3 ms·

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.
  - kileywm 11y ago
    There may be a terms of use clause forbidding splitting like this but it almost certainly isn't a demarcation issue, so there is no real 'bypass' that I am aware of. The demarcation is generally clearly marked (plastic box often called a 'network interface device') and is almost never located at the modem itself. Typically, the legal demarcation is on the exterior of houses. For a multiple dwelling unit (apartment complex) or commercial building, the demarcation is usually inside. ISPs try to choose a demarcation that is accessible from the outside, so as to not require being allowed into the building to test signal leading to the premise. This cuts down on cancelled repairs due to 'no access'. My point in all this is that for most coax and twisted pair services, the indoor wiring is usually the property owners and not the ISP's, especially at the point where it connects to the modem. For someone to add a splitter to wire that is their responsibility and property is almost certainly legal. I worked for one of the bigger ISPs up until last year, so I speak only from my personal experience. For more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_point
    - kbenson 11y ago
      > The demarcation is generally clearly marked (plastic box often called a 'network interface device') and is almost never located at the modem itself. Yes, but if cable companies always provided and required you use their cable modems, then there would be a clear demarcation point, the cable modem. Whether it's usually inside or outside is irrelevant (and "usually" in this case is debatable. I've worked at multiple business locations where it's inside, because there is a location dedicated for it). Of course there isn't a clear demarcation at the cable modem, as many cable companies allow you to use your own cable modem instead of theirs, which is why I said the issue is "muddied".
jp555 11y ago
Doesn't stealing - technically speaking - mean taking another person's property without an intention of returning it? Duplicating someone's property without their permission is copyright infringement, not stealing. You're making more of it, not less of it.
- icebraining 11y ago
  The SCOTUS agrees with you (in Dowling v. United States). Dowling prevailed, because while he committed copyright infringement (for profit!), he didn't steal. Technically.

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.
- kileywm 11y ago
  There may be a terms of use clause forbidding splitting like this but it almost certainly isn't a demarcation issue, so there is no real 'bypass' that I am aware of. The demarcation is generally clearly marked (plastic box often called a 'network interface device') and is almost never located at the modem itself. Typically, the legal demarcation is on the exterior of houses. For a multiple dwelling unit (apartment complex) or commercial building, the demarcation is usually inside. ISPs try to choose a demarcation that is accessible from the outside, so as to not require being allowed into the building to test signal leading to the premise. This cuts down on cancelled repairs due to 'no access'. My point in all this is that for most coax and twisted pair services, the indoor wiring is usually the property owners and not the ISP's, especially at the point where it connects to the modem. For someone to add a splitter to wire that is their responsibility and property is almost certainly legal. I worked for one of the bigger ISPs up until last year, so I speak only from my personal experience. For more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_point
  - kbenson 11y ago
    > The demarcation is generally clearly marked (plastic box often called a 'network interface device') and is almost never located at the modem itself. Yes, but if cable companies always provided and required you use their cable modems, then there would be a clear demarcation point, the cable modem. Whether it's usually inside or outside is irrelevant (and "usually" in this case is debatable. I've worked at multiple business locations where it's inside, because there is a location dedicated for it). Of course there isn't a clear demarcation at the cable modem, as many cable companies allow you to use your own cable modem instead of theirs, which is why I said the issue is "muddied".

jp555 11y ago

Doesn't stealing - technically speaking - mean taking another person's property without an intention of returning it? Duplicating someone's property without their permission is copyright infringement, not stealing. You're making more of it, not less of it.

icebraining 11y ago
The SCOTUS agrees with you (in Dowling v. United States). Dowling prevailed, because while he committed copyright infringement (for profit!), he didn't steal. Technically.