Slashdot Mirror
Comcast in Court, AT&T Gets Greedy
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."
I'd recommend anyone who is offended by the tactics of cable companies to simply quit subscribing to cable at all.
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.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
"Theft of cable TV costs the industry an estimated $6 billion a year, according to the National Cable Television Association."
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?
I don't think AT&T has gotten greedy yet. They provide me with a 1.5 Megabit downstream and 384 Kilabit upstream 24 hours a day / 7 days a week. To get this kind of link with a DSL line, the prices start around $80 a month in my area, and AT&T is giving me this for around $50. I don't think it's in any of our rights to complain. They have the best deal going! Come on people, get real. Bandwidth isn't cheap. At least it's not a 3GB cap or something stupid like that.
Cthulhu Saves.
It costs time and money to handle complaints.
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.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
- Offer a better product at a lower price.
- Gain market share.
- Spend the money on creating better and cheaper products.
- GOTO 1.
In practice: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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
That won't make these people feel any less cheated. Yes, they can take their business elsewhere, but what about that cable modem they've already bought? As the article said, it was an act of faith in the company, a guarantee of staying with them until at least the modem itself was paid off. By switching the pricing scheme to target these people specifically, AT&T is basically saying "up yours" to these people.
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.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
No, entrapment is when laaw enforcement plants the seeds of criminal conduct in the mind of the suspect.
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.
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) 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?
(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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
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.
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
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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 $50 for digital cable? Unlikely. Do companies need to make more of an effort getting broadband to the masses? Probably. But it is a catch 22. To make these necessities affordable, like telephone, electricity, and water, they must be regulated. To make a regulated market attractive, the services must be nearly universally used. Many people still chose not to have cable or DSL.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Cool, I'll be right over to run an extension cord from your house/apt to power my air conditioner. Or better yet, siphon gas from your car...
Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick, how many times must we go through this here on slashdot? Allow me to illustrate for the umpteenth time:
Electricity and gasoline are sold as goods (electricity is a virtual good, as it is paid for by quantity used). The Consumption of goods is a zero-sum equation: if you use one liter of gas or one kilowatt of electricity, I cannot use that liter or kilowatt. Cable TV service (like "music" or "software") isn't diminished by use. If you watch a program on cable TV, I can still watch the same program in my home without either of us experiencing any loss of viewing experience. Cable TV service is a service. Unauthorized access to this service is illegal, but it does not rise to the level of theft, as it does not result in material diminishment.
Mind you, I make no claim that it's morally right or wrong to illegally access this service; I only wish for fools to stop posting replies saying "So I guess it's Ok if I come into your house and steal [$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.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Well, probly because they already have said customers business, and said customer is probly already bound by a 12-24 month contract they can't get out of without paying up. The new customer, on the other hand, isn't paying up so they make it look "more attractive" to "lure" the potential customer into a 12-24 month contract.
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