| |
[COX] cable trapSo right now I am getting Limited Basic TV service from Cox and a Cox guy had to install a cable trap and I am still getting snowy channels on my TV. Is there any filter that I can buy to un block the snowy channels on my TV? |
|
08034016 (banned)Hallo lisa Aus Amerika
join:2001-08-31
Byron, GA
1 recommendation |
08034016 (banned)
Member
2009-Jun-5 4:35 pm
That's Illegal!!!!!  |
|
| |
to amirschiffer7
said by amirschiffer7: I am still getting snowy channels on my TV. Is there any filter that I can buy to un block the snowy channels on my TV? If you are not paying for the snowy channels, there is not much you can do. As you no doubt know, paying customers with snowy channels can complain to the cable company. If there is a good signal from the cable company and internal house wiring is causing a problem, an amplifier can help. But if the incoming signal is bad, you won't have much luck. |
|
08034016 (banned)Hallo lisa Aus Amerika
join:2001-08-31
Byron, GA
1 recommendation |
08034016 (banned)
Member
2009-Jun-6 7:57 pm
said by ArgMeMatey:said by amirschiffer7: I am still getting snowy channels on my TV. Is there any filter that I can buy to un block the snowy channels on my TV? If you are not paying for the snowy channels, there is not much you can do. As you no doubt know, paying customers with snowy channels can complain to the cable company. Them Blocked snowy channels hes not paying for therefore can't be unblocked. |
|
| |
said by 08034016:Them Blocked snowy channels hes not paying for therefore can't be unblocked. I think I agree with you but I am a bit challenged by your non-standard sentence structure. In any case, the OP is not completely clear about what he's paying for. It's not illegal to receive snowy channels. This is like when someone mails you merchandise you did not order: it's not illegal to keep it. Examples: Here, "Basic" means $15-20 a month for channels 1-25 or 26. They won't tell me that I also receive 62-74, but the channels are right there for the taking. Is it illegal for me to watch 62-74? Many years ago in another city I ordered a limited service for $7 a month and the installer was pointing out all the channels we got. I said that I ordered limited, and he looked at the order and said, "OK, well, I guess you get regular basic because I don't carry those filters on my truck." OK, fine with me. I sure didn't do anything illegal there. I just accepted what the company's authorized representative told me, and I paid for a full year's service up front when I got the first bill. If they wanted to put a filter on at any time, that was their prerogative. |
|
1 recommendation |
SunnyFL8
Premium Member
2009-Jun-6 9:42 pm
said by ArgMeMatey: Many years ago in another city I ordered a limited service for $7 a month and the installer was pointing out all the channels we got. I said that I ordered limited, and he looked at the order and said, "OK, well, I guess you get regular basic because I don't carry those filters on my truck." OK, fine with me. I sure didn't do anything illegal there. I just accepted what the company's authorized representative told me, and I paid for a full year's service up front when I got the first bill. If they wanted to put a filter on at any time, that was their prerogative. . . In your case what you did is called "Passive Theft". » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ca ··· Theft.22Passive "theft" is when a customer has service that they are not paying for but that they did not actively cause. Examples of this are moving into a new home or apartment where service is still active, or if the cable company does not disconnect your service even after you are no longer paying for it. ----- Also in your case "Passive theft" = theft. Fair to say it is apparent you knew it was not a free service.  |
|
 Hayward0 K A R - 1 2 0 C
Premium Member
join:2000-07-13
Key West, FL
4 edits |
Hayward0
Premium Member
2009-Jun-7 7:05 am
If it happened, That would be hardly my fault especially if person before me also had sat too... sorry you were to damn stupid or lazy to disconnect the service cable co. WHEN ASKED TO, long ago over decade ago discontinued and several audits and company changes since. TCI ATT and now Cumcast. But I know several in this town in that position.... and the cable signal sucks so much they only look at it in a DELUGE sat outage situation, where they need to see something live, that won't be repeated 3 hours later. (Broadcast TV) there is no way to see OTA here, though they still claim us as DMA, and not allow us getting sat distant locals any longer I used to have LA locals... MIAMI is just about as foregn to Key West, and the time frame served me better... plus sports over run NEVER an issue |
|
| |
to SunnyFL8
said by SunnyFL8:. In your case what you did is called "Passive Theft". » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ca ··· Theft.22Passive "theft" is when a customer has service that they are not paying for but that they did not actively cause. Examples of this are moving into a new home or apartment where service is still active, or if the cable company does not disconnect your service even after you are no longer paying for it. ----- Also in your case "Passive theft" = theft. Fair to say it is apparent you knew it was not a free service. 1. The wiki paragraph for passive "theft" specifically has the word "theft" in quotation marks. This implies that it is different from active theft. Just because somebody (for example a cable PR shill editing wikis) thinks it's "theft" does not make it theft. 2. Is there a statute that criminalizes passive "theft"? Usually criminal acts require some form of intent. I didn't do anything but sit down and watch TV, I didn't tell anyone to give me free service, and I probably went beyond what would have been required under civil law to notify the cable company that I was getting a service for which I was not paying. 3. Although there may be some statute or ordinance outlawing passive "theft", if there is not such a law, this is not a legal issue. 4. I'd be interested to know what applies when a metered service is received for free. For example moving into a house and not getting an electric bill for months on end. This happened to me too, and when I realized I hadn't gotten a bill in quite a while, I called them, found out they had had some computer problem after I placed the order, and I paid them without complaint. 5. As a civil matter, the burden of proof is lower, and if I chose to fight a passive "theft" case as a defendant, it would certainly be helpful to have some documentation. In my "free cable" case I did have the full name of the cable technician who told me I was getting a bargain with his authorization. |
|
 Tel
join:2001-10-12
Mauldin, SC |
to amirschiffer7
I can't see how someone could actually quote an article from widipedia with a straight face. I agree though, if an installer was too dumb or lazy to install a filter, then it's the companies fault. |
|
|
08034016 (banned)Hallo lisa Aus Amerika
join:2001-08-31
Byron, GA
1 recommendation |
08034016 (banned)
Member
2009-Jun-7 9:56 pm
said by Tel:I agree though, if an installer was too dumb or lazy to install a filter, then it's the companies fault. However,if you knew that you shouldn't be getting the service that's "theft after the fact". |
|
| |
said by 08034016:if you knew that you shouldn't be getting the service that's "theft after the fact". I am not a lawyer, so I am not familiar with this concept. I am wondering if you can expound on this a bit. Please include some citations from statute or case law. Thanks. |
|
08034016 (banned)Hallo lisa Aus Amerika
join:2001-08-31
Byron, GA
1 edit |
08034016 (banned)
Member
2009-Jun-7 10:31 pm
said by ArgMeMatey:said by 08034016:if you knew that you shouldn't be getting the service that's "theft after the fact". I am not a lawyer, so I am not familiar with this concept. I am wondering if you can expound on this a bit. Please include some citations from statute or case law. Thanks. This statute is from Missouri quote:
Chapter 570
Stealing and Related Offenses
Section 570.300
Theft of cable television service is a class C felony
|
|
| |
said by 08034016:This statute is from Missouri quote:
Chapter 570
Stealing and Related Offenses
Section 570.300
Theft of cable television service is a class C felony
... of which the relevant subsection is: 5. If a cable television company either:
(1) Provides unsolicited cable television service; or
(2) Fails to change or disconnect cable television service within ten days after receiving written notice to do so by the customer, the customer may deem such service to be a gift without any obligation to the cable television company from ten days after such written notice is received until the service is changed or disconnected. » www.house.mo.gov/content ··· 450I.HTMNext! |
|
| |
to ArgMeMatey
|
|
| |
Well, I guess we could go through this state-by-state, city-by-city, but right there on the site you cite they say:
Cable theft is the illegal interception of cable programming services without the express authorization of, or payment to, a cable company. I added the emphasis on the word illegal. That is, at least in Missouri, it's not illegal to use a signal that the cable company has failed to disconnect, et cetera. Next! |
|
1 edit |
SunnyFL8
Premium Member
2009-Jun-8 12:41 pm
Just to settle this is this Federal Law:
Federal Statute 47 U.S.C. 553 Federal Statute 47 U.S.C. 553
Unauthorized reception of cable service
(a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or receiving service; "assist in intercepting or receiving" defined
No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law. ( Cable tech is not a cable operator )
For the purpose of this section, the term "assist in intercepting or receiving" shall include the manufacture or distribution of equipment intended by the manufacturer or distributor (as the case may be) for unauthorized reception of any communications service offered over a cable system in violation of subparagraph (1).
(b) Penalties for willful violation
Any person who willfully violates subsection (a)(1) of this section shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both.
Any person who violates subsection (a)(1) of this section willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.
For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for violations of subsection (a)(1) of this section, the prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each such device shall be deemed a separate violation.
(c) Civil action in district court; injunctions; damages; attorney's fees and costs; regulation by States or franchising authorities
Any person aggrieved by any violation of subsection (a)(1) of this section may bring a civil action in a United States district court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction.
The court may -
(A) grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain violations of subsection (a)(1) of this section;
(B) award damages as described in paragraph (3); and
(C) direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys' fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.
(A) Damages awarded by any court under this section shall be computed in accordance with either of the following clauses:
(i) the party aggrieved may recover the actual damages suffered by him as a result of the violation and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation which are not taken into account in computing the actual damages; in determining the violator's profits, the party aggrieved shall be required to prove only the violator's gross revenue, and the violator shall be required to prove his deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the violation; or
(ii) the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for all violations involved in the action, in a sum of not less than $250 or more than $10,000 as the court considers just.
(B) In any case in which the court finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award of damages, whether actual or statutory under subparagraph (A), by an amount of not more than $50,000.
(C) In any case where the court finds that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that his acts constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of damages to a sum of not less than $100.
(D) Nothing in this subchapter shall prevent any State or franchising authority from enacting or enforcing laws, consistent with this section, regarding the unauthorized interception or reception of any cable service or other communications service.
Unauthorized reception of cable service
(a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or receiving service; "assist in intercepting or receiving" defined
No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.
For the purpose of this section, the term "assist in intercepting or receiving" shall include the manufacture or distribution of equipment intended by the manufacturer or distributor (as the case may be) for unauthorized reception of any communications service offered over a cable system in violation of subparagraph (1).
(b) Penalties for willful violation
Any person who willfully violates subsection (a)(1) of this section shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both.
Any person who violates subsection (a)(1) of this section willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.
For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for violations of subsection (a)(1) of this section, the prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each such device shall be deemed a separate violation.
(c) Civil action in district court; injunctions; damages; attorney's fees and costs; regulation by States or franchising authorities
Any person aggrieved by any violation of subsection (a)(1) of this section may bring a civil action in a United States district court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction.
The court may -
(A) grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain violations of subsection (a)(1) of this section;
(B) award damages as described in paragraph (3); and
(C) direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys' fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.
(A) Damages awarded by any court under this section shall be computed in accordance with either of the following clauses:
(i) the party aggrieved may recover the actual damages suffered by him as a result of the violation and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation which are not taken into account in computing the actual damages; in determining the violator's profits, the party aggrieved shall be required to prove only the violator's gross revenue, and the violator shall be required to prove his deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the violation; or
(ii) the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for all violations involved in the action, in a sum of not less than $250 or more than $10,000 as the court considers just.
(B) In any case in which the court finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award of damages, whether actual or statutory under subparagraph (A), by an amount of not more than $50,000.
(C) In any case where the court finds that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that his acts constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of damages to a sum of not less than $100.
(D) Nothing in this subchapter shall prevent any State or franchising authority from enacting or enforcing laws, consistent with this section, regarding the unauthorized interception or reception of any cable service or other communications service.
===============================================================================
Cable technicians can break the rules or law but just because they do it doesn't protect you from the obvious you know your getting a service from the cable company without a fee.
Call them up and ask them if they say we are aware of it and giving it to you as a courtesy that is fine but if not .... give it up.... This is pointless to try and explain do it and if you get caught the law will explain for you.
Yes you can still try and justify your theft with Ignorance.
Seriously,
Common sense issues here.
If you still don't get it ask a lawyer. |
|
08034016 (banned)Hallo lisa Aus Amerika
join:2001-08-31
Byron, GA |
08034016 (banned)
Member
2009-Jun-8 2:45 pm
said by SunnyFL8:Just to settle this is this Federal Law:Federal Statute 47 U.S.C. 553 Federal Statute 47 U.S.C. 553 Unauthorized reception of cable service (a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or receiving service; "assist in intercepting or receiving" defined No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law. ( Cable tech is not a cable operator ) That's what i was trying to look up just now Oh'well,The OP isn't paying for the channels but he wants to unblock them that's Cable theft. |
|
| |
SunnyFL8
Premium Member
2009-Jun-8 3:37 pm
Agreed! |
|
| |
to SunnyFL8
said by SunnyFL8:Just to settle this is this Federal Law:Cable technicians can break the rules or law but just because they do it doesn't protect you from the obvious you know your getting a service from the cable company without a fee. .... Seriously, Common sense issues here. 1. Thanks for posting the federal law. I appreciate seeing it cited, although I admit I am too lazy to see if all the repetition is accidental or due to some indentation that didn't make the cut-and-paste. 2. I am not trying to be inflammatory but I am speaking my mind on the issue. The fact that I might watch services that I have not sought and have taken no action to receive besides tuning to a TV channel is just a red herring. I know what 47CFR-Whatever says but a finding of guilt based on the preponderance of evidence, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt, seems to me unlikely. I don't suppose you have any statistics on how often this statute has been used in cases like this? 3. Even this law says "as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law." Doesn't that mean that if there's another law, like the Missouri law with its exception for "gift" services, this would not be considered a violation? 4. I am not sure if that law defines a "cable operator" as distinct from a "Cable Tech", but an argument could be made that a person who visits my house on behalf of the cable operator, wears an ID from the cable operator, collects a check written out to the cable operator, and is authorized to connect and disconnect services, is an authorized representative of Cable, Inc. In other words, if you work for the company and your job includes this kind of thing, you are the company. 5. I am not trying to justify anything on moral grounds, but if you are, I would counter that I should not be in any way responsible for anyone's failure to act in the interest of their stockholders. Entities who transact business in the United States are not held to a moral code; they are bound by the law. Nothing else. (If we want to make it a moral issue, that's a different matter.) 6. The law doesn't usually address the concept of common sense. It's more likely to be drafted in terms of what's "reasonable". Ultimately, that's up to 12 of my peers, although I find that typically everybody is pretty reasonable. For example if I said to a manager at the cable company that on November 4, 1993, your employee, Larry Johnson, gave us this service even though I specifically told him we were not paying for it, that manager is likely to be reasonable about it. In other words, he'll have somebody come out and put on the proper filter, instead of suing or trying to get a federal prosecutor to issue charges. |
|
