dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
11
« Networking Helpinvalid ip address »
This is a sub-selection from Uverse share

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

maartena to Rangersfan

Premium Member

to Rangersfan

Re: Uverse share

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 ··· 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 ··· PTV.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.

Rangersfan
@sbcglobal.net

Rangersfan

Anon

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 Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

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).

Rangersfan
@sbcglobal.net

Rangersfan

Anon

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 Member
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA

maartena

Premium Member

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.
Expand your moderator at work

techguyga
Premium Member
join:2003-12-31
00000

techguyga to maartena

Premium Member

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

Rangerfan

Anon

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.
25139889 (banned)
join:2011-10-25
Toledo, OH

25139889 (banned) to maartena

Member

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.