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."
"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.
I'd be interested to know how this 'bullet' technology works. I know a few people who have been having problems with the receivers in their VCRs (they choose not to rent a box and don't have premium/PPV channels) lately. Sure it could be a flaky VCR, but it's happened to more than one person with newish VCRs.
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.
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
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.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I wonder, those 10 subscribers they are suing, who didn't respond to calls. Are they dead? Never existed? Cats? see http://www.geocities.com/flutocracy/cablemodem.htm
SSL Certificate
When customers called to say their service was out, Comcast sent a technician or asked subscribers to bring in the box. The company recovered 525 boxes that it said had been modified.
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?
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.
Learn to Play Go
Amen to that.
The Free desktop that Just Works
But I'd die without the Internet!
I have been pwned because my
Hey now! Pokemon is NOT hallucinogenic. I watch it all the time....whoa! where'd all these pixies come from?!
Seriously, Pokemon doesn't cause hallucinations...it causes seizures, get it straight.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
Their first mistake was to modify a box that the cable company owned. They should have bought a descrambler of their own on the grey market. These 3rd party descrablers are "bullet" proof anyway which would have completely solved the problem altogether before it started. Their second mistake was calling the cable company and complaining when their modified box stopped working. They should have been FAR more cautious than that. If I hacked something and it stopped working the first thing I'd assume is that it was either something I did or something the cable company did in response. I would have checked to see whether the box was still good, which is as simple as connecting the cable straight to the tv. At that point I'd take steps to replace the box on my own, or at the very least undo the hack, assuming that was possible, before handing it over to the cable company.
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
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
What about the ones that modify thier cables modems to get the bandwidth they pay for? I have a friend in that situation.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
Think of it as chipping away.
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.
On the topic of stupid cable thieves who get tricked into turning themselves in, I just wanted to mention another trick the cable companies have pulled in the past.
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.
Our company does some business with ATT and have access to their Broadband information via employees (hence my anonymous, and hence a lack of specific geography).
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.
When customers called to say their service was out, Comcast sent a technician or asked subscribers to bring in the box.
You should always take any dead bodies out of your car before dropping it off at the service station.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
- 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.
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?
Easy answer: We need to get Bush to say the following thing "By watching TV you're funding Terrorism!"
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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."
It really and truly sucks AT&T has decided to impose a rate hike on people choosing not to get screwed up the ass by them. Logically it makes sense, for every user not using an AT&T modem they're missing out on the rental fee of that modem. You can be sure the cost of the modem itself has amortized so only a fraction of the rental fee is actually used to cover the cost of it which they got at wholesale prices. Say they make five bucks a month off each rented modem, that is nice chunk of change when all of your subscribers are renting modems. Taking away a couple million free dollars from someone is going to make them pretty angry. However, thats the ropes of an industry with published standards. A DOCSIS capable modem is going to work on their network, paying customers ought not be prevented from buying their own modems.
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.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
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. 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.
http://www.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?
We subscribe to Roadrunner + TW's basic cable in Bradenton, FL. One day we get our bill and the cable portion has jumped from ~$12 to over $40. I call, they say we're getting premium cable service, they've run a system audit, they're charging us what they should have charged us all along.
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
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:
- TCI went to General Instrument (the cable box manufacturer), and said "Okay, if you wanted to pirate cable, how would you do it?"
- General Instrument got hold of some of the "aftermarket" equipment, and reverse-engineered it.
- General Instrument figures out a signal they can inject into the cable system that will not affect 'legal' boxes, but will overdrive sections of the aftermarket chips -- thus doing irreperable damage, and rendering the cable box inoperative.
- TCI injects this signal into their system, and everyone who complains about dead cable receives a rather shocking bill. (If I remember news reports properly, it was $500 - $1000 and a promise to behave. It's been a while.)
Memory is a bit rusty, but that's pretty much how I remember it happening. I can't believe this old trick still works...(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.)
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
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.
Although I agree with the sentiment, I've found after three years of going without any TV whatsoever that I end up spending the wasted time sleeping instead of doing anything worthwhile. So bang on as far as our freedoms go, but do recognize that time not spent watching television won't be productive by default.
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
I think the fines should be higher for cable theft, and even add jail time. Hey, If I walk into a store and Steal $130.00 a month worth of merchandise, or better yet phone cards to be more akin to a service theft... I'd be publically fried and jailed, yet people think that cracking down on cable service theft is unfair. Great! please tell me where you live so I may run extension cords to your house and a Hose from your outside faucet.. it's my right to steal from you....
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...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Ok, I'm in the Northeast, I've got a cable modem, I've got AT&T.
How do I get the coupon? It wasn't in the story, does anyone know?
--
RumorsDaily
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.)
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
I don't know why so many businesses these days are going out of their way to punish their existing customers. It seems as if practically every business now offers deals to new customers that are not available to their loyal customers.
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.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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*?
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
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).
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
But what I will not let slip by is the manipulation of language and law to create a crime where none exists
5 3. htm
0 5. htm
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.
I guess you wouldn't mind me making all sorts of long distance calls using your phone service.
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.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
I'm a bit surprised that they don't just give the modems away... what sort of problems would that open up for them? Cellular companies give their phones away... or at least they have in the past. Maybe that might cause a few cable modem MFGrs to get a little angry... who knows.
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.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
3. Get punished
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?
The cable company and satelite companies are not seeing excess costs by you picking their broadcast signal from the air or from a cable
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.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
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.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
If YOU had a modified cable box and it stopped working, would you
#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.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?