| 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. |
|
zed260Premium
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 |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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 |
|
 removedPremium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
kudos:37 | 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 |
|
| May not be illegal, but probably violates your terms of service with AT&T.
If they find out, they may cut you off. |
|
|
|
zed260Premium
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 |
|
zed260Premium
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 |
|
 dbeatsonPremium
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 |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
removedPremium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
kudos:37 | 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 |
|
| 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 |
|
removedPremium,VIP
join:2002-02-08
Houston, TX
kudos:37 | That doesn't apply. Try again. |
|
| reply to removed
Re: Uverse share Yes, it does. I realized that cheats think that the rules never apply to their situation. |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | 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!" |
|
| 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. |
|
maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | 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!" |
|
