4 ms·

On top of that, it takes equipment, hardware, personnel, infrastructure, power to deliver cable. The OP literally has no idea what they are talking about, and

by b112 3y ago

On top of that, it takes equipment, hardware, personnel, infrastructure, power to deliver cable. The OP literally has no idea what they are talking about, and could use the same logic for electricity theft.

notpushkin 3y ago
There's a subtle but very important difference. Electricity theft does extract a resource from the grid (electricity provider needs to supply the energy you're using on the other end). Similarly, phreaking uses phone lines which is a finite resource too (and phone company would rather keep those available for paying customers). Cable on the other hand runs all channels to your household in the first place. By removing the filter, you aren't creating any additional load on the cable network or using any additional resources for free.
- b112 3y ago
  One might argue that when viewed, there is current draw, and that additional channels typically means more viewing. But I was thinking of overall service theft, and did not think of the filter. That case is different. This makes me think, though. I lived through this time, and adding the filter makes zero logistic sense. EG, why have anyone, who isn't paying, even connected? Then I remembered something. I lived in a house, where there was a shared box for 2 units. Someone had pried open the box, and removed the filters. As a result, the cable guy disconnected the wire at the pole. This resulted in something different. Instead of a cutoff, most channels came through, just very fuzzy. And as a kid, I lived in a rural area, and we owned an antenna booster/amp, which had made signals poorer than this, crystal clear. It seemed that leaving an uncapped end inside a box on the pole, with loads of signal, bled enough for a usable signal to get through. So this is probably why a filter was placed. And of course, to prevent the long wire from picking up local over the air stuff too. Ah well.
- tzs 3y ago
  Just because the harm caused by an individual action is tiny doesn't necessarily mean that thing should be legal. For example I have a small amount of engine oil that needs disposal. I could dump it in the drainage ditch in front of my house and probably the only measurable harm it might cause would be to weeds that are growing in the ditch. By time it got to where oil could harm anything valuable it would be so diluted that it would not cause any detectable harm. Yet doing so is illegal. It needs to be illegal because if a large number of people did it there would be measurable harm even though the harm from any one of the individuals would not be measurable. With any kind of theft of services you need to look at not just the direct harm an individual might cause to the service provider (which may be immeasurably small) but also the harm to the service provider and to the people who are paying for the service if theft of services were widespread. To give an extreme example if I am the only customer in my town who is actually paying for service with everyone else committing theft of services to get that service the service provider is likely to either withdraw from the market or raise rates significantly, either of which harms me. Of course it would never actually get that extreme, but if even a few percent of people are doing it the service provider will probably start spending money on technological solutions to stop that. And the costs of those technological solutions will likely be pushed onto subscribers. Those solutions may also require installing more equipment at the user end to use the service (e.g., set top boxes) that can reduce the user's privacy.
  - cogman10 3y ago
    And I don't think anyone is arguing that there shouldn't be some sort of legal action against cable stealing. My initial comment is really focused on the fact that it involves jail time. To the oil ditch example, I certainly could see something like "it's $1000 and cleanup costs". The only way I could see jail time being justified is if you routinely decided to go around spraying the neighborhood with motor oil. But for cable, there doesn't seem like there's ever a case where an individual could warrant jail time. Fine + cable bill for the free months of cable seems like more than enough for most people and for the "serial offender" it seems like lifetime subscription would be more than enough to avoid future problems (court mandated cable would be an interesting punishment :D)
BLKNSLVR 3y ago
Many years ago the house I was living in had cable (foxtel, Australia) connected, but the residents who had paid for it had moved out and were no longer paying for it, therefore it sat as an unused plug in the wall for a good couple of years. I got one of those old "TV cards", so you could hook up an antenna and have TV on your computer (yeah, this was before "internet" was better than TV for moving picture entertainment) and had heard about software that could decode foxtel signal. After a lot of futzing about, and failed attempts, it started working well enough to be watchable - although most of the content was shit, it was foxtel after all. My point being - the signal is sent through the cable either way. Whether there's a device at the end of it or not. Equipment, hardware, personnel, power was provided by me to get it working. The previous residents paid for the connection of the cable itself. The data is all sent down the pipe whether or not someone was watching it at the far end, just due to the nature of cable at the time. I get your electricity analogy though, but I really don't know if it applies to the data being sent down the cable. I doubt it cost "faceless them" any extra as my understanding was that the cable was a shared signal by the street (or some other small-ish communal size). Once I got it working, I mostly lost interest :)
- b112 3y ago
  A good story, the only interest was in the hack. A lot of older sci-fi books, eg Heinlein, had hacker types discovering some highly profitable thing, but being uninterested except it was fun to figure out. This was often to the mystification of "normal" people, who would plead for them to work the idea into profit. Often they were tricked into making the process profitable, by being told how impossible it was. I responded in more ontopic detail in another comment.
  - seabass-labrax 3y ago
    Would you please inform me, if you can, as to which books are you thinking of? I have read a few Heinlein novels but would like to know if I'm missing a classic in your eyes.
    - b112 3y ago
concordDance 3y ago
Nitpick: At least in the UK that last is not theft, falling under "abstracting electricity".
- b112 3y ago
  Abstracting! To my Canadian ears, it sounds quite strange, almost as if one used magical words to whisk it away.
midasuni 3y ago
I believe that’s “abstraction of electricity” in the U.K, Theft requires an intent to permanently deprive. “Grand theft auto” is “taking without consent” in most of the U.K., although in Scotland it’s “taking and driving away” It’s a sad sign of American cultural hegemony that GTA wasn’t called TADA. Either way the amount of power abstracted from a cable signal is infinitesimal.

by b112 3y ago

notpushkin 3y ago

There's a subtle but very important difference. Electricity theft does extract a resource from the grid (electricity provider needs to supply the energy you're using on the other end). Similarly, phreaking uses phone lines which is a finite resource too (and phone company would rather keep those available for paying customers). Cable on the other hand runs all channels to your household in the first place. By removing the filter, you aren't creating any additional load on the cable network or using any additional resources for free.

b112 3y ago
One might argue that when viewed, there is current draw, and that additional channels typically means more viewing. But I was thinking of overall service theft, and did not think of the filter. That case is different. This makes me think, though. I lived through this time, and adding the filter makes zero logistic sense. EG, why have anyone, who isn't paying, even connected? Then I remembered something. I lived in a house, where there was a shared box for 2 units. Someone had pried open the box, and removed the filters. As a result, the cable guy disconnected the wire at the pole. This resulted in something different. Instead of a cutoff, most channels came through, just very fuzzy. And as a kid, I lived in a rural area, and we owned an antenna booster/amp, which had made signals poorer than this, crystal clear. It seemed that leaving an uncapped end inside a box on the pole, with loads of signal, bled enough for a usable signal to get through. So this is probably why a filter was placed. And of course, to prevent the long wire from picking up local over the air stuff too. Ah well.
tzs 3y ago
Just because the harm caused by an individual action is tiny doesn't necessarily mean that thing should be legal. For example I have a small amount of engine oil that needs disposal. I could dump it in the drainage ditch in front of my house and probably the only measurable harm it might cause would be to weeds that are growing in the ditch. By time it got to where oil could harm anything valuable it would be so diluted that it would not cause any detectable harm. Yet doing so is illegal. It needs to be illegal because if a large number of people did it there would be measurable harm even though the harm from any one of the individuals would not be measurable. With any kind of theft of services you need to look at not just the direct harm an individual might cause to the service provider (which may be immeasurably small) but also the harm to the service provider and to the people who are paying for the service if theft of services were widespread. To give an extreme example if I am the only customer in my town who is actually paying for service with everyone else committing theft of services to get that service the service provider is likely to either withdraw from the market or raise rates significantly, either of which harms me. Of course it would never actually get that extreme, but if even a few percent of people are doing it the service provider will probably start spending money on technological solutions to stop that. And the costs of those technological solutions will likely be pushed onto subscribers. Those solutions may also require installing more equipment at the user end to use the service (e.g., set top boxes) that can reduce the user's privacy.
- cogman10 3y ago
  And I don't think anyone is arguing that there shouldn't be some sort of legal action against cable stealing. My initial comment is really focused on the fact that it involves jail time. To the oil ditch example, I certainly could see something like "it's $1000 and cleanup costs". The only way I could see jail time being justified is if you routinely decided to go around spraying the neighborhood with motor oil. But for cable, there doesn't seem like there's ever a case where an individual could warrant jail time. Fine + cable bill for the free months of cable seems like more than enough for most people and for the "serial offender" it seems like lifetime subscription would be more than enough to avoid future problems (court mandated cable would be an interesting punishment :D)

BLKNSLVR 3y ago

Many years ago the house I was living in had cable (foxtel, Australia) connected, but the residents who had paid for it had moved out and were no longer paying for it, therefore it sat as an unused plug in the wall for a good couple of years. I got one of those old "TV cards", so you could hook up an antenna and have TV on your computer (yeah, this was before "internet" was better than TV for moving picture entertainment) and had heard about software that could decode foxtel signal. After a lot of futzing about, and failed attempts, it started working well enough to be watchable - although most of the content was shit, it was foxtel after all. My point being - the signal is sent through the cable either way. Whether there's a device at the end of it or not. Equipment, hardware, personnel, power was provided by me to get it working. The previous residents paid for the connection of the cable itself. The data is all sent down the pipe whether or not someone was watching it at the far end, just due to the nature of cable at the time. I get your electricity analogy though, but I really don't know if it applies to the data being sent down the cable. I doubt it cost "faceless them" any extra as my understanding was that the cable was a shared signal by the street (or some other small-ish communal size). Once I got it working, I mostly lost interest :)

b112 3y ago
A good story, the only interest was in the hack. A lot of older sci-fi books, eg Heinlein, had hacker types discovering some highly profitable thing, but being uninterested except it was fun to figure out. This was often to the mystification of "normal" people, who would plead for them to work the idea into profit. Often they were tricked into making the process profitable, by being told how impossible it was. I responded in more ontopic detail in another comment.
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  Would you please inform me, if you can, as to which books are you thinking of? I have read a few Heinlein novels but would like to know if I'm missing a classic in your eyes.
  - b112 3y ago

concordDance 3y ago

Nitpick: At least in the UK that last is not theft, falling under "abstracting electricity".

b112 3y ago
Abstracting! To my Canadian ears, it sounds quite strange, almost as if one used magical words to whisk it away.

midasuni 3y ago

I believe that’s “abstraction of electricity” in the U.K, Theft requires an intent to permanently deprive. “Grand theft auto” is “taking without consent” in most of the U.K., although in Scotland it’s “taking and driving away” It’s a sad sign of American cultural hegemony that GTA wasn’t called TADA. Either way the amount of power abstracted from a cable signal is infinitesimal.