Slashdot Mirror
Users Conned by Cable Con
RJ Mansfield writes "MSNBC is running a story on users attempting to con their cable companies being connned. The high-cost filter being sold on Ebay and through email Spam to bypass Pay-Per-View (PPV) digital cable systems is a readily available filter that only temporarily blocks the PPV charges. Users are getting shocked when the cable company then bills the cable user for all of the ordered PPV."
Sounds fair to me, but knowing the type of people who do this, their first reaction is going to be one of "What a second! We weren't told about this!! We were busy reaching around your jacket to get your wallet, we didn't know that you were grabbing ours in the process!"
Suckers; Look what happens when you try to 'Steal' without research.... hehehe
Users are getting shocked when the cable company then bills the cable user for all of the ordered PPV."
I imagine Nelson (from Simpsons fame) saying "Ha-ha!"
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
We had free PPV for awhile, and we couldn't figure out why. We thought that they were charging us the whole time, so we called and asked, they hadn't known a thing. Ah well, all that free porn...
Seriously, are there people here on Slashdot who believe that stealing pay-per-view movies is better than just paying the cable company the $3.25 or whatever for a movie? I'm actually curious if anyone reading this site has tried one of these things, and if so, what the rationale behind using it was.
They that would sacrifice their
Wahhh!! That's so sad!! I need some tissue to dry away the tears!!
Not.
Anyone who is stupid enough to buy one of these devices is getting what they deserve. If you want the premium channels, then pay for them. If you think the cable company charges too much, then complain to them and rent DVDs. But that doesn't give you any right to steal the programming.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Morons for not downloading a divx movie on Kazaa instead =P
That's much more effective piracy.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Otherwise /.ers everywhere would be either broke or divorced or both.
I just read the article, and the people are getting charged HUGE bills for watching TV that they didnt pay for, live, while it was being broadcast.
Hey they watched pay per veiw, a service that has been around a while and been accepted as being viable, and they are being told to pay for it. They dont even have ground to complain, it would be like getting robbed by a drug dealer who gave you bad drugs!
"well officer, I was trying to by some cocaine, and i found out that it was 50% sugar!"
I just find it funny some people are complaining about about being "cheated" by the product.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
It seems fair to me that someone trying to cheat on PPV charges would get burned.
A more interresting question is who did more wrong... Is it worse to try and circumvent PPV charges, or are the people selling these devices the real bad guys?
Opinions?
.: Max Romantschuk
that these devices are legal?
Talk about a devious ploy... this just reinforces my suspicions that cable companies are run by supervillains with dark hats and twirly moustaches.
And two years from now, the RIAA charges everyone that's been using Napster/Kazaa/Morpheus/Gnutella/Etc for all the music they've "bought".
I just discovered that Ebay is holding shares of the mentioned cable company ! They are the ones that sold the damn thingie while trying to increase their PPV profits !
SUE! SUE! SUE!
Sky in the UK have cottoned on this sort of thing as well. With SKY if you order PPV the box dials up sky to get authorisation. People realised this, unplugged the phone and found that they sky box would then grant them access as it gave them the benefit of doubt.
:) Fantastic
What they didn't realise that they box has a £50 credit limit so if you hit this then it stops. So people then plugged the box back in, it dial sky and they get a bill for £50
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
This is what we're talking about. A little crappy coax coupler. I saw this on ebay a couple days ago, and thought to myself 'This must be a scam -- such a little thing can't work, since real descrambler boxes are pretty large and complicated'. Guess I was right.
In reality, from experience these people tend to fall into two camps.... "I don't like digital", and "anything digital is good". And its for the exact same reason: how easy is it to pirate the material and how likely they are to accept change.
The acceptable use norm of material has been founded on the concept of being able to make a copy of whatever and whenever. Old analogue stuff was way too easy for anyone who had a vcr, digital stuff takes some work but once you have it you can ultimately do whatever you like. This is of course not what they owners/licensees want. And unfortunately this philosophy of anything intangible should ultimately be free as it cost them nothing to reproduce goes down deep in modern society.
What is needed is compromise on both parties, companies need to make things affordable instead of gouging consumers and the consumers have to realize that it cost somebody money and time to produce something so they should pay for it. I know this sounds a bit circular and communistic but the reality is that both camps can be happy if they both cooperate.
But this in the end is wishful thinking as the article clearly points out that there's plenty of people out there ready to cheat the system and complain when they get caught.
I hate to be a pedant, and I imagine bringing this up will not be a popular action, but can you tell me exactly how the cable companies are 'conning' people here? It looks to me quite clearly that the cable companies are merely charging their users for services that they agreed to pay for when they signed up for service. Is this really a con?
Obviously the real scammers here are the selfish, dishonorable scum who sell these 'filters'.
And no, before one of you "information wants to be free" people chime in, I don't want to hear any bullshit about how the cable companies are 'evil' because they charge you for content.
Only on slashdot can a posting be rated "Score -1, Insightful".
"Theft is like anything else, it requires a clue to complete successfully."
If only your statment could be applied to breeding...
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
As the saying goes.
Though I have to say I'm slightly puzzled by the consensus here that it is wrong not to pay for content and the 'victims' deserved all they get, but elsewhere on Slashdot there is outrage when action is taken against filesharers. When is copyright material not copyright material?
Nobody said eBay is spamming people about this device. You are apparently overlooking the word "and" between "Ebay" and "through email spam". Sellers are peddling the devices on eBay, and they are also selling them via spam.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
I believe that he is refering to peoples posts where others are saying cable companies are conning people or entrapping them, you should try getting a clue yourself before insulting others without all the facts.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
...you clear the memory of your cable box? You block the upstream, it unscrambles the show, the box gets bulletted disabled, you clear the memory and then call to report a problem. They reset the box and everything works fine? Sure it might be a tad inconvenient but if you really really wanted to watch that boxing event...
Or, if you can't clear the memory, box um "dies" and takes the bill with it. Return box to cable company and get replacement.
I'm not saying of course these are legal or ethical but I'm just saying that if someone's stealing PPV what would prevent them from doing either of these? Rule number one when you are stealing a service is you don't call tech support. If your box quits working, then, make sure the box *quits working*.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
Man, I thought the same thing after seeing what dept brought us the article. Are we two of a kind or what?
A couple of years ago, when i was addicted to quake, lived at home and only had access to dialup i got hold of some strolen accounts. These were not ordinary "free" dialup accounts that looks like just another phonenumber on your phonebill, but a toll-free number that billed the owner of the account.
:)
:)
Yeah, i know, it was a really low thing to do on my part.. but i knew i was not the only one using the account, and the real person that owned the account would never end up having to pay the bill. So i felt i only screwed over a "big company".
I was young and dumb
Anyways, a couple of months later, my ordinary phonebill dropped down in the mailbox. It was a *little* bit bigger than usual. There were no additional notes on the bill and there was no warning about legal actions from the company, so i payed the bill and kept my mouth shut.
I got what i deserved and i learned my lesson
Since it's known that Ebay gives out information about customers to law enforcement agencies, it's probably possible to get information about the peddlers selling the descrambler. Hope they covered their tracks.
-Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow
I'm not sure what the difference is between the large boxes and the coax filter, but I do know that it takes more than a simple coax filter to do descrambling. (There has to be filter tuning, which involves user control, which makes it so you can't just do "Plug-n-Play" of descramblers)
It's my guess that you need a -real- cable descrambler (as in, one from the official cable company) to use the coax filter, and that cable box needs to send data to the cable company to work, so the coax filter blocks one half of the transaction or something. This puzzles me, though, because I think getting the legitimate descrambler box would cost more than it would to get a "pirate" cable box anyways.
Anybody know more than I do about this?
(P.S. NO I DON'T STEAL CABLE. Why would I anyways, all they ever do is play shitty movies that involve naked women and exploding cars and crap.)
For once, the editors are okay here. Break it down:
The "Cable Con" part referred to in the title: "You can get free PPV, if you buy this thingy. Con your cable comany!"
However, those people who think they are going to con themselves get conned, because they actually bought a worthless piece of crap. See how the users got conned by a cable con?
... how people here are pointing out the balantly obvious fact that the people who are getting the bills are getting exactly what they deserve, since they have enjoyed a service that they have agreed to pay for, and therefore is only fair if they, well, pay for it...
While a couple of articles back these same people were defending the virtues of file "sharing" networks, where users are comfortably ignoring the fact that they have agreed *not* to redistribute the copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holders.
Really, make up your minds: either file sharing a la KaZaa is ok and the people who bought these devices shouldn't pay for the content they "downloaded" for free or file sharing a la KaZaa is *not* ok and the people who bought these devices should pay for the content they downloaded.
It's very simple: you want content X? You pay for it. Why? Because the content provider says so and we have given them the power to be like that.
>"well officer, I was trying to by some cocaine, and i found out that it was 50% sugar!"
How about I was buying coke and half of it was cut with cyanide and a few friends died? Do we laugh them? If the nanny state says, "No drugs for you" that doesn't mean con artists get a free ride to do whatever they please.
I see no reason why the users of these devices shouldn't sue the retailers and manufacterers for false advertising. Just because something is contra-band doesnt give you the right to do what you please.
Its illegal to make lethal booby traps for criminals and for a good reason too. Not just to protect the police who might stumble on them (or kids or whomever) but because criminals actually have rights! Due process and all. Look it up sometime in the Constitution, its a fading fad thanks to post 9/11 hysteria but its still a good idea.
How could these users be conned by Cable Con? Everyone knows that Cable Con just makes the cables... 'Iron' Jimmy and 'Brother' Nunzio do all the hard work like conning people, and breaking their kneecaps... Jeez, people.
Surprised if Cable Con doesn't sue slashdot for slander.
You're doing it wrong.
Is there any possibilty that it is someone from a cable company posting these things on eBay?
Consider....
People here always argue that copying music isn't stealing because nothing is in reality stolen. Everyone seems to agree with that. How is it then that cable piracy is now being called stealing, and everyone agrees with that too. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but come on, pick a side and stick to it.
I think a lot of /.ers suffer from hypocrisy.
it is ok to con the PPV channel.
it is ok to con the music industry
it is ok to con Microsoft by copying all their software (for those of you who use it)
but when someone else (other article some time ago) violates the GPL by not opening their code, you rant and rave about 'theft'.
seriously, it is all the same.
the only difference is POV.
Int.
Satellite TV in Spain (cable didn't catch on) relied on a smart card that contains all the information about what the subscriber has paid for. This meant that if you reprogrammed the card to contain the most recent user codes, you could access all the PPV channels for free. If you have a legit card, it recieves the new codes from the satellite signal itself.
There was a huge underground industry around - it got to the point were people where actually selling cards with PICs on them which would reprogram themselves automatically, getting the info from the satellite signal.
Obviously the satellite company knew about it, as did everybody else. I cannot think of anyone that didn't have one of these cards (if they had satellite obviously). The TV company didn't do anything about it for a couple of years. Why? Market share. The more people that signed up for their service and got a box, at a higher price than it would be with the compentition, the better in the long run for the company. People were signing up left right and center with the expectation of being able to unlock all the channels.
And then all of a sudden - clamp down! The company started verifying the user info in a different way an bingo - millions of subscribers that are addicted to 24/7 PPV.
The people buying these filters are clearly :
1) Trying to break the law by stealing cable content
2) Complete morons
Why is anyone spending time and money taking out adverts on Ebay to warn them?
But I think the number is smaller than you think.
There's also some differences. The law is the law, and if you don't like the price of some goods than don't buy them, but also don't consider yourself morally free to steal them, either. That's the law, and there are a lot of hypocritical people out there that only follow laws they agree with.
On the other hand, the difference between all the things you mention and GPLed projects are that GPLed projects are FREE, and people still "steal" the code. Most people who admit to pirating at least make the CLAIM that if prices were lower they'd go the legal route. GPLed code is out there for the good of the community, and when people steal it the community suffers. You can say the same is true of the entertainment and commercial software industry, but we all know they do, in fact, make quite large profits despite thievery. GPL programmers often donate their code (which is time, and time is money) for free.
I've noticed, though, for some people it's not so much about saving money as it is a moral imperitive to rip off a big company. I disagree with this sentiment, but I hear and read a lot from people who steal content, and reading between the lines that's the conclusion I come to fairly often. That is quite hypocritical.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
You don't really believe that, do you?
I can just about see a lack of prior intent if I was to be approached in the street and offered the descrambler there and then for a fee.
Receiving a spam email for that same product doesn't let me off the hook. That would be no different to having been offered a leaflet describing how I could visit a website to purchase one, rather than being offered the product itself. If I have no intent, I dispose of the leaflet. Any other action surely has to not just imply, but pretty much be, convincing evidence of my intent.
If you think about it, what could be a better scam. If you are a cable company, sell faulty descramblers through some sort of made up distributor. Then when people start using the devices (and they start to fail) you get all kinds of new revenue.
Kinda like running a stock research site and giving good or bad reviews on companies you have just bought or shorted.
This is the device (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ite m=3013536743). Aside from the name, the write up only says you can get PPV, etc. when the coupler is connected to the appropriate box. Which is true since it is just a coupler. The buyer is inferring from the _name_ that the device will make the viewing free. A court case would revolve around whether it is reasonable to assume a descrambling ability when no such ability was mentioned in the description. The description would be argued as being the seller's definition of the name. Their definition does _not_ mention descrambling. Which makes the scam a rather tidy one.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
The idea of cable descrambling is so you can have another box in your house and not pay the cable company rental fees. Of course this box will have to do it's own cable descrambling so you can get the cable channels you pay for. So in a nutshell, yes it is LEGAL to make such a device but all these devices have a disclaimer on them: IT IS ILLEGAL TO STEAL CABLE CHANNELS, PLEASE CONTACT YOU CABLE COMPANY AND TELL THEM SO THEY MAY BILL YOU FOR THE SERVICE
ALSO: to those that think people get these things to get free $3.50 movies, ummmm the last Roy Jones Jr fight I watched was $49.95... Wrestlemania 100000 is coming up and I'm sure that'll be near 50 American as well.
After reading this and laughing (I know a guy that got seriously burned after unplugging his DirecTV's phone line for awhile) I decided to take a look at raymond917's eBay Feedback rating.
He's got a pair of shades next to his rating. Make me wonder if he'll change his moniker after this.
What I found interesting is how much an average person such as myself can find out about someone just by looking at their eBay Feedback and any of the still available auciton listings. This guy likes kickboxing movies, in fact he's bought a number of them since January 1st. He bought a Gunman Chronicles/Survival/Alcatraz mulit-pack at the end of February that he's selling already.
Things like this with eBay make you go hmmm.
d a v e
"Hmmm...upgrades."
Who would pay for that, when you can download multiracial, teen anal, midget fisting porn for free?
While a 1-{800 | 888 | 877 | 866} number is free to the calling party, except for some nefarious call redirection scams, it is NOT free to the receiving party. They pay for the call. They can receive ANI information detailing which phone number is calling them.
Unlike Caller-ID information which is transmitted in-band (on the same line) between the first and second telephone ring and can be blocked by the dialing party, the ANI service is transmitted off-band and CANNOT be blocked when you call an 800 number. It's always there.
I don't see how this is substantially different from the RIAA or others going on the offensive against users downloading music illegally. Yet Slashdoters jeer these poor jerks who are stealing cable (in the third person), but cheer the freedom-loving Americans who download copyrighted music (should be in the first person).
Don't get me wrong -- I think the RIAA is paddling the wrong way on a roaring river, but the fact is copying music is pretty much the same crime as stealing PPV.
You made a device that not only filters the outbound datastream, but knows how to respond to the cable company polling?
It would be interesting to know if the cable company was bright enough to make the polling/response sequence an encrypted one.
I can also imagine someone figuring out how to blank the local viewing records on the decoder - use the filter, watch your show, blank the record, remove the filter.
P2P != copying music
In a cable service, you have channels that are eligible for and ineligible for when you pay a certain rate. This is the agreement that you have with your cable company. Obtaining more channels (or PPV features) without paying for them in illegal.
P2P is simply a concept - technology if you will - that allows machines to share files. No matter how you look at peer-to-peer transfers, I look at it in its basic parts: machines (peers) sending data to other machines (peers). P2P's concept has existed since we were able to transfer a file from one system to another. P2P's preferred modern implementations make it extraordinarily easy to transfer data - OF ANY TYPE - without having to use the old methods (of which I'll name a few):
1) "sneaker-net", in which case one person would place data on a tape, disk, or other medium to be transferred to another machine.
2) a computer (peer) connecting via sounds-signals to another computer (peer) via modem (or other like devices).
3) a computer (peer) connecting to a web server (peer) via TCP/IP.
The third example brings up a unique point since modern P2P clients generally transmit their data based off HTTP transactions - each client that runs such a client are acting as HTTP servers and HTTP clients.
RIAA is targetting the concept of P2P - the concept which they themselves use to hand out press releases and data to their customer base via http://www.riaa.org.
In the cable example, there are no legitimate (legal) reasons for obtaining channels outside the scope of your contract plan. As we have known since HTML was invented and widely deployed, there are plenty of fully LEGAL and GOOD reasons to have P2P - it's the basic function of the Internet. One peer connected to many different peers transmitting data (irregardless of content). Making P2P illegal is stupid. Punishing companies would provide a technologically innovative application to consumers is also just as stupid.
Let's view a parallel example:
Four people use a 1996 Chevy Impala SS as a fast getaway car that cost a bank a tens of thousands of dollars and injured a couple members of society. If it were up to the RIAA, not only would the perpetrators be locked up, but General Motors would have an injunction placed against them by a ruling judge for providing a vehicle to carry out illegal activites (referencing Napster). This abuse of the judicial system is sickening. It's also disappointing that the people we elect are not properly versed in the differentiate between technology and abuse of available technologies.
There is no computer that inherently attempts to commit illegal acts. Just like a 1996 Chevy Impala SS does not in itself attempt to commit an illegal act. I will even go so far as to say that the Napster, Gnutella clients, Kazaa!, and *Donkey P2P applications also themselves do not inherently commit illegal acts. The problem exists between the chair and the keyboard - if people choose to be dishonest and misuse a product in a which for which it was not intended, the liability is upon them. This applies to the people who wish to obtain cable service above and beyond the scope of their contract.
Ayup