (Score:1, Insightful)
When we watch tv we are wasting time when we could be doing something productive, and if you want good entertainment you can always rent a movie. Tv is full of ads, many of which are from the large, rich, dmca loving companies that we all dispise. Why would anyone want to PAY to watch disney, or NBC, or warner? By doing that we are simply funding the companies that are destroying all our freedom. Tv is also controlled by americans, and I've seen my local canadian television go downhill when faced against the behemoth of american corporate television. Kids are being brainwashed and having their brains rot from imported japanese tv such as pokemon, which are basically hallucinogenic sessions.
I say pull the cable plug out for good, we no longer need to be mindless zombies of the media.
Re:Just forget about tv, its not worth it (Score:1)
The article was about cablemodem internet access, not cable TV.
Re:Just forget about tv, its not worth it (Score:1)
Re:Just forget about tv, its not worth it (Score:2)
Pokemon is NOT hallucinogenic (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, Pokemon doesn't cause hallucinations...it causes seizures, get it straight.
I agree. (Score:1)
Re:Just forget about tv, its not worth it (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm surprised this wasn't modded flamebait. T.V. is bad because it's controlled by Americans and the Japanese? You also said that we shouldn't watch tv because disney and warner are dmca huggers. Instead, you proposed that we go rent movies. Are you aware that Disney and Warner are among the largest movie makers in the world?
Re:Just forget about tv, its not worth it (Score:3, Funny)
Easy answer: We need to get Bush to say the following thing "By watching TV you're funding Terrorism!"
Re:Just forget about tv, its not worth it (Score:2)
Cable modems anyone? (Score:1)
(ok, it's the ISDN/128K user in me that talks now)
Re:Cable modems anyone? (Score:2)
from the comcast article (Score:2, Insightful)
So they are suing them for 170,000 each.. at that rate there is only roughly a little more then 35,000 people in the US stealing cable. Doesn't seem like very many people to be worried about.. and thats spread out across the whole US.. wonder if those stats include Sat Theft too?
What is going on? Please read this... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Ok i'm thinkin i'll go to my preferences & see how/why it was modded back down. Well I go there and there is nothing listed for that comment as rated +1 interesting as the email tells me or anything bringing it back down to 2.
So what gives? Are the slashdot editors lowering comments they don't like or approve of?
heres the email headers below.. and i still haven't got any email sayin I was modded back down.. Seriously what gives here?
Return-Path:
Delivered-To: phunhippy@evolutionarydeadend.com
Received: (qmail 10645 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2002 07:51:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cpu59.osdn.com) (XX.XX.XX.XX)
by 0 with SMTP; 10 Jun 2002 07:51:33 -0000
Received: from [10.2.73.1] (helo=localhost)
by cpu59.osdn.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 17HKLh-0003Cf-00
for ; Mon, 10 Jun 2002 04:16:25 -0400
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:20 +0000
Subject: [Slashdot] Moderation of "from the comcast article"
From: slashdot@slashdot.org
To: phunhippy@evolutionarydeadend.com
Content-transf
Message-Id:
X-PMFLAGS: 34078848 0 1 P45D10.CNM
A user has given a "Insightful" (+1) moderation to
your comment.
from the comcast article
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=33925&cid=367
Attached to:
Comcast in Court, AT&T Gets Greedy
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/10/00222
Your comment is currently scored 3.
Re:What is going on? Please read this... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:from the comcast article (Score:3, Insightful)
Equating the theft of a few $5 movies with a sum equivalent to that of a 2000 sqft 4 bedroom house simply isn't reasonable.
Corporations that dump toxic waste get off with lower fines.
not that expensive yet... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:not that expensive yet... (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine this, AT&T gives you basic cable and leases you a TV for some amount of money. You go out and buy a TV and have them take back thier TV. Now your bill goes down because you're not paying for the lease on the TV anymore. Say, 2 years later, and AT&T raises your monthly charge. Now you go over to your friend's house and complain about the rate hike, and he doesn't know what the hell you're talking about. Your friend leases his TV and has the same cable service you do. You compare bills and they are the same. WTF? How come his servce+device monthly charge is the same price as your just service charge.
These people do have a legitimate gripe.
Re:not that expensive yet... (Score:1)
I don't see why people who own their cable modems have to have a devine right to lower priced service, particularly if it doesn't cost the cable company more.
Re:not that expensive yet... (Score:2)
If you read the article it ends up being $240 / $3 = 80 months. This is because rental is now apparently $3 per month and you only get the $10 per month if you post in the $7 coupons. And this will only apply to existing modem owners.
I would figure that ATT was making a good income from modem rentals and since people were starting to buy the modems, they were losing that income and they needed to make up for it somehow.
Re:not that expensive yet... (Score:2)
Re:not that expensive yet... (Score:2)
They DON'T have a divine right to lower priced SERVICE. Service is the keyword. They are providing a service. They are charging for that service. the people that lease the modem are paying for the service PLUS the lease on the modem. The people who own the modem are ONLY paying for the service. AT&T changed the price, so that if you bought your modem the price for the SERVICE is the same as paying for the service plus the modem. AT&T is now saying that there are in fact 2 different prices for the exact same service, depending on if you own the equipment or not.
Let me try a different tack here. Let's say AOL has this deal where you pay for their service and they lease you a computer to use it with...say $70/month total...that'd be $22 for the SERVICE and $48 for the computer. Now let's say you bought that comptuer and just wanted the service. You pay the $22/month for the service. Suddenly they change the deal. You own the computer but they are charging the full $70. basically they say the service is $70. But the people who lease are still paying the same $70. AOL would be saying that the service is $70 a month if you own your own computer. But the service is only $22 if you lease a computer from us for $48, but it's the exact same service.
My point is, for the exact same service, the price for that service should be the same. Why should people who are paying only for the service pay more for that service than people who are also getting the hardware to go with it?
YET! (Score:2)
First owner of Modems - 90% say it not me.
Next it is tiered pricing - 90% say it not me.
Next content control - 90% say it not me.
Next bandwidth limits - oh yeah it already here!
Over Subscribe the channel - 1.5M down is maximum at 3 AM when your nieghbors are a sleep.
Re:not that expensive yet... (Score:1)
She said consistent pricing will enable the company to offer future deals to its customers, including the tiering of Internet speeds. She said the tiering of speeds might come as early as this summer, but declined to comment further.
Re:not that expensive yet... (Score:3, Insightful)
Read your contract. Your 50$ does not buy you continuous 1.5/384 service. If you sling your full rate "24 hours a day / 7 days a week", I'd give it two weeks before AT&T terminates your service (with a good chance of it being perminant termination.)
Re:not that expensive yet... (Score:2)
In the months that I make no long distance calls, I present no overhead in any processing. There are no CDRs to be processed on my behalf. The only "overhead" is some space in a database saying I'm a customer and even that is suspect based on the number of times AT&T tries to sell me a service I'm already buying.
At any rate, why would AT&T be sending a bill if there's nothing for me to pay?
Trust me, the billing processes are no where near as complex and time consuming as you think. (I work for a (business) telco. There aren't hundreds of people handling billing. Nor do we charge a minimum or any of those stupid fees.)
Legit users hit with stray 'bullet'? (Score:3, Interesting)
If Comcast is found to be damaging personal hardware with their 'bullet' it would be funny if those users were able to clame irreparable harm and sue for millions. In short, I think that Comcast better be very careful where they point their guns. In the end this can only be bad for them.
Re:Legit users hit with stray 'bullet'? (Score:3, Informative)
Calling it "code" isn't quite right... (Score:4, Informative)
This is analog cable they are talking about here. Calling it "code" makes it sound much more complicated than it actually is. Not that it could harm a VCR (or TIVO) anyway...
I remember the last time the "magic bullet" issue came up. This was several years ago, and it was TCI (the company AT&T bought out) doing it, IIRC.
Shortly after news of the coup hit the press, I started hearing about "magic bullet filters." They were sold under various names (both vague and unabashedly direct!), and were a shockingly simple notch filter.
That's it -- just a little circuit and resistor to keep the signal levels in safe limits for your pirate converter box. What I just read sounds very similar to what I remember:
(We're two R-E steps out, now... first the pirates were figuring out the scrambling and getting into "test mode," the second was General Instrument figuring out what differences there were between the 'official' systems and the aftermarket ones.)
Re: Fried VCRs (Score:2)
I have never heard of any equipment (beyond 'pirate' ICs) that has been damaged by the "magic bullet" signal.
There has been a lot of "what if..?" talk, but I cannot recall any actual, documented damage.
(Then again, I haven't searched Google on this topic, so I could be very wrong. You have been warned.)
Re:Legit users hit with stray 'bullet'? (Score:2)
The cost of complaints (Score:2, Insightful)
If your company is taking you for a ride with price, and there are no alternatives:
Talk slowly and eloquently, explain the situation, mention what you are and are not happy with etc.
You should be able to draw the complaint out to about half an hour, and if nothing happens, try again 2 or 3 weeks later.
Internet access is a privilege, not a right (Score:1)
You will not die without broadband. You will not die without the Internet. Probably, your life will be enriched without it.
Re:Internet access is a privilege, not a right (Score:1)
It's Not About "Privilege" (Score:3, Insightful)
So why shouldn't they feel upset at this again?
Just because Internet access is not a right (although I'd call it a luxury rather than privilege, as the term luxury implies that the customer actually gives something back for it) doesn't mean that companies should be screwing with their customers, and it's just plain stupid to screw with their best customers who are willing to pay a premium for a year or more.
This isn't a story of luxury vs. rights. This is simply a tale of mistreatment of customers.
Re:Internet access is a privilege, not a right (Score:3, Informative)
Society changes. It is influenced by events and technology around it and, in turn, drives technology and events. What was once novel and unique can easily become a common part of life in that society. The trivial can become irreplaceable.
At one point in time, the telephone was often labled a trivial toy of limited use and predicted to fade into obscurity. Now, the telephone is a key tool for everything from business and employment to emergency service to communications with geographically distant friends and family. It is an indispensible part of many modern societies.
One can live without a telephone. But you will find yourself seriously limited by it unless you move to an environment where such technology isn't commonly used. You NEED phone access.
Neal Stephenson makes an interesting observation in his article Mother Earth Mother Board [wired.com]. Bell sent the world on a technological devolved shunt. For a time, the world's telecommunications technology was digital, ableit of limited capacity. There were some theories towards increasing that capacity but they hadn't panned out (although they are actually the basis of technology being used today). And then Bell had us all going to analog. Its taken us centuries to get back to digital.
And now we have the Internet. It has the potential to not only absorb the roles of the telephone, but push the realms of communication and data (if it hasn't already). But much of that relies on broadband.
And because of that, the same concerns which have driven the telecomunications industry through its analog telephone days will continue to drive it well in the the Internet age. What has made telephone service important and ensured that it would be available to all (within some reason) will also eventually drive broadband access.
Re:Internet access is a privilege, not a right (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Internet access is a privilege, not a right (Score:1)
My wife, on the other hand, is completely dependent on it. She's overseas now and has made sure to get a local access number from a relative living in the area. Funny, I was the one that introduced her to the Internet. Now she's a web developer and I'm back in QA.
coupons (Score:1)
They planned on doing this from the very beginning. This is not in response to customer complaints. They knew this would be unpopular and came up with the coupon idea ahead of time.
Duh (Score:5, Funny)
The customers themselves turned over illegally modified cable boxes to the company when the boxes stopped working.
Call me crazy, but I don't think turning your illegally modified cable descrambler in to the cable company for repair after it stops working due to the cable company deactivating it is a good idea.
For bonus points, diagram the above sentence.
considering... (Score:2)
Several hundred Macomb subscribers received letters from a collection firm hired to recover money for Comcast. Most have already settled. Only people who didn't respond to letters or calls were sued, Hnilica said
considering that 509 of them took care of it on their own by doing so, and settled out of court, and only 16 of them are being sued for the 170k fine who didnt turn the boxes in...
who ya think is gonna end up paying less?
Re:Duh (Score:2)
Same baloney (Score:1)
Loss, loss, loss... billions...
As if everyone would subscribe if the boxes would not be around.
Same goes for software, music - etc..
Get a cable modem, go to jail (Score:3, Informative)
The Cable Industry (Score:2)
The nonsense that the article talks about, recent price hikes, electronic "bullets", etc., are just more examples of what corporations do to protect their cashflow. Who cares about individual rights if the bottom line is looking rosy?
The cable company that provided service for my dorm last semester ran these ads that encouraged other people to rat out people who were getting free cable. Does anyone else find this really humorous? I mean, if I know someone getting free cable, I'm going to ask them to hook me up, not turn 'em in for some Cable Industry Good Consumer Award.
Check out the site here [cabletheft.com].
Re:The Cable Industry (Score:1)
Ok, clue me in here. What rights? Right to steal cable? Right to underpriced broadband? I'm not sure what rights of yours these companies are violating.
Re:The Cable Industry (Score:1)
If this site is legitimate why is the information bogus?
Re:The Cable Industry (Score:1)
Re:The Cable Industry (Score:2, Insightful)
Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick, how many times must we go through this here on slashdot? Allow me to illustrate for the umpteenth time:
Electricity and gasoline are sold as goods (electricity is a virtual good, as it is paid for by quantity used). The Consumption of goods is a zero-sum equation: if you use one liter of gas or one kilowatt of electricity, I cannot use that liter or kilowatt. Cable TV service (like "music" or "software") isn't diminished by use. If you watch a program on cable TV, I can still watch the same program in my home without either of us experiencing any loss of viewing experience. Cable TV service is a service. Unauthorized access to this service is illegal, but it does not rise to the level of theft, as it does not result in material diminishment.
Mind you, I make no claim that it's morally right or wrong to illegally access this service; I only wish for fools to stop posting replies saying "So I guess it's Ok if I come into your house and steal [$MATERIAL_GOODS] then, right?" whenever someone points out that pirating [cable|software|MP3s] does not automatically equal a monetary loss for the seller of same.
Re:The Cable Industry (Score:2)
This assumes I would pay for some or all of this service were I unable to access it for free.
Goods are not worth the sum of their raw materials, they are worth what the market is willing to pay them. If you steal cable then you are taking $X/month out of the cable company's revenue.
Be that as it may, watching cable for free does not diminish any of the cable company's material goods. If one discontinues one's free cable viewing, the cable company's revenues do not go up, do they? Therefore, watching free cable does not make their revenue go down.
Just because it costs the company nothing if you were to say split your neighbors cable and use it for yourself as well does not mean it's not theft.
By the very fact that no property of the cable company is diminished by unauthorized access of their SERVICE, it is, in fact, NOT THEFT. Theft, larceny, robbery-- these words refer specifically to the taking of physical property from someone. "Theft of service" is an oxymoron. If one forces a mechanic to fix one's car at gunpoint, is it theft? No. Assault and unlawful detention, but not theft. This hijacking of language by [cable/music/software] companies is intentional-- it's meant to elevate in the minds of the public the unauthorized access to services to the same level as breaking into a house and taking a TV. I'm not arguing that it's moral and right to access cable content for free, I'm just pointing out that just because they SAY they've lost money doesn't make it necessarily true.
Another reason to not watch TV (Score:1)
The cable stealers were idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard of this same tactic being used when I was living in DC back in the late 80's. You would think that people would be wise to it by now.
I'll bet you that of the people who are stealing cable in that region, all that were caught were fools and idiots. Anyone with a brain would not be so easily busted. I figure the 170k is nothing more than a stupidity tax, something I never ever see a problem with.
A word of advice to all those who would break the law or do something that could get them in trouble, develop some street smarts and an ounce of common sense beforehand.
Lee
YOU WIN! (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd be watching your show, and right when the movie was due to begin, you'd see a message saying you won a prize (new TV, whatever), and to call a number to claim it. When you called and gave your name and address, you'd then wind up losing your cable service and/or having to pay a fine or go to court.
What happened? The cable company scrambled that ad with a key that no one was supposed to be set up to receive. But the modified boxes would treat it as a regular scrambled show and decode it. So only the cable pirates would get the message.
Re:YOU WIN! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:YOU WIN! (Score:2)
There is no right to steal recognized by the law . .
hawk
Re:The cable stealers were idiots (Score:5, Funny)
I've almost done something similar. A couple months ago my cable went out for 3 days, I got pissed and called the cable company as there was something I wanted to watch that night. Thank god I was stuck on hold for a few minutes, it gave me time to realize that I hadn't ever had my cable service setup. The previous occupant of my apartment had it and while he cancled his account (no bill in the mail) they never deactivated the cable. I hung up before someone picked up the call, thank god.
Another problem coming up (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the "goodies" that will be coming up after the Comcast/ATT merger will be the sudden announcement of all current home users to a 256K cap on bandwidth, and the next level (384K) will be available as a "premium" service for about $80 per month, with no static IP.
Businesses will get the 384K service and a static IP for $375/month, according to the source. The point behind this is that ATT doesn't want any home user to have static IP, and are going to try and price it outside the reach of the average person's ability to pay.
We're volume profit, while businesses are pure profit.
Also, one last point...the 'free ride' on ATT is over. On or about July 1, they will be installing what I've been told is the "new Cisco software" which will prevent anyone from homesteading IP addresses as has been the case. Apparently, the dynamic IPs will override the static IP in the present software, which means that when ATT went to a business, they could not guarantee that the IP address wasn't already taken by DHCP for a home user.
With the "new business model" that the merger will bring, the home user will have services cut and prices raised, which will subsidize the business services to the point where those monthly service charges from business will be pure profit at our expense.
It won't interfere with general service, but if you've not had your IP switched on you for a while, you'll likely lose service until you reboot your home network.
Re:Another problem coming up (Score:2, Informative)
Several points here (and in the original post) are wrong.
1. The complainers in the NE region are not the reason for these coupons. The coupons were part of the deal from the beginning. In fact not all areas are receiving coupons, some are getting automatic credit on their statement. This is not due to complaints, this was setup at the onset and was due to *state* laws that require 6mo's prior notification. They gave the notice, the did the price increase, and they gave credit.
2. People who use "rogue" IPs (intentionally or not) are already being disabled by the NOC. They are found, disabled, and must call up to have their account re-enabled.
Most areas have already been pushed to a 256k upstream cap, some other areas will be moved later.
Common sense? (Score:4, Funny)
You should always take any dead bodies out of your car before dropping it off at the service station.
-
The fines arn't that bad (Score:1)
Capitalism, in theory and practice (Score:5, Insightful)
Overly cynical, or an honest assessment of how a system composed of a few huge imcumbents actually works in practice? Make your own mind up.
OpenGL peanut gallery (Score:2)
There is some crappy legistlation around for cable television boxes that I hope doesn't end up repeated with cable modems. Under FCC rules a cable operator can't prevent you from buying your own cable equipment and using it as long as it conforms to all regulations and specifications. The crappy part is those rules don't prohibit a cable operator from requiring you rent some ludicrous piece of equipment like a remote control or converter. What I hope doesn't happen is the cable operators being required to let people buy their DOCSIS compliant modems buy they have to lease something as trivial as a T-splitter. This is bad legistlation and it would be shitty if it was applied to cable modems. However, there are also rules stating that a cable subscriber can set up all of their own equipment which makes me wonder how the circular logic if allowing an operator to require the lease of some piece of equipment while also maintaining that subscribers can maintain their own equipment.
Re:OpenGL peanut gallery (Score:2)
As such, they've raised the price of those who bought their own modems to something more reasonable given that modems don't cost $10 a month -- and they no longer have the subsidy of customers who do rent their modems.
Given the above, reworded version what you said, they've actually corrected a problem which was screwing over a majority of their customer base for the benefit of a few.
cabletheft.com (Score:2)
http://www.cabletheft.com/ [cabletheft.com]
God damn that's funny. I wonder if that actually works, I suppose you'd get some info from pissed off romantic partners or something.
Anybody know if we can get the addresses of AT&T's board members from the SEC or something?
Re:cabletheft.com (Score:3, Funny)
"Even more serious, lives can be endangered by the shoddy work of cable thieves. Cable's usually "closed-circuit" distribution system can be compromised, resulting in interference with aeronautic radio navigation signals and emergency service radio transmissions. "
For the love of god don't steal cable anymore or you'll crash and airplane!
Re:cabletheft.com (Score:2)
How our cable TV bill suddenly tripled (Score:5, Informative)
I'm like, "Say what?" You suddenly decide to give us and charge us for service we never ordered? Take it off our bill.
TW Rep: "I can't do that. You're enjoying the premium service and must pay for it."
Back and forth, no supervisor around, I call back the next day. TW assumption is that we have climbed the pole and removed a filter. I haven't. Our neighbors are in the their 70s and probably haven't either. I finally get bumped far enough up the TW customer "service" chain to get the charge removed, but not until after I file a (still unanswered) complaint with the FL Dept. of Consumer Affairs does the excess charge actually come off our bill.
The installer who comes out the next day to put on the correct filter says this happens all the time, that the day before he was out at the house of another suspected "cable pirate" who was in his 80s, in a wheelchair, and on a respirator, who sure hadn't been climbing poles, and had been paying the overcharge for months until his son came to visit and noticed his oversized cable bill.
The installer said the filters were often defective, that this was the problem more often than people stealing cable service, but that the company just assumed everyone was a thief and charged them no matter what.
I talked to the system's marketing manager. He told me almost all of the people who got extra service were stealing it on purpose, which contradicted the installer's comments. I don't know who to believe, but I am suspicious.
At least in FL I have a choice of 2 cable Internet service providers and a dozen DSL providers, and it's far enough south that sat TV is clear. In MD (my other residence) my only broadband Internet alternative is Comcast, and they suck so badly I endure a phone modem here, and we're in a tree-lined valley where satellite TV won't work.
Too bad FCC Chairman Powell loves and trusts cable TV companies so much that he doesn't mind them holding defacto monopolies over bradband Internet in much of the country. He ought to go to work for one of them if he loves them so much, and get off the public payroll, since he's not willing to lift a finger to help the citizens who pay his salary keep the cable TV operators from screwing them.
- Robin
Re:How our cable TV bill suddenly tripled (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I'd believe the installer. The marketing manager is a manager, and so a) may well not know what conditions are really like out in the field, and b) regardless, must reiterate the company's official stance.
The installer, on the other hand, is "just an ordinary joe", and (as long as he doesn't get quoted and named) can pretty much say whatever he wants.
Cheers,
Tim
Marketing eq professional lying (Score:2)
Remember, the marketing manager gets paid to beat the truth so thin you can see through it. Besides, when have you ever met a marketing person prone to telling the truth about *anything*?
Re:How our cable TV bill suddenly tripled (Score:2)
Two of the definite rules of all TV/cable/modem/phone services:
1. The grunt in overalls that comes to your house and installs or fixes your stuff is telling the truth, unless he's an independant contractor that has something to sell you.
2. "Marketing" or "manager" = liar, even worse if the two words are used together.
Re:How our cable TV bill suddenly tripled (Score:2)
He didn't sound like he enjoyed saying what he was supposed to say, either.
I really feel sorry for the front-line customer "service" rep I talked to first, who said, "What they tell me to tell you is..." about TW Cable's inane "anti-piracy" (really anti-customer) policy.
- Robin
6 Billion?!? Puh-lease... (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate these kind of fabricated numbers - the question is, would the 11 million people who are supposedly stealing cable and sat services (more detail here [techtv.com]) have really bought 6 billion bucks worth of programming and pay-per-view if they didn't have their illegal access. I think their number would be far lower.
That's like the recording industry claiming massive theft when someone downloads a popular single they heard on the radio - would that person have actually gone out and purchased the CD for that song if the file-sharing apps weren't around? I doubt it, at least most of the time. I know I download hundreds of tunes that I never would have considered buying in the first place (but may now purchase because I get to hear what the CD sounds like - but that's a different argument...)
If I had access to free pay-per-view, I'd watch almost every movie out there, as I'm a huge movie buff. But I don't have free access, and I've never purchased a single pay-per-view program - how can the cable company claim any losses?
Re:6 Billion?!? Puh-lease... (Score:2)
-Henry
Re:6 Billion?!? Puh-lease... (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying that you have a loss to the IRS without a clear papertrail that arrives at that figure happens to be a much bigger crime than "stealing cable."
Some corrections to the first articles (Score:4, Insightful)
(Before you mod this as troll or flamebait, please do me and the community the courtesy of reading to the end to see the point that I'm making)
Replace with "obtaining access to a shared resource without paying the agreed price"
Replace with "access in excess of their contracted level"
Replace with "cable boxes modified in breach of their contract".
Replace with "Unauthorized access to the shared resource" and "lowers the maximum possible hypothetical gross earnings of the industry by"
Replace with "obtaining access to a shared analog resource in excess of your contract is a breach of that contract, and a possible breach of copyright, both of which are actionable in civil lawsuits, but neither of which can be prosecuted as criminal acts."
Gosh, what a change that makes. And yet my interpretation is closer to the one that a court will use to determine the type and degree of offence here, because it will actually deal with what the law says, and not what Comcast wishes that it says.
Some context: I neither perform nor endorse obtaining access to cable content in excess of your contract. I thoroughly welcome individual lawsuits against individuals who do this (rather than against those providing the tools, or legislating against technology), and indeed any suit that makes individuals responsible for their actions. I understand that these suits are civil only because the devices in question are analog, and that under the DMCA, modifying a digital device to obtain access to copyighted content would be a criminal offence.
But what I will not let slip by is the manipulation of language and law to create a crime where none exists, nor will I accept the use of hate speech to brand end consumers as criminals when breach of contract in the business world is spun as oversight, regrettable necessity or overzealous compliance with the fiduciary duty to maximise profit. When a business breaches contract law by (e.g.) trying to enforce an unreasonable contract clause, do we call them criminals and jail them as a menace to society? No, we say that they are behaving unreasonably, that they are in breach of contract law, we (perhaps) levy a small fine, and we instruct them to comply with both the letter and spirit of the contract. That is all.
These people obtaining premium cable are in breach of contract. That, and only that. They are not criminals, and I rather hope that some of them invest in a libel suit to demonstrate that.
Re:Some corrections to the first articles (Score:2, Informative)
Cable fraud is a federal criminal offense. You can go to jail for a long time if you commit the offense. Moreover, it is most likely not a breach of contract, since the folks who were stealing the cable likely never signed a contract saying "I will not try to access more programming than the programming for which I am paying." The cable company has no need to make people sign contracts like that precsiely b/c stealing cable access *is* a crime.
Re:Some corrections to the first articles (Score:2)
References?
Uhhh... No (Score:3, Informative)
47 USC 553 and 605 make cable theft a federal crime.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/47usc5
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/47usc6
I give your post a 9.5 on style, but I'm afraid you receive a 2.0 on content due to the inappropriate manipulation of language.
Re:Uhhh... No (Score:2)
Hellfire and damnation. Every day is a lesson that Big Government is bigger than you can possibly imagine. You know, it must be tricky being an attorney for a content producer/distributor these days. You've got so many statutes to choose from. Hey, but on the bright side, the time you spend picking one is all billable.
Well, thanks for the references. Interesting point that they raise is that the maximum fine is explicitely $2000 for non-commercial violation, plus actual damages (lost revenue) plus statuatory damages up to $10,000. That doesn't come to $170,000. Oh, unless you include legal fees, which this statute very handily does. Then the sky's the limit (what with picking the right law to use, and all that). And of course you can always be jailed for six months as well, and Uncle Sam will pick up the bill for that.
OK, I'm going to go and sulk in my Y2K shelter now and wait for the revolution. I'm sticking to my guns on one thing though: I believe (although apparently Uncle Sam doesn't) that obtaining unpaid for cable access is quite clearly wrong, but that it should be a civil matter that government has no business interfering with or paying tax money to enforce. But apparently I'm not keeping up to date with just how many laws that brib^H^H^H^H campaign contributions have bought. :-(
Re:Uhhh... No (Score:2)
Hmm, I bet slashdot just got served with a FISA warrant [eff.org] for their log files...
Re:Uhhh... No (Score:2)
Fine of $1000 or prison for six months.
Uhh, I don't know how much most people get paid, but I'll take the fine! I think I could make more than $1000 in six months working at Burger King.
As far as the government enforcing such laws. The problem is that when you get things like Napster out there, it does not take much of a genius to argue before the government that we need laws to protect our companies from such things. The fact that kids are still promoting this P2P crap is actually making their cause worse in many ways.
Ohwell.
Perhaps they'd appreciate this: (Score:4, Insightful)
These "rat on your neighbors" programs (Business Software Alliance in particular, but the principle is general) REALLY get on my nerves. Guilty if accused is a BADLY broken policy and needs to be driven home to everyone.
Good! it's about time. hang the thieves high! (Score:2)
also, if you dont like your cablemodem price hike... BOO-FRICKING-HOO... get something else. and if cable is the only broadband, then quit whining about the cost of your luxuries...
Re:Good! it's about time. hang the thieves high! (Score:2)
I don't steal cable. I don't have cable. I don't own a TV. But I also don't like having the government tell me what I can do with signals going onto my own property (though I have no problem whatsoever with the civil courts upholding a contract I signed in return for basic cable).
Coupons? How do we get them? (Score:2)
How do I get the coupon? It wasn't in the story, does anyone know?
AT&T: Scr*wing the loyal customers... WHY? (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder what management text or B-school case study they get THAT advice out of?
To avoid getting shafted, you practically have to PLAN on switching credit cards, banks, phone companies, etc. annually.
Re:AT&T: Scr*wing the loyal customers... WHY? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not the best way to to business, but if people keep doing business that way, then appearantly it's not bothering too many people. I suspect that's why they make it so difficult to get set up and why the lengthy contracts... so people don't want to go elsewhere or can't...
Thanks
Can we lived without them? (Score:2, Insightful)
For example, there is little on cable that is necessary. It is nice to have. I once had it. Don't have it anymore. The cable kept going out and it took several days on each incident to fix it. I got rid of cable because it was causing more frustration that it was worth. I miss cable, but I am not going to deal with customer service of an hour every few weeks. I can go to two movies a week, or one small concert a week, for what they were charging me for cable. I don't steal cable because it is just not important. I feel sad for people who do.
DSL is the same thing. I love DSL and I am fortunate that I live in an area with multiple DSL providers. I can get pissed at one and move to another. I understand that not everyone has that luxury, or even can get DSL. But it is just DSL. Like all non-critical products, if it gets too expensive, go to dialup, or cable. It is hard, but the companies have no obligation to charge an amount that fits your budget. It has a responsibility to charge an amount that enough people will pay to maximize profits.
If we would treat these services as options in our lives, the companies would not likely be so disrespectful. At this point, they feel they are doing us a favor providing such wonderful services at such reasonable prices. These feeling are validated by frantic people calling customer service begging for these services, and apparently unaffected by high prices. They have a good life, and know it.
If cable and DSL are fundamental rights in our new world, maybe we should regulate them more aggressively. Does it need to cost $30 for basic and $50 for digital cable? Unlikely. Do companies need to make more of an effort getting broadband to the masses? Probably. But it is a catch 22. To make these necessities affordable, like telephone, electricity, and water, they must be regulated. To make a regulated market attractive, the services must be nearly universally used. Many people still chose not to have cable or DSL.
Bullets are nothing new (Score:2)
Cable companys have been using them for a long time. I belive at one point they where declaired illegal in NY becuase they where destorying VCRs, TVs and what not. Most new TVs and VCRs are designed to handle it. But things like black boxes becuase they change the resistinces will get knocked out by them.
Face it, you steal cable, thats your risk. It doesn't bother me. It WILL bother me if my VCR, TV or DVD player get killed becuase of it.
Umm evolution in action (Score:2)
#1 - quietly plug the original back in and call the cable company...
#2 - turn in the 'modified' black market box you got to the cable company and report to jail ?
If you answered 2 then you should join these other 525 MORONS, in the line for terminally STUPID people.
Entrapment vs "just getting caught". (Score:3, Insightful)
Think vice cops begging someone to "just pay $20 and I'll give you an extrra 2 hours in the ho'tel". If that person wasn't out looking for a prostitute, then they may never have even broken the law if it weren't for the cops enticing them to do so.
With this, there are several points. First, the cable co isn't a law enforcement authority (unless there is something I haven't heard). And second, they never enticed someone to break the law. Of the two, I think the latter is the most important, because if they had enticed the cable thieves, this might be an adequate defense in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who's signal is it? (Score:2)
I believe that if its on my land, I should be able to use it as I see fit.
Ok, say you have a 900 MHz (or better) cordless phone and we are neighbors. If I were to modify my own 900 MHz phone so that it could use your base station (because the range of your base station reaches into my property, so if I follow your logic, I can use it as I see fit), I guess you wouldn't mind me making all sorts of long distance calls using your phone service.
Likewise, say you have a 802.11b base station and I drive by your house and use my laptop to get into your network, you also wouldn't mind that I use your internet connection to do all sorts of bad things in your name because the signal from your base station also reaches into my property (namely, my car and my laptop).
Re:Who's signal is it? (Score:2)
Yes I agree with you, if you have the ability to connect to my wireless services during a drive by then by all means, give it a try. The difference though is by using my phone line and calling Afganistan, I will incur excess charges that I would not have had, you would be actively using my lines, not passively and I would be directly charged for it. The cable company and satelite companies are not seeing excess costs by you picking their broadcast signal from the air or from a cable. I think your comparison would be closer to say that you could listen to my cordless phone conversations that I am broadcasting to your space and I would not incur any damage. It was my choice to use these devices and I am fully aware that they can be intercepted, same with baby monitors, cell phones, and pagers.
Re:Who's signal is it? (Score:2)
I will incur excess charges that I would not have had, you would be actively using my lines, not passively and I would be directly charged for it.
This is where the perspective changes. To me, I am passively using what appears to be a "free" resource. To you, I am actively abusing your phone line and adding to your cost. In the purest terms, I would be stealing your money. That's exactly how the cable company sees things.
How do you know the cable company incurs no costs of people stealing illegal cable? Even if it doesn't involve the use of a "cheat box", that is, someone rigs the cable lines outside their house on a utility pole or something like that, how can you say it costs the cable company $0? Comcast obviously thinks its costing them something, which is why they are going after these thieves. Besides, how is it fair to all the people who are paying for the premium content to know that Comcast isn't doing anything to prevent thieves from getting it for free? What if everyone decided to steal cable TV? The cable company wouldn't be making any money in this case so they would just as easily close up shop since there is no profit to be made.
Missing revenue is as bad for bottom line as cost. (Score:2)
Actually, they do get hit on the bottom line, as follows:
There are a significant number of people consuming their service and not paying. If they were not tapping it for free, SOME of them would do without, and SOME would buy it (or another company's service). The ones that would do witout don't count. But the ones that would buy their service (along with the ones currently tapping some competitor's service that would buy theirs - the mirror image of the ones who would buy the competitor's if not tapping theirs) represent lost revenue.
Now if they were able to pick up some of that revenue, any left after enforcement costs would represent more net for them, to be split among the owner's profit, content producers revenue, and potential cost reductions (as fixed costs plus enforcement costs are distributed more broadly, leading to a lower consumer price for the max-profit equilibrium).
Needless to say, they feel burned that they're not getting that money, while people who aren't paying it ARE getting the signals they spend so much time, effort, and money to provide to paying customers.
Re:at&t broadband is incompetent (part 54) (Score:2)