Slashdot Mirror
When Cable Companies Break -Your- Cable Modem?
Steve asks: "I've suffered ongoing problems with my cable access for several months which my cable company has not resolved. Yesterday I discovered that the cause of the problem was probably due to a remote software update applied to my cable modem by the cable company 2 months ago. Their solution is to give me a new rental modem. This is fine, except that I *own* the current modem which is now broken and can not be sold on. The cable company are unwilling to offer compensation. According to my contract, the company can only modify equipment which they own. The question: have they broken the UK's Computer Misuse Act? Should they be liable for damages caused?"
I'm working under the assumption that their errant software update did not physically damage the cable modem, it just put in some updated software that renders it unusable.
I suggest contacting the manufacturer of the cable modem; there may be a combination of some "reset" step and some kind of firmware update that would overwrite whatever badness the cable company (accidentally, I assume) put on there, and get it going again.
According to my contract, the company can only modify equipment which they own. The question: have they broken the UK's Computer Misuse Act? Should they be liable for damages caused?"
Yes and yes assuming that you can prove it.
Of course the big question is why can't you simply patch it to the prior version?
Firstly, IANAL
Secondly - resolving the problem. Have you talked to the modem manufacturer? They may send you a fix for free. Sending you a software fix will cost them nothing, and will generate goodwill, so it's in their interests to do this.
Third - The computer misuse act is probably completely inappropriate here. I believe it's a criminal law intended for dealing with malicious damage. Threatening them with it for negligence makes you look like a moron. Breach of contract and negligent damage are more suitable terms.
I'd suggest sending a letter, by recorded delivery, explaining that you owned the modem, that a rental modem will not be adequate, and state precicely what you want them to do. Don't threaten legal action, at least not directly. Everyone does that. It makes people sound like stuck up little twits.
If all else fails, I would suggest that you consider ADSL, and tell the cable company that you are doing so. This will cost at least give you the satisfaction of knowing that you have deprived them od revenue.
..does your contract with your provider state that you can use your own modem with their service? If it does, then they need to rectify the matter. If not, you may not have much recourse.
I know that Time Warner wouldn't let my old boss use his own equipment for a business account (and were were a shop with such equipment and knowledge) and force him to use their rental modem. They generally do this to ensure that they can cap the modems if need be.
As someone else suggested, contact the mfg of the modem and let them know what happened. See if they can provide an update that will undo what the cable provider pushed and close the door on allowing them to do it again in the future.
And, as always, document every conversation you have with the cable company.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
I haven't had many problems with my cable ISP in 2.5 years, but I have had a few. In each case, they own the problem, soup to nuts. All I have to do is pretend that I'm rebooting the Windows PC that the modem isn't really connect to whenever they ask, and figure out what they're *really* asking for, and make sure I comply.
Own your own modem, and whenever there's a problem, it's finger-pointing time. Is the problem in their system or your modem? No doubt even if it's really in their system, and some of their people know it, the guy on the other end of the phone won't, and will blame it on your modem.
In the face of life's inevitable problems, renting is simpler, though a few bucks more expensive. The rental fee didn't used to be there, and I figure it was their way of jacking the rates up without a rate increase. I have no doubt that sometime in the next year there'll be some sort of 'service fee' for non-rental modems and we'll all be at parity, again.
Unfortunately all the rebates I've seen in my area are for new subscribers, only.
I'd really rather have DSL with its more enlightened/less restrictive Terms Of Service.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
My cable is underground....at least the ones in my neighborhood. I suppose a surge coming down the cable or the power line (also underground) and fry it. Doesn't matter for me....I just call them up and they bring me a new modem! I have only had two since I have been on a cable modem. The first one I had was a old legacy cable modem. The one I have now is the docsis cable modem (Moto). I have had zero problems with the modem itself since switching to the docsis one. The legacy one was a true piece of crap. The one I have now is great. I even found a web page that points me to the IP (192.168.100.1 I think) of the modem on my side when the cable end takes a crap. I can restart the damn thing without having to crawl under my desk and yank a power cord.
Gorkman
Not true.
Any company can put anything it wants it the usage agreement, but that doesn't make it law. Some things are unenforceable, and I'm pretty much those disclaimers are. Just try to imagine an electric company with an agreement that says that they're not responsible if they don't install the wires correctly in your house and it catches fire.
Im sure I'm going to get modded down and flamed for this... but I have one question.
If you own the modem, why was your modem accepting software updates?
I mean, the cable company sends out software updates for their own hardware only.
If you bought your modem, yours does not fall under that catagory.
Why did you allow it to accept this update?
I'm willing to bet that the cable company has in your contract somewhere a clause that states they will not support your hardware at all.
If it works, great. If not, its not their problem. And rightfully so.
So from the sounds of it, your modem that you bought had a major flaw in it, in that it should not have been listening to the cable companys update commands.
Why is this the cable companys fault?
Sounds to me like someone taking a 110vac lamp and plugging it in a 220vac outlet, having it blow up, then wanting to sue the power company for not making things magically work.
If this was the cable companys hardware and they broke it themselfs, it would be a totally different story.
But your connecting an unsupported forien device that the cable company even tells you out right isnt supported nor garenteed to even work at all, into their network.
This isnt a telephone device.. you buy an analog modem and the FCC garentees it will work with the phone network. you buy an electrical device and its UL listed to garentee it will work with the power grid.
You rent a cable modem because they garentee it works with their service. you failed to do this part, and are trying to blame someone else.
Either you didnt research enough into if that modem would work correctly in the first place, or did not configure it correctly (Which is what it sounds like).
How anyone can believe this is anything other than user-error is beyond me.
The cable company are unwilling to offer compensation. According to my contract, the company can only modify equipment which they own. The question: have they broken the UK's Computer Misuse Act? Should they be liable for damages caused?"
Yes, one of their employees, not the company, has almost certainly broken Section 1 of the UK Computer Misuse Act 1990, which states:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if--
(a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
(b) the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
(c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
UK Computer Misuse Act 1990
It almost certainly hinges on the final clause, that they knew this access was not authorised. It seems resonable to assume they do know about their responsibilities under the Computer Misuse Act, so I suggest you try to get then to admit it.