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."

Comments

Capitalism, in theory and practice

[Rogerborg]

In theory:

1. Offer a better product at a lower price.
2. Gain market share.
3. Spend the money on creating better and cheaper products.
4. GOTO 1.

In practice:

1. Follow the theory, burning venture capital money, until you have a significant number of customers tied in to long term relationships.
2. Decide how much profit you deserve, and set your prices accordingly. Every time a customer leaves (if you've been kind enough to allow them contracts that let them leave) crank up the costs to the remaining customers. The beauty of this method is that while it seems like only idiots would tolerate it, you just rebrand yourself as a "prestige service", and as long as you have one idiot left willing to pay your price, it works.
3. Offer a great package to new customers, and then as soon as they sign on the dotted line, begin a campaign of abuse in tandem with FUD until they become so beaten and cynical that they believe it's pointless even changing to another supplier.
4. Constantly cut back on staff while giving multi-million dollar rewards to your executives for their bold cost saving initiatives. Refer to this funelling of money from many purchasers to a few major stock holders as "stimulating the economy". And remember guys, get that money offshore as soon as possible, so that the evil IRS can't steal it and spend it on schools and hospitals!
5. Spend the money you save on telling your customers what great value for money they're getting. Anything left goes into a college fund - for sending the children of friendly Congressmen and Senators through college, of course.
6. GOTO 2, until your last customer leaves, or you spread your campaign contributions too thin and the DOJ, SEC or FTC finally point out that the emperor has no clothes on.

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.

Re:Just forget about tv, its not worth it

[DietFluffy]

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?

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?

It's Not About "Privilege"

[krmt]

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.

Entrapment vs "just getting caught".

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

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.

Some corrections to the first articles

[Rogerborg]

(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)

• Comcast Corp. has taken an unprecedented step in Michigan to stop customers from stealing premium cable television

Replace with "obtaining access to a shared resource without paying the agreed price"

• rigging illegal access to premium channels and pay-per-view movies

Replace with "access in excess of their contracted level"

• The customers themselves turned over illegally modified cable boxes

Replace with "cable boxes modified in breach of their contract".

• Theft of cable TV costs the industry an estimated $6 billion a year

Replace with "Unauthorized access to the shared resource" and "lowers the maximum possible hypothetical gross earnings of the industry by"

• "The chosen route is really to try to educate people that stealing cable is a crime,"

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.

Perhaps they'd appreciate this:

[jekk]

On the AT&T article is a link to the cable theft site. This is a wonderful location, where you are encouraged to (anonmously) rat on your friends and neighbors for stealing cable. Just for fun, I suggest you stop by this site and enter the name and address of your local govener, mayor, or other upstanding citizen.

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.

Re:How our cable TV bill suddenly tripled

[Tim C]

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

Re:6 Billion?!? Puh-lease...

[fishbowl]

I think that before they are allowed to claim the loss in court, they should be obligated to claim the loss on their tax. If they are willing to justify $6B to the IRS auditors, then I'm okay with them claiming the loss here. I'm guessing they don't have enough confidence in that number to do so.

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."

Re:not that expensive yet...

[Cramer]

• I don't think AT&T has gotten greedy yet.

Excuse me? This is the same company that imposes a floor on long distance usage -- 3$ per month minimum. They claim this is for "billing overhead" which is 150% complete bullshit; it pads their bottom line by hundred of millions per month.

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:from the comcast article

[jedidiah]

They aren't proportional to the crime either. A punitive fine should always meet that criteria. As the other poster said, random excessive punishment only encourages disrespect for the law in general.

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.