Slashdot Mirror


Comcast Apologizes For Super Bowl Porn Glitch

DrinkDr.Pepper writes "Just after the last touchdown by the Cardinals, with 3 minutes to go in the game, approximately 30 seconds of pornographic material was shown, seen by an unknown number of Comcast customers in Tucson, Arizona who were watching the game in standard definition. Comcast has apologized (they used the word 'mortified') and is issuing a $10 credit to any customer who claims to have been impacted. Various news accounts suggest that the incident was a malicious act, but no one knows how it was done or by whom."

80 of 526 comments (clear)

  1. First penis by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tyler Durden strikes again!

    1. Re:First penis by martinw89 · · Score: 3, Funny

      While Ron Jeremy incidentally does have a penis, I believe Tyler Durden is the one inserting it everywhere.

    2. Re:First penis by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anybody who's married. We're not inserting it anywhere. (without permission)

      --
      You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    3. Re:First penis by snspdaarf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, not everywhere everywhere.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    4. Re:First penis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You must be new here. Nobody here gets laid. Leave while you can!

    5. Re:First penis by Ares · · Score: 5, Funny

      there are married people here?

      :: ducks as his wife reads over his shoulder ::

    6. Re:First penis by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't lie. You're still interested.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:First penis by Miseph · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I think the girl in the clip has some pretty compelling evidence she was "impacted".

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  2. Thanks comcast by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Funny

    First time I'll have been paid to watch porn.

    1. Re:Thanks comcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is it, you pervert! NSFW! (obviously) http://comcastsuperbowlporn.com/cache/page2.html#video

    2. Re:Thanks comcast by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

      Even more amusing is that somebody registered ComcastSuperBowlPorn.com just to display it.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:Thanks comcast by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 5, Informative

      Direct link. Otherwise I just get told I don't have the proper plug-in. Not very interesting porn, though.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    4. Re:Thanks comcast by Aazzkkimm · · Score: 5, Funny

      In Tucson, AZ, porn pays YOU!

      --
      Desire is not an occupation.
  3. Janet Jackson Started a trend by FredFredrickson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know your feature is boring when people watch it to see the funny ads, and in order to keep ratings up they flash tits at every turn.. Janet Jackson Started a trend..

    What's so big about this football anyway?

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    1. Re:Janet Jackson Started a trend by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would have agreed a few years ago, but the last two Superbowl matchups have been excellent, exciting games. For that matter I thought Springsteen did a great job with the halftime show, no gimmicks or voiceovers.

  4. I think by duckInferno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the day that a news source posts a full uncensored clip of the incident is the day society has truly moved on from the arbitrary taboos of old.

    Of course it'd also be the day that such an incident would merit only a footnote in an "odd stuff" newspaper section.

    --
    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    1. Re:I think by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Our brains are hard-wired for taboos because they helped primitive societies avoid disasters.

      There is a lot of "noise" in the taboo "signal", for example: taboo words. But some taboos (against incest, or eating certain things) were socially useful. Even the common taboo against homosexual sex could have been beneficial to primitive societies because such practices were significantly more likely to spread disease through the population. Obviously, modern medicine makes this a non-issue, today.

      I would say it is unrealistic to expect a society to have no useless taboos, because they are physically part of our brains. But if we stop using government to enforce useless taboos, we will have advanced.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:I think by duckInferno · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The homosexual taboo is a relatively recent development. Many ancient cultures practiced it openly and it was often seen to be as perfectly normal as a relationship between a man and a woman.

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
  5. Is there a difference? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With the Superbowl commercials being what they were this year, I'm surprised anyone noticed the difference. GoDaddy in particular is getting out of hand, though I was not impressed by the Doritos or NBC commercials either. (At least the Conan commercial was just amusing innuendo.) All around, it was a rather embarrassing year to be watching the Superbowl with the family.

    1. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Christ, grow up, and pull the stick out of your ass already.

      He can't. He's nailed to it.

    2. Re:Is there a difference? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      All around, it was a rather embarrassing year to be watching the Superbowl with the family.

      You mean, more embarrassing than all the other years you watched a bunch of big sweaty guys in tights slapping each other on the ass for hours?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Is there a difference? by BobReturns · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair to the grandparent, he did say "with the family.".
      I wouldn't mind virtually any amount of explicit content in ads if I was on my own, but I'd be unhappy if there were kids watching it with me.

    4. Re:Is there a difference? by twistah · · Score: 5, Informative

      Maybe you should tell your family this isn't the Victorian era anymore.

    5. Re:Is there a difference? by jaavaaguru · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really? I sat in a bar and watched Superbowl. I didn't see anything that I'd consider particularly raunchy or inappropriate, and I didn't hear any complaints from the people around me either. Are Americans really this prudish when it comes to TV advertising?

    6. Re:Is there a difference? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe you should tell your family this isn't the Victorian era anymore.

      But they'd already spent so much on their wigs!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Is there a difference? by eigenstates · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait- we /aren't/ supposed to be running around... oh shit.

      --
      quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    8. Re:Is there a difference? by jmichaelg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A family watching the Super Bowl has a reasonable expectation that they won't be subjected to someone else's idea of what acceptable sexual mores are these days. It was a football game, not a Victoria Secret premier.

      Personally, I don't care about porn being available but I can sympathize with folks who were offended by Go Daddy's poor taste. I watched the game at a friend's house and ofter the Go Daddy Ad aired, they decided to switch registrars for their family domain away from Go Daddy.

    9. Re:Is there a difference? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why? Is explicit content something dirty or shameful to be hidden away from the eyes of our poor defenseless children?

      Yes, and I think we should KILL anyone who exposes children to graphic sexual imagery. After all, all children are products of violence, but not all children are products of sex. Er, wait...

      (If you (the global you) were thinking of bringing up test tube babies as a counterexample, just kill yourself. kthxbye.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Is there a difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If it's NOT dirty/shameful, then you're not doing it right.

    11. Re:Is there a difference? by Bonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't mind virtually any amount of explicit content in ads if I was on my own, but I'd be unhappy if there were kids watching it with me.

      I submit that this is a cultural artifact.

      You either see nothing offensive in ads with explicit content or feel that you can safely ignore it because you understand the difference between real life and the image of life that such advertisements would present. However, you'd be uncomfortable showing a child the same thing. Why is this?

      I suspect there are a few reasons ranging the spectrum from cultural guilt, to superstition, and taboo abeyance.

      Perhaps you'd feel responsible for educating the child on the differences between real life and the image of life that are presented by advertisers. In any other context, this is something we don't even think about. We know that simply eating breakfast cereal doesn't suddenly make you super-athletic and attractive. We don't have any difficulty repeating that to children, or explaining what's necessary to achieve those goals in the real world. But since our culture has placed such a strict taboo about imparting sex education to children, we feel incapable of telling the same kids that drinking beer and wine coolers doesn't make you attractive to half-naked dancers. We don't tell them that getting drunk in order to seek sexual gratification is a really risky, self-destructive behavior.

      Arguably the latter is a much more important life lesson, but that same taboo forbids us from admitting that children have sexuality, let alone that they're even more vulnerable to being pandered to than adults.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    12. Re:Is there a difference? by HiThere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Never lived on a farm, did you. Yet through most of history most families did. And also lived in single room huts.

      Exposure to sex isn't harmful to children. I have no idea why some people think it is.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:Is there a difference? by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Nevada you can have sex with a 14 year old if you're 35

      huh?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    14. Re:Is there a difference? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm amazed that among all these replies, no one has considered that my problem might not be so much the sex itself as much as the attitude toward sex? We're talking about commercials that objectify the people and devalue the act itself. Perhaps as a parent, I don't really want my kids to think of sex that way?

      And besides. If we start allowing sex everywhere on television, that will soon be the ONLY thing on television. (It's getting pretty close these days.) There's always the desire to pander to the lowest common denominator. As an intelligent species capable of reasoning and critical thinking, we should be making efforts to stimulate our intelligence rather than pandering to our baser instincts.

      For those of you who need the cliff notes version (probably the ones who think these commercials are "ok"): I don't want my kids to grow up to be drooling apes.

    15. Re:Is there a difference? by nodrogluap · · Score: 5, Informative

      Funny enough, the commercial must have worked, because guess where the guy bought the domain:

      % whois ComcastSuperBowlPorn.com

      Whois Server Version 2.0

            Domain Name: COMCASTSUPERBOWLPORN.COM
            Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
            Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
            Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com/
            Name Server: DNS66-1.NEXCESS.NET
            Name Server: DNS66-2.NEXCESS.NET
            Status: clientDeleteProhibited
            Status: clientRenewProhibited
            Status: clientTransferProhibited
            Status: clientUpdateProhibited
            Updated Date: 01-feb-2009
            Creation Date: 01-feb-2009
            Expiration Date: 01-feb-2010

      >>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:46:33 EST

    16. Re:Is there a difference? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean, more embarrassing than all the other years you watched a bunch of big sweaty guys in tights slapping each other on the ass for hours?

      They aren't slapping ass for hours. There's incidental ass-slapping between bouts of football playing. Here's how it works:

      If you're watching a show where it's in the majority football, with occasional ass-slapping, then you're watching the Super Bowl.

      If you're watching a show where it's mostly ass-slapping with some football thrown in, then you're watching the DVD classing The Super Bowel.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:Is there a difference? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a difference between sex and porn, though. Sure children shouldn't be taught that sex is somehow wrong or taboo. But the way sex is presented in a lot of porn pandering to male adolescent fantasies that have nothing to do with sex with a real live woman. I have nothing against porn, but children don't need to see women moaning with pleasure when nothing particularly pleasurable is happening to them - it wrong information that leads to urealistic expectations.

    18. Re:Is there a difference? by HiThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To an extent I agree with you. The problem is the tremendous range of things that get called porn...all the way down to a woman nursing her child.

      Porn, apparently, is anything that bothers someone somewhere that has any connection however remote to sex.

      I'd be much more in favor of saying that children shouldn't be exposed to violence. That wouldn't work either, but it would make as much sense.

      FWIW, banning the road-runner cartoons for excessive violence is just stupid. STUPID!! Some people seem to think that censorship is the answer to everything. They ban cartoons, but don't stop wars. Which is more violent?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    19. Re:Is there a difference? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed, and what I said wasn't meant to extend to some prudish, Victorian attitude about sex. And I have nothing against porn being made that shows women as playthings for men - any man who doesn't know the difference between how women act in the fantasy porno world and how real women respond sexually is ... well limited. But children don't know this - they see is what they see - they have no context to put it in. Besides that, I would have thought that the reason adults wouldn't want to see porn in front of children is simply beacuse it is pornographic - it's meant to arouse or at least titillate. Surely this introduces a certain awkwardness to the family lunch? Recognising that sex is essentially private act and not wanting it to be commodified to sell whatever isn't the same as prudishness.

  6. Comcast missed the point. by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comcast needn't have apologised for broadcasting porn. What did warrant an apology was showing porn containing nothing more than an ugly guy flapping his cock all over the place. You, sirs, have crossed the line!

    --
    Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
  7. What, no link ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok, watch the clip in question here...

    1. Re:What, no link ? by halcyon1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm just waiting for someone to post a link to a 30 second long clip of the Super Bowl that ends with no porn.

      BOWLROLLED!

    2. Re:What, no link ? by griffjon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Taken down for TOS violation. Was it because it was porn or because it was rebroadcasting the superbowl?

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
  8. Re:FTA by Hatta · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll show you 30 seconds of full male nudity for $10.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  9. PPV by Fnord666 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Knowing Comcast, I'm surprised they didn't bill everyone for the whole Pay-Per-View movie!

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  10. And Somewhere... by AioKits · · Score: 4, Funny

    And somewhere in that mess, someone was enjoying some porno only to have their fantasy broken by the defensive line of the Cardinals.

    --
    "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
    1. Re:And Somewhere... by genner · · Score: 5, Funny

      And somewhere in that mess, someone was enjoying some porno only to have their fantasy broken by the defensive line of the Cardinals.

      Some people are in to that.

    2. Re:And Somewhere... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Funny

      And somewhere in that mess, someone was enjoying some porno only to have their fantasy broken by the defensive line of the Cardinals.

      Yeah, where's my $10, you bastards? That KY doesn't pay for itself you know.... ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  11. Link? by A.+B3ttik · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can we get a link to the Porn?

    I googled "Porn" and nothing came up.

    1. Re:Link? by Fnord666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I googled "Porn" and nothing came up.

      But did it suggest pr0n as an alternate search term?

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  12. Irony... by MojoRilla · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Several years ago when my home team was in the Superbowl, my comcast cable went out for several hours during the game. Their response was tough luck. They weren't willing to give me any credit. So it is pretty ironic that people "exposed" to 30 seconds of porn are getting $10 back. The moral of the story is that corporations are only responsible when the news media shames them.

  13. It's a broadcast. It may invoke revenue clauses. by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Laugh about the porn clip (I did, here in Tucson, I yelled "FTW!")

    But depending on the origin of the video, Comcast may be on a very real hook for broadcasting copyrighted material without license, and could conceivably be exposed to distribution royalties for a much larger audience than the one that is supposed to be limited to a specific, accountable pay-per-view arrangement.

    I would be very surprised if lawyers were not working this out in a damage control mode.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  14. Re:four hours of violent smashing is not porn? by BiAthlon · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're doing it wrong.

  15. Malicious or ignorant? by daveywest · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I work for a CATV operator, and my desk is 200 feet from the headend. There is no way that could have been a glitch. The real question is was it a malicious or ignorant act of an employee. Regardless, the unemployment rate just went up in Tucson.

    1. Re:Malicious or ignorant? by TheSync · · Score: 5, Informative

      Reasonable providers (read those that aren't Comcast) will separate adult and non-adult programming onto different QAMs.

      Here is where the problem could have occured:

      1) Video input problem: MSO Satellite Radio tuned to wrong channel. Doubtful because of authentication / encryption. This is more likely if the east coast/west coast feed of the same provider got swapped. Also if the MSO was using an over-the-air TV receiver, that of course can't happen. If the MSO gets a video fiber from the TV station, that might be a fiber carrier routing screw up.

      2) Video router misconfiguration: Ff the satellite radio outputs baseband video, it may go through a video crosspoint swtich (they call them "routers"). The wrong crosspoints between the satellite radios and the modulators (analog tier) or encoders (digital tier)

      3) Multiplexer/CherryPicker misconfiguration: On the digital tier, MPEG-2 programs are multiplexed together into a QAM. It is possible there was a brief misconfiguration.

      Big question - did this happen on the Comcast SD digital tier, HD digital tier, the analog tier, or some combination? If it was both analog and digital SD, I would suspect a video router crosspoint misconfiguration. If it was just digital SD or digital HD, I would suspect a multiplexer misconfiguration.

  16. Meanwhile, back at the Butt-Bowl . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    ". . . huh, huh . . huh, huh . . . Beavis, we're like watching Cum-Cast now . . ."

    ". . . heh, heh . . . hehehe . . . Wait they're showing football again . . . change it! Change it!"

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  17. And where's MY ten dollars? by meist3r · · Score: 5, Funny

    I had to watch 30 seconds of Super Bowl right inbetween my porn. That's so not cool Comcast.

  18. comcast by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 3, Funny

    So this is the Superbowl "Package" Deal that Comcast was advertising, huh?

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  19. They're showing the real game... by need4mospd · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're just showing what the sportscasters were watching anyways. "Check out that penetration!" "Yeah John, you can see the backfield has been totally violated." "If he got his hands on that ball, he would have scored for sure."

    1. Re:They're showing the real game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...getting all the way through to the clitoris...

      Judging by your idea of the female anatomy, I would expect your slashdot UID to be lower...

  20. Just like the movie 'Hackers' by Agent0013 · · Score: 4, Funny

    See, that movie wasn't all that ridiculous. That is probably what happened. Some 'Zero Cool' dude must have hacked into the network and changed the channel!

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  21. Other TV hacks by twistah · · Score: 5, Informative

    I love when stuff like this happens. In the past, there have been incidents such as when someone switched over a feed of Jeopardy to the Playboy Channel. Other notable incidents:

    Max Headroom Incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWdgAMYjYSs
    HBO "Captain Midnight" incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFlMHCdYXLM

  22. 30 Seconds from Tucson by d0n0vAn · · Score: 5, Funny

    As an accounting major, I am just doing the math: 30 seconds of pr0n equals $10 dollars...so, that's $20 a minute and $1200 dollars an hour. By my calculations, I can watch two hours of pr0n each month and be able to pay my tuition instead of taking student loans. What a country!!!

  23. *NOT* interested by DrYak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Trust him.

    Once he has seen the time-consuming, noisy, loud and dirty results that started appearing 9 months after the "insertion", he'll never ever be even interested in inserting his penis anywhere.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:*NOT* interested by mustafap · · Score: 5, Funny

      >How does your statement explain the 2nd child? And the 3rd? I'm a 4th child of a married couple

      Alcohol.

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    2. Re:*NOT* interested by Hork_Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mailman.

    3. Re:*NOT* interested by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      >How does your statement explain the 2nd child? And the 3rd? I'm a 4th child of a married couple

      Alcohol.

      Catholicism.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:*NOT* interested by Ihmhi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Catholic Alcoholic Mailman.

  24. edge of their seats... by howman · · Score: 4, Funny

    was that during the game or the penis flash?

    --
    flinging poop since 1969
  25. People noticed? by Lennort · · Score: 4, Funny

    With Madden talking about penetration and strong man hands the whole time I'm surprised anybody even noticed.

  26. comcastsuperbowlporn.com traffic by jabberwock · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I emailed the guy who grabbed the domain and posted the video. Traffic: 178,000-plus the first day.

    http://www.intotemptation.net/2009/02/03/super-bowl-porn-postmortem/

    Unfortunately for him ... he had no plan to monetize the traffic at all.

    How fast do you think traffic will drop off? My guess is ... down 80 percent in 30 days ...

  27. $10? by linuxosinside · · Score: 4, Funny

    I would have claimed developing a porn addiction and demanded free porn for the rest of the year.

  28. Thanks Madden by Main+Gauche · · Score: 5, Funny

    Most amusing was, after they cut back to the SuperBowl, you hear Madden saying "He went to the perfect guy, in the perfect situation."

  29. When I was 17. . . by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I was 17 my father said the following: "the reason God made kids so cute is so people would have more than one of them before they turned into teenagers."

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:When I was 17. . . by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 4, Funny

      You were pretty lucky. My parents said they were made cute so that they wouldn't be tempted to kill them.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
  30. Bird porn. by hack++slash · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't get it, what's so bad about some superb owl porn?

    --
    To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
  31. Why pay 10 bucks for that when free? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 3, Funny

    While you can have it for free at Comcast?

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  32. Simple answers to simple questions... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really? I sat in a bar and watched Superbowl. I didn't see anything that I'd consider particularly raunchy or inappropriate, and I didn't hear any complaints from the people around me either. Are Americans really this prudish when it comes to TV advertising?

    Yes.

  33. A view from Europe by Don_dumb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would be massively more exciting if they didn't keep throwing adverts and extended half time breaks in. It's a great way to lose the tension and the moment - several minutes of drinks adverts.

    PS - if you need Cheerleaders, you don't have an atmosphere.

    --
    If this were really happening, what would you think?
  34. Last penis by Ostracus · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Who here that has a penis ISN'T interested in inserting it everywhere?"

    But does it blend? Oh wait!

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  35. Injecting signals into cable TV by Skapare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although the tap to each home attenuates the signal quite a bit, it is possible for people to inject signals into the cable system. It won't go beyond the first amplifier unless its frequency is in the uplink band and that signal won't be redistributed. But it does mean people can distribute weak signals around their neighborhood. On frequencies the cable company isn't using, it won't take a lot of signal to communicate with your neighbors. For example you could run your own neighborhood LAN over the cable wires.

    It would take a LOT of signal power to take over an existing signal. You'd have to boost it as much as the attenuator tap reduces it, plus the additional amount to take over the signal on that channel. But it would be possible. So what I'm curious about is just how widespread this porn was seen in Tuscon.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars