dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4511
share rss forum feed


mastervirus
Premium
join:2004-07-05
North Charleston, SC

Uverse share

Is it possible to share lets say house (a) has uverse with house (b) no uverse

or house (a) with uverse but house (b) lives miles away but has different uverse package be able to use said equipment interchangeably?

or house (a) with uverse and house (b) have a slingbox?


ineel

join:2011-08-12
Sacramento, CA

You can run a line to an adjacent home or give them a wireless receiver but all that's illegal. There's no other way.


zed260
Premium
join:2011-11-11
Cleveland, TN
Reviews:
·Charter

said by ineel:

You can run a line to an adjacent home or give them a wireless receiver but all that's illegal. There's no other way.

theres only one legal way to share it all on one bill a bussnuss account but it costs a whole lot more


Forosnai

join:2011-09-30
kudos:2
reply to mastervirus

Slingbox would be ideal. House A would need the Uverse and Slingbox, house B would need the pc/phone/tablet. You'd be limited to SD unless you use a different ISP, because the Uverse upload bandwidth is poor.



mastervirus
Premium
join:2004-07-05
North Charleston, SC
reply to zed260

so nits not like cable even if u have a different node the box wont work at different address?

If i used the slingbox idea then i would use cable for internet



removed
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
kudos:40
reply to ineel

said by ineel:

You can run a line to an adjacent home or give them a wireless receiver but all that's illegal.

Illegal, really? Oh my! Which law is this in violation of?
--
irc.removed.us - #dslr


ATTCustomer

@sbcglobal.net

May not be illegal, but probably violates your terms of service with AT&T.
If they find out, they may cut you off.


zed260
Premium
join:2011-11-11
Cleveland, TN
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to mastervirus

said by mastervirus:

so nits not like cable even if u have a different node the box wont work at different address?

If i used the slingbox idea then i would use cable for internet

nope because each lines dedicated

zed260
Premium
join:2011-11-11
Cleveland, TN
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to removed

said by removed:

said by ineel:

You can run a line to an adjacent home or give them a wireless receiver but all that's illegal.

Illegal, really? Oh my! Which law is this in violation of?

tos forbids it unless your on certain types of bussnuss agreement at&t could termnate you and possably permanatly if they chose to


dbeatson
Premium
join:2001-02-22
Clover, SC
reply to ATTCustomer

said by ATTCustomer :

May not be illegal, but probably violates your terms of service with AT&T.
If they find out, they may cut you off.

In most states there are statutes on the books for "theft of service" which would include hooking to your neighbors utilities and services.

There are also other laws like tampering with a meter, usually for electric or water, and tampering with a utility companies equipment, for example AT&T is considered a utility and everything from the street to the dmarc on your house is their property.
--
»www.w4lny.com

UverseTech

join:2012-08-04
reply to mastervirus

This is impossible no equipment can be interchanged all MAC address are logged to an account. It takes a work order generated by a tech or support to even change out a box on your premise.



Forosnai

join:2011-09-30
kudos:2
reply to mastervirus

m.cnet.com/news/belkin-debuts-slingbox-competitor-tv-plus/57457466?ds=1
Get that instead of a Slingbox imo, and save yourself $100. I They are $179 and aren't limited to a wired connection.



removed
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
kudos:40
reply to zed260

said by zed260:

said by removed:

said by ineel:

You can run a line to an adjacent home or give them a wireless receiver but all that's illegal.

Illegal, really? Oh my! Which law is this in violation of?

tos forbids it unless your on certain types of bussnuss agreement at&t could termnate you and possably permanatly if they chose to

I ask again: which law? The ToS is an agreement - not a law.
--
irc.removed.us - #dslr


Rangersfan

@sbcglobal.net

said by removed:

I ask again: which law? The ToS is an agreement - not a law.

Here you go: »www.timewarnercable.com/texas/su···tes.html


removed
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
kudos:40

That doesn't apply. Try again.

Expand your moderator at work


Rangersfan

@sbcglobal.net
reply to removed

Re: Uverse share

Yes, it does. I realized that cheats think that the rules never apply to their situation.



maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3

said by Rangersfan :

Yes, it does. I realized that cheats think that the rules never apply to their situation.

Actually, from what I have been able to find out..... it actually does not. Although there have been some unresolved lawsuits, the FCC has still not officially classified U-Verse as a "cable service". This law, would therefore not apply.

What does apply of course is the TOS. Those are irrefutable, if they ever find out you are sharing with your neighbors, you will lose your account.

AT&T themselves also do not WANT to be a cable service, because the restrictions, laws, and regulations they would have to adhere to (such as "in the clear" reception of broadcast networks over the medium it is brought to the house, which is why broadcast networks still are in ClearQAM on cable), far, far outweigh the few people stealing U-Verse TV, especially seeing as there are physical limitations (such as limited HD streams, limited DVR space, etc) that would make stealing it very impractical.

AT&T has published rather a large document about it with regards to this situation on their website:

»www.att.com/Common/about_us/publ···ents.pdf

This document mostly pertains to PEG programming, (Public, Educational and Government) which any "Cable Service" is required to carry, with AT&T arguing that since they are NOT a "Cable Service", they don't have to. And since the FCC has not classified U-Verse as a "Cable Service", any laws pertaining to that do not apply.

Similarly, that same law does not apply to DBS type satellite providers. They do not have to provide PEG, they do not have to offer "in the clear" reception of broadcast networks, and they don't have to announce channel changes (required in many states) 30 days ahead of time.

Will this change? Probably at some point..... but at this moment AT&T is fighting it as much as it can, because it does not want to be classified as such.

Here is some more interesting information:

»www.telecomattorneys.com/IPTV.html

It lays out some other law suits as well where entities have sued AT&T, or where AT&T has sued another entity over the question: "Is IPTV service over ILEC (which is what U-Verse is) actually a traditional cable service?"

So in short: No, the federal laws currently in place against theft of service and theft of cable do NOT apply.

Obviously however, the TOS most certainly does, and AT&T is FULLY in its right to disconnect you if it discovers you are sharing the service.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


Rangersfan

@sbcglobal.net

If you think no laws apply to the authorized reception of U-verse TV service, go ahead and do it. Then call AT&T, tell the what you have done, and tell them that their is nothing that they can do to stop since you have broken no laws.



maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3

said by Rangersfan :

If you think no laws apply to the authorized reception of U-verse TV service, go ahead and do it. Then call AT&T, tell the what you have done, and tell them that their is nothing that they can do to stop since you have broken no laws.

AT&T can do whatever they want.... they can disconnect you, they can put your address on a black list, they can put your SSN (if available) on a blacklist, they can do all sorts of things to make sure you will never get an account again. And/or your "borrowing" neighbor for that matter. They have total freedom as to who they want as a customer, and they can make the determination whether a customer has violated their terms of service, and take action. "No shoes, no shirt, no service" and/or "we reserve the right to refuse any customer" applies here. There is NO law that says AT&T has to provide service (besides maybe a lifeline law for an analog/pots phone line) to anyone.

But what they can NOT do, is legally prosecute you under the law as it currently stands, and have a court convict you of a crime, and issue some form of legal punishment. There will be no visit from the police to arrest you, there will be no court order, there will be no prosecution under the law.

Stealing cable service.... is a different anyways, also from a technical point of view. And it is fading away with digitizing cable as well.... in the days of analog cable you could have 1 house paying for service, and supply TV to the house to your left and right, and share the bill. That problem became rampant, and that is why laws were made specifically for cable services.

Things are further complicated with the wireless receiver. What is to keep you from just putting the wireless receiver in your neighbors house?

Laws are always out of date, and the rise of DBS satellite systems in the 90ies and IPTV in the Teens, do not mean that they therefore are automatically considered "cable service" or a "utility service". The FCC is dragging their feet to classify either as a "cable service", and they in turn are heavily being controlled by lobbyism. It will happen eventually, but as it stands right now..... someone that is sharing their U-Verse TV with the neighbor by drilling a hole in the wall and running CAT5 or Coax through the wall, is in violation of the TOS, but not in violation of the law.

And again, there is a BIG difference of being "in violation of terms of service" and "in violation of the law".

To compare, you are technically in violation of the terms of service if you install DirecTV in one house, with 4 receivers.... and then "lend" one of those receivers to your friend 20 miles down the road, who still has a DirecTV dish left over from a previous owner. All you would have to do is hook it up, and you would have the same television, including any big sports packages such as NFL Sunday Ticket and whatnot. Again, can DirecTV disconnect you for being in breach of their TOS? Yes. Can they prosecute you under the law? Nope.

No LAWS are breached. Just TOS.

(Granted, there MAY be a local ordinance that says "thou shalt not span a wire over the road that isn't authorized" but that is a different law).
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


dbeatson
Premium
join:2001-02-22
Clover, SC
reply to mastervirus

The original poster lives in South Carolina I believe he could be charged under South Carolina Code of Laws Section 16-13-0400 "Avoiding or attempting to avoid payment for telecommunications" Which is a Class C Misdemeanor punishable up to 1 year in prison and a $1000 fine. SC laws are very vague in general and under this law, you can be guilty for violating any one of the sections of this law, in particular section 4 seems to fit:

(4) By rearranging, tampering with, or making connection with any facilities or equipment of a telephone company, whether physically, inductively, acoustically, or otherwise;

Go to this page: »www.judicial.state.sc.us/cdr/ and in the keyword section type in Utilities to see the many laws in SC involving all kinds of utilities, including phone service, and cable and electric.

I happen to know that 100's of cases a year are prosecuted for "theft of electric current" and "Violation of Cable TV Article" in South Carolina, I am not sure how many cases are prosecuted under the statute I quoted above for telecommunications.
--
»www.w4lny.com



Rangersfan

@sbcglobal.net
reply to maartena

said by maartena:

AT&T can do whatever they want.... they can disconnect you, they can put your address on a black list, they can put your SSN (if available) on a blacklist, they can do all sorts of things to make sure you will never get an account again. And/or your "borrowing" neighbor for that matter. They have total freedom as to who they want as a customer, and they can make the determination whether a customer has violated their terms of service, and take action. "No shoes, no shirt, no service" and/or "we reserve the right to refuse any customer" applies here. There is NO law that says AT&T has to provide service (besides maybe a lifeline law for an analog/pots phone line) to anyone.

If you are receiving an unauthorized signal, you are not a customer, don't have an account and have not agreed to the TOS. Based on your view, legally, there is not a thing that can be done to you. Just skip on your merry way.


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3

said by Rangersfan :

If you are receiving an unauthorized signal, you are not a customer, don't have an account and have not agreed to the TOS. Based on your view, legally, there is not a thing that can be done to you. Just skip on your merry way.

Not "based on my view", but based on the laws view.

What dbeatson above describes also doesn't really apply, as you simply can't get internet or TV by "By rearranging, tampering with, or making connection with any facilities or equipment of a telephone company" as the signals are encrypted, the line needs to be provisioned, etc.

What the TS wants to do is share his already provisioned connection with someone else, e.g. a neighbor. Yes, it is very much against the TOS and AT&T can disconnect you, but you can't be prosecuted for something.

Things may change if the FCC classifies U-Verse as a "cable service", but even the laws on cable stealing are completely obsolete, or will be within a few years when analog cable will almost completely disappear. (Although I think ClearQAM for HD reception of broadcast networks will remain in place for quite a few more years). AT&T does not WANT to be a "cable service", so it can't have you prosecuted under the law for placing one wireless receiver with the old lady neighbor that lives off of welfare and can't afford TV.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
Expand your moderator at work


techguyga
Premium
join:2003-12-31
Cumming, GA
reply to maartena

Re: Uverse share

You may not be prosecuted directly by law enforcement, but you can sure as heck be sued.



Rangerfan

@sbcglobal.net

said by techguyga:

You may not be prosecuted directly by law enforcement, but you can sure as heck be sued.

Indeed. There are also a plethora of state and federal laws that can be used to prosecute the theft of any kind of product or service that exists. Many people are prosecuted using laws that were not specifically intended for the offense that was committed. To think that someone could steal U-verse services and not be subject to any kind of criminal prosecution is rather naive.


SECraft

@bellsouth.net
reply to removed

T.P.I. -- 11.33

THEFT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

Any person who commits the offense of theft of telecommunications services is guilty of a crime.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following essential elements:1

[Part A-1:

(1) that the defendant [made] [distributed] [possessed] [used]

[assembled] an unlawful telecommunications device;

and

(2) that the defendant acted knowingly.]

or

[Part A-2:

(1) that the defendant [modified] [altered] [programmed], [reprogrammed]

a telecommunication device;

and

(2)(a) that the telecommunication device was [designed] [adapted] [used]

for commission of a theft of telecommunication services;

or

(b) that the telecommunication device was [designed] [adapted] [used]

to [acquire] [facilitate the acquisition] of telecommunications service

without the consent of the telecommunication service provider;

or

(c) that the telecommunication device was [designed] [adapted] [used]

to [conceal] [assist another to conceal] [from any

telecommunication service provider] [from any lawful authority] the

[existence] [place of origin] [destination] of any telecommunication;

and

(3) that the defendant acted knowingly.]

From the TN criminal law resource. There are nearly identical laws in almost every state in the country.



maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3

said by SECraft :

T.P.I. -- 11.33

THEFT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

From the TN criminal law resource. There are nearly identical laws in almost every state in the country.

This law applies when you break in to a telecommunication box and wire up a phone line for yourself, or you connect your phone line to your neighbors box so you can call on his dime without him knowing. It also applies if you connect your own cable TV to a neighbor without him knowing.

This law does NOT apply when a neighbor willingly decides to run a CAT5 to his neighbor and connects one of his STB's to his TV, without that neighbor paying AT&T for it.

There is a big difference between connecting yourself to the telecommunication company's infrastructure and stealing services (which is virtually impossible with U-Verse due to the fact a line needs to be provisioned, and you need their equipment) and a neighbor sharing his services by either running a cable through the wall or by simply giving him a wireless U-Verse receiver or two.

This topic is about a neighbor sharing his service with another neighbor, not about a single individual trying to tap in to any wired service illegally.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"


Rangersfan

@sbcglobal.net

said by maartena:

This topic is about a neighbor sharing his service with another neighbor, not about a single individual trying to tap in to any wired service illegally.

You are still on page 1 when the discussion has moved to page 2. The "sharing" scenario mentioned by the OP in the first message in this thread is not even possible.

The discussion has now evolved into to whether or not someone who is found to have committed theft of U-verse services can be subject to criminal prosecution. Your position is that U-verse is not considered cable TV service; therefore, the thief would be immune from any type of criminal prosecution. Others have tried to point out to you that your viewpoint is not correct because there are too many state and federal laws that cover the thief of any type of service that can be used to prosecute the offender.


maartena
Elmo
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:3

said by Rangersfan :

said by maartena:

This topic is about a neighbor sharing his service with another neighbor, not about a single individual trying to tap in to any wired service illegally.

You are still on page 1 when the discussion has moved to page 2. The "sharing" scenario mentioned by the OP in the first message in this thread is not even possible.

The discussion has now evolved into to whether or not someone who is found to have committed theft of U-verse services can be subject to criminal prosecution. Your position is that U-verse is not considered cable TV service; therefore, the thief would be immune from any type of criminal prosecution. Others have tried to point out to you that your viewpoint is not correct because there are too many state and federal laws that cover the thief of any type of service that can be used to prosecute the offender.

Again:

This is not *MY* position. It is the position of the FCC, combined with what AT&T wants. (They do not want to be labeled a "cable service" by FCC, and thus be subject to ALL laws regarding "cable service")

The state laws I have seen here pertain mostly about an individual stealing service from a provider, which in all reality is only still possible with analog cable, POTS phone lines, and electricity service. If you climb up your pole in the back yard, and hijack cable service from the local cable company, yes you break the law.

THEFT of U-Verse isn't even possible. You cannot go out and buy a Residential Gateway, hack it, hook it up to a phone line, buy a hacked STB, and expect you can get television service. It's just not possible. It is only possible to SHARE U-verse service, where a correctly installed U-Verse Internet/TV service is being shared to a neighbor with a CAT5 cable, and one of your STB's (or perhaps, a activated XBox360 or a wireless receiver).

Anyone that is using a U-Verse STB from a neighbor is not stealing it. At least not in such a way the law describes theft of telecommunication service, as they are not directly stealing it from the telecommunication company by hacking in to there systems, which is exactly what all these telecommunication theft laws posted here so far are describing.

What I am saying is this:

If you, and a neighbor, go in on it together, and share the connection that is coming in to neighbor 1, between both neighbor 1 and 2 with your own connection between neighbor 1 and 2 (whether this be wired with coax or CAT5, or wireless by simply moving a wireless receiver), there are NO federal laws, and NO state laws that would allow prosecution of any kind.

You will be in violation of the TOS (and AT&T can do whatever they want with yout account), but not in violation of any laws.

It is the same is moving 1 of your 4 DirecTV/Dish receivers to a friends house (or your own 2nd house) with a self-installed Dish. Are you violating the TOS? Yes. Are you violating the law? Absolutely not.

And its the same way as sharing your wireless internet with a neighbor. Are you breaking the law there? Nope, you are just in violation of the TOS. People with an open access point do not get prosecuted under the law just because they share their internet with the world.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"