dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
348
share rss forum feed


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Bring on the lawsuits

If Comcast were to put a camera on my DVR, I would file a lawsuit against them citing violations of the Peeping Tom statutes and other privacy laws.

The ones that would profit from the DVR cameras would be the attorneys and Comcast would have to raise rates as litigation is a cost of doing business.

Putting a camera in someone's living room in this context would be highly illegal under the laws of most states.

If cable wants to compete with IPTV (Netflix), get rid of advertising. Our cable subscriptions more than pay for the cost of content. The advertisers are wasting money as well as I don't buy any of the garbage advertised on cable.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.



seamore
Premium
join:2009-11-02

said by IowaCowboy:

If Comcast were to put a camera on my DVR, I would file a lawsuit against them citing violations of the Peeping Tom statutes and other privacy laws.

The ones that would profit from the DVR cameras would be the attorneys and Comcast would have to raise rates as litigation is a cost of doing business.

Putting a camera in someone's living room in this context would be highly illegal under the laws of most states.

If cable wants to compete with IPTV (Netflix), get rid of advertising. Our cable subscriptions more than pay for the cost of content. The advertisers are wasting money as well as I don't buy any of the garbage advertised on cable.

But you are signing up for their service and you would have "agreed" with it via TOS.


Todd

@comcast.net

Re: Camera

A little bit of electrical tape in the right place would take care of that DVR camera nicely.



IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast
reply to seamore

Re: Bring on the lawsuits

said by seamore:

said by IowaCowboy:

If Comcast were to put a camera on my DVR, I would file a lawsuit against them citing violations of the Peeping Tom statutes and other privacy laws.

The ones that would profit from the DVR cameras would be the attorneys and Comcast would have to raise rates as litigation is a cost of doing business.

Putting a camera in someone's living room in this context would be highly illegal under the laws of most states.

If cable wants to compete with IPTV (Netflix), get rid of advertising. Our cable subscriptions more than pay for the cost of content. The advertisers are wasting money as well as I don't buy any of the garbage advertised on cable.

But you are signing up for their service and you would have "agreed" with it via TOS.

It would be an illegal agreement as most states have privacy laws on the books. There are certain behaviors by companies that are ruled illegal as customers have certain rights. It would be like your landlord requiring to fix the heating system in another tenant's unit without compensation as a term of the lease. This kind of contract would not stand a legal challenge and Comcast has been the subject of many lawsuits over contract language which forced them to rewrite their terms of service. One lawsuit was over their refusal to define excessive bandwidth usage and they settled that by imposing a 250 GB cap. Contract litigation happens everyday in the court system.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.


seamore
Premium
join:2009-11-02

said by IowaCowboy:

said by seamore:

said by IowaCowboy:

If Comcast were to put a camera on my DVR, I would file a lawsuit against them citing violations of the Peeping Tom statutes and other privacy laws.

The ones that would profit from the DVR cameras would be the attorneys and Comcast would have to raise rates as litigation is a cost of doing business.

Putting a camera in someone's living room in this context would be highly illegal under the laws of most states.

If cable wants to compete with IPTV (Netflix), get rid of advertising. Our cable subscriptions more than pay for the cost of content. The advertisers are wasting money as well as I don't buy any of the garbage advertised on cable.

But you are signing up for their service and you would have "agreed" with it via TOS.

It would be an illegal agreement as most states have privacy laws on the books. There are certain behaviors by companies that are ruled illegal as customers have certain rights. It would be like your landlord requiring to fix the heating system in another tenant's unit without compensation as a term of the lease. This kind of contract would not stand a legal challenge and Comcast has been the subject of many lawsuits over contract language which forced them to rewrite their terms of service. One lawsuit was over their refusal to define excessive bandwidth usage and they settled that by imposing a 250 GB cap. Contract litigation happens everyday in the court system.

I suppose you do have a point.


Caddyroger
Premium
join:2001-06-11
To the west
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to IowaCowboy

said by IowaCowboy:

said by seamore:

said by IowaCowboy:

If Comcast were to put a camera on my DVR, I would file a lawsuit against them citing violations of the Peeping Tom statutes and other privacy laws.

The ones that would profit from the DVR cameras would be the attorneys and Comcast would have to raise rates as litigation is a cost of doing business.

Putting a camera in someone's living room in this context would be highly illegal under the laws of most states.

If cable wants to compete with IPTV (Netflix), get rid of advertising. Our cable subscriptions more than pay for the cost of content. The advertisers are wasting money as well as I don't buy any of the garbage advertised on cable.

But you are signing up for their service and you would have "agreed" with it via TOS.

It would be an illegal agreement as most states have privacy laws on the books. There are certain behaviors by companies that are ruled illegal as customers have certain rights. It would be like your landlord requiring to fix the heating system in another tenant's unit without compensation as a term of the lease. This kind of contract would not stand a legal challenge and Comcast has been the subject of many lawsuits over contract language which forced them to rewrite their terms of service. One lawsuit was over their refusal to define excessive bandwidth usage and they settled that by imposing a 250 GB cap. Contract litigation happens everyday in the court system.

It would be illegal if they gave you box with the camera in it and warning you about it. If they said or gave you a notice that it had a camera and you signed a statement to that effect then it not illegal. You agreeing for the use of the camera.
--
Caddy


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

said by Caddyroger:

It would be illegal if they gave you box with the camera in it and warning you about it. If they said or gave you a notice that it had a camera and you signed a statement to that effect then it not illegal. You agreeing for the use of the camera.

Still it would be cheaper for them to discontinue the cameras, settle the lawsuits, and not admit any wrongdoing than to fight it in court. Plus they would get bad publicity for it and customer backlash.

Still, it probably illegal in many states. Plus they would get into it with the various franchising authorities. I was reading the franchising agreement for Mediacom in Cedar Rapids (IA) and polling customer behavior is prohibited by the agreement.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.


Caddyroger
Premium
join:2001-06-11
To the west
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by IowaCowboy:

said by Caddyroger:

It would be illegal if they gave you box with the camera in it and warning you about it. If they said or gave you a notice that it had a camera and you signed a statement to that effect then it not illegal. You agreeing for the use of the camera.

Still it would be cheaper for them to discontinue the cameras, settle the lawsuits, and not admit any wrongdoing than to fight it in court. Plus they would get bad publicity for it and customer backlash.

Still, it probably illegal in many states. Plus they would get into it with the various franchising authorities. I was reading the franchising agreement for Mediacom in Cedar Rapids (IA) and polling customer behavior is prohibited by the agreement.

What lawsuits as long as they tell you before the use of the camera you can not sue them. You will know before you accept the dvr. They can ether tell you have to agree to it or do not have a dvr or they will turn the camera off.
--
Caddy