dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4771
share rss forum feed


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

Re: Uverse share

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
Buford, 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!"


Rangersfan

@sbcglobal.net
said by maartena:

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).

In the world that we live in, anything is possible.

You are basing your "opinion" on your lay interpretation of a couple of laws that you have read. I'm going to take a leap and assume that you are not aware of all state and federal laws that could be use to prosecute an individual for theft of services.


techguyga
Premium
join:2003-12-31
Buford, GA
reply to maartena
Would this section not cover illegal use?

»www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-201···c605.htm

25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH
reply to maartena
Many states have ruled it at cable service so the local level still would apply- regardless of the FCC. Federal Law gives states the power to choose and if their is an issue between states and its debated- the courts get to decide.

Ohio is one of the states that AT&T IS a Cable Service. Even MMDS is a CABLE SERVICE.

25139889

join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH
reply to maartena
The FCC does NOT make Laws. Congress only allows them to make RULES. And Local Law over rides them. Home Rule ALWAYS will go over the FCC in terms of this. Like I said- Ohio has put ALL WIRELINE providers including MMDS companies into the same Cable Industry and MUST abide by those laws. So yes, They are a cable company in Ohio. It was their agreement to get the State Wide Deal.


SomeJoe7777

join:2010-03-30
Houston, TX
kudos:7
You're technically correct, the FCC doesn't make laws, only rules. But they do issue spectrum licenses, and are the only body that has the power to do that.

No matter what your local laws are, if you're a broadcaster using spectrum and you disobey the FCC's rules, they will simply pull your spectrum license. True, it's not really a "law" per se, but just as effective as one, yes?

walta

join:2001-05-22
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
reply to removed
The person who willfully violates there TOS agreement by providing there neighbor use of their service in exchange for something of value has committed fraud.

Also Lets say you are distributing HBO channel on this network you are certainly in violation of copyright laws.

And you are now acting as cable TV franchise and there is more than one law governing there conduct.

Receiving anything of value without its owner’s permission is theft plan and simple.

Walta


SECraft

@bellsouth.com
reply to maartena
Read again, I'll even strip it to the important part:

(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;

Without the consent of the telecommunication service provider is the important part of this. If you willingly violate the TOS in the manner described in the first post, then you have "facilitated the acquisition" of the service without said consent, and as such, is a violation of the aforementioned law. The more relevant question is, "Will they prosecute?" My guess is no, becuase the "sharing" of services in the manner described is not likely to cause any sort of harm to the provider's network or disrupt service in any way for other subscribers on the network. The caveat would be this, are you charging your nieghbor for access to the service? If so, that becomes another issue entirely, not to mention this is also a violation of the TOS.

UverseTech

join:2012-08-04
reply to mastervirus
as a tech i have installed over a dozen work orders in more than one dwelling at the same time. as long as it is not to cumbersome the 4 family mdus in the stl area in the city are notorious for this. I am not supposed to but they are usually multiple family members in the same mdu. the most i have done is 3 different units off same rg and 2 stbs in each all sharing wifi which i installed at the highest point.

my manager never cared as long as it did not hurt my numbers