5 ms·

In 2010 when I lived in the San Francisco I ordered my broadband from Comcast, but I didn't pay for the TV package. I added a splitter to the Comcast coax cabl

by edward 11y ago

In 2010 when I lived in the San Francisco I ordered my broadband from Comcast, but I didn't pay for the TV package. I added a splitter to the Comcast coax cable, then plugged one wire into the cable modem and the other into the back of my TV. Network TV channels for no extra cost.

gbarnes 11y ago
I cut the cord 6 years ago, and just found out last month that this was an option. TWC literally has an option to add network channels to an internet only package for $10/mo. I wonder how many people they're ripping off with that.
- baldfat 11y ago
  I pay LESS than $10 for all the basic cable channels on Fios (I HATE Verizon and DON'T recommend them due to dishonesty in every area I ever had to deal with them (Hidden also means dishonest, but I delt with absolute lies)) same thing with my other carrier. For $4 more I even get ESPN.
- mosburger 11y ago
  It's still free for me w/ TWC. I have them only for broadband, but happen to get Clear QAM network channels anyway free of charge. Wonder how much longer they'll be doing that where I live. I've even purchased an eyeTV tuner and hooked it up to an old Macbook Pro I had laying around, and basically made a DVR w/ guide for the network channels.
joezydeco 11y ago
In 2012 there was an FCC vote to allow cable operators to encrypt the local channels as well. Your clear QAM signals are pretty much gone now, especially after the analog channels were allowed to go dark.
- zaroth 11y ago
  Is there any chance a grassroots effort could get the rule for clear QAM local channels restored? It seemed like such a reasonable trade-off for giving the cable operator a local monopoly, to provide free and clear HD broadcast channels which my TV could display so nicely without any external boxes. It was so sad watching the channels drop out after they started encrypting them :-( In South San Jose you need a "pretty big" antenna to receive a decent line-up of OTA channels being broadcast from north San Fran... A smaller powered antenna even up on the roof would not pick them up clearly.
  - joezydeco 11y ago
    Given the current economic climate and the lobbying power of the cable companies, this would be a very uphill battle if not impossible. They also shot down Aereo, which would have been a cheaper solution for you.
greg5green 11y ago
This was technically stealing.
- pkaye 11y ago
  The (compressed) picture quality for the basic network channels I'm paying Comcast for is technically stealing from me. And they will charge you extra if you get broadband without the basic TV channels. I ended using an OTA antenna regardless.
- jerf 11y ago
  There's precedent for things that get delivered to you being yours to use, even if you didn't order or pay for them. While I am aware that it is absolutely not the same thing, there is a law that anything sent unsolicited to you in postal mail is yours to keep, no questions asked. This is to prevent a type of now-dead fraud that involved doing that, then billing people for it. It's really the responsibility of the cable provider to correctly filter services, if they want to charge for them. And you'll probably find that if you call up and try to "complain" about this, that they'll do nothing and tell you to do as you like, as it isn't even worth their time to bother about... putting a rather low bound on the degree of harm you're "inflicting" on them even in the worst case.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    I understand your point, but I think there's a difference between the cable company "correctly filtering service" and a person getting additional hardware to bypass the cable modem demarcation. It does get muddied by them allowing customer cable modems, which means there's not a clear a demarcation point anymore.
    - lfowles 11y ago
      I remember being told by my cable company that network channels were free of charge with internet service. Of course, they were on crazy channels I have to have the TV autoscan for. And now they're probably encrypted and I'd have to rent a cable box for $8/mo.
mjklin 11y ago
I'm able to do this with Comcast, but the channels available look really bad on my tv.
mercora 11y ago
A year ago i canceled cable TV subscription in Germany because i had most important channels anyhow via DVB-T. I had internet subscription for years with them and was satisfied so this had to be kept working. Knowing a bit about how these cable networks work inside the building i was curious to see how they will implement this. I thought they might have a filter for all those just having internet subscription but this could only work with certain types of wiring inside the building and also depends on access to the equipment which is not always available to them. Then i thought they might replace the wall socket either with some filter build in or just missing plug for the TV. But again this is only possible when they are allowed to access the equipment or maintain their own. Also this seemed to be rather expensive. The basic cable package doesn't cost that much and the provider outsources all kinds of installation related tasks. I would guess using this rather weak method would pay for some years of Basic TV package subscription. Long story short, i waited several months and nothing happened. I still watch cable TV like i did before. But as is said, its possible that they are able to cut you off on some kind of installations. But its also questionable if the cost of this would be adequate.

by edward 11y ago

gbarnes 11y ago

I cut the cord 6 years ago, and just found out last month that this was an option. TWC literally has an option to add network channels to an internet only package for $10/mo. I wonder how many people they're ripping off with that.

baldfat 11y ago
I pay LESS than $10 for all the basic cable channels on Fios (I HATE Verizon and DON'T recommend them due to dishonesty in every area I ever had to deal with them (Hidden also means dishonest, but I delt with absolute lies)) same thing with my other carrier. For $4 more I even get ESPN.
mosburger 11y ago
It's still free for me w/ TWC. I have them only for broadband, but happen to get Clear QAM network channels anyway free of charge. Wonder how much longer they'll be doing that where I live. I've even purchased an eyeTV tuner and hooked it up to an old Macbook Pro I had laying around, and basically made a DVR w/ guide for the network channels.

joezydeco 11y ago

In 2012 there was an FCC vote to allow cable operators to encrypt the local channels as well. Your clear QAM signals are pretty much gone now, especially after the analog channels were allowed to go dark.

zaroth 11y ago
Is there any chance a grassroots effort could get the rule for clear QAM local channels restored? It seemed like such a reasonable trade-off for giving the cable operator a local monopoly, to provide free and clear HD broadcast channels which my TV could display so nicely without any external boxes. It was so sad watching the channels drop out after they started encrypting them :-( In South San Jose you need a "pretty big" antenna to receive a decent line-up of OTA channels being broadcast from north San Fran... A smaller powered antenna even up on the roof would not pick them up clearly.
- joezydeco 11y ago
  Given the current economic climate and the lobbying power of the cable companies, this would be a very uphill battle if not impossible. They also shot down Aereo, which would have been a cheaper solution for you.

greg5green 11y ago

This was technically stealing.

pkaye 11y ago
The (compressed) picture quality for the basic network channels I'm paying Comcast for is technically stealing from me. And they will charge you extra if you get broadband without the basic TV channels. I ended using an OTA antenna regardless.
jerf 11y ago
There's precedent for things that get delivered to you being yours to use, even if you didn't order or pay for them. While I am aware that it is absolutely not the same thing, there is a law that anything sent unsolicited to you in postal mail is yours to keep, no questions asked. This is to prevent a type of now-dead fraud that involved doing that, then billing people for it. It's really the responsibility of the cable provider to correctly filter services, if they want to charge for them. And you'll probably find that if you call up and try to "complain" about this, that they'll do nothing and tell you to do as you like, as it isn't even worth their time to bother about... putting a rather low bound on the degree of harm you're "inflicting" on them even in the worst case.
- kbenson 11y ago
  I understand your point, but I think there's a difference between the cable company "correctly filtering service" and a person getting additional hardware to bypass the cable modem demarcation. It does get muddied by them allowing customer cable modems, which means there's not a clear a demarcation point anymore.
  - lfowles 11y ago
    I remember being told by my cable company that network channels were free of charge with internet service. Of course, they were on crazy channels I have to have the TV autoscan for. And now they're probably encrypted and I'd have to rent a cable box for $8/mo.

mjklin 11y ago

I'm able to do this with Comcast, but the channels available look really bad on my tv.

mercora 11y ago

A year ago i canceled cable TV subscription in Germany because i had most important channels anyhow via DVB-T. I had internet subscription for years with them and was satisfied so this had to be kept working. Knowing a bit about how these cable networks work inside the building i was curious to see how they will implement this. I thought they might have a filter for all those just having internet subscription but this could only work with certain types of wiring inside the building and also depends on access to the equipment which is not always available to them. Then i thought they might replace the wall socket either with some filter build in or just missing plug for the TV. But again this is only possible when they are allowed to access the equipment or maintain their own. Also this seemed to be rather expensive. The basic cable package doesn't cost that much and the provider outsources all kinds of installation related tasks. I would guess using this rather weak method would pay for some years of Basic TV package subscription. Long story short, i waited several months and nothing happened. I still watch cable TV like i did before. But as is said, its possible that they are able to cut you off on some kind of installations. But its also questionable if the cost of this would be adequate.