Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
By Linda Haugsted
21 November 2006
Multichannel News
Cox Communications Arizona contracted with an outside security firm to help the division combat cable-signal theft.
According to Ivan Johnson, vice president of community relations and television for the Cox division, the unit loses an estimated $6 million per year due to theft of cable programming.
The outside firm, Secure Signals International of Denver, will pursue prosecution under federal law of people who steal cable. Arizona state law treats cable theft as a misdemeanor, but federal law has stronger potential penalties.
In the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, the law calls for a $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail for a person found to willingly receive cable products for which they have not paid. The fine can escalate to $10,000.
An offender found guilty of selling items to enable cable theft can face a penalty of $50,000 and up to two years in jail upon first offense.
The anti-theft effort will pursue both individuals who steal analog cable and those who pirate digital signals, usually with the use of filters attached to converters that prevent the return of billing data from the home to the video provider. Such filters are deauthorized when the provider refreshes security codes, but by then, a thief my have accessed all premium and pay-per-view offerings.
Secure Signals provides anti-theft and other risk-management services to providers throughout the cable industry.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
I think that most of the people who steal cable would not pay for cable if they were unable to steal it, so are the cable companies really loosing money. I do not buy that stealing a signal accounts for a $6 million loss unless they are know exactly were it is being taken from and have to upgrade those areas to account for most signal so they would then know were it is being taken from and could catch them. I am not saying to steal it becasue it is wrong, but that total seems a bit high. Plus, they would need to know many are stealing to have a amount of lost money, and if they know have many are stealing, why can they not catch them then?
__________________
"That kid is back on the escalator"
Brodie Bruce, Mallrats
"What's a nubian" Banky Edwards, Chasing Amy
I think that most of the people who steal cable would not pay for cable if they were unable to steal it, so are the cable companies really loosing money. I do not buy that stealing a signal accounts for a $6 million loss unless they are know exactly were it is being taken from and have to upgrade those areas to account for most signal so they would then know were it is being taken from and could catch them. I am not saying to steal it becasue it is wrong, but that total seems a bit high. Plus, they would need to know many are stealing to have a amount of lost money, and if they know have many are stealing, why can they not catch them then?
I see your argument, but I think the $6M could be attributed to the costs of facilities and infrastructure that are non-recoverable since the people arent paying. I doubt the number I described is $6M though.
My problem with that is for years every apartment I helped a friend move into had "free" cable. There was a cable coming out of the wall, and if you plugged it into your tv through your VCR, you got cable. Usually just basic, but free, beyond just local channels. I hear that's not always the case now, that they either turn those off, or have done something that stops that from happening, but I don't consider that to be "stealing" since the equipment was already there and on.
If someone sends me something in the mail I didn't order, I can keep it and use it, if someone delivers free cable to a coax cable in my apartment, I can use it can't I?
Now the illegal boxes etc I fully agree that's stealing.
My problem with that is for years every apartment I helped a friend move into had "free" cable. There was a cable coming out of the wall, and if you plugged it into your tv through your VCR, you got cable. Usually just basic, but free, beyond just local channels. I hear that's not always the case now, that they either turn those off, or have done something that stops that from happening, but I don't consider that to be "stealing" since the equipment was already there and on.
If someone sends me something in the mail I didn't order, I can keep it and use it, if someone delivers free cable to a coax cable in my apartment, I can use it can't I?
Now the illegal boxes etc I fully agree that's stealing.
It's still considered passive theft. You're receiving services that you're not paying for. True, the cable company should shut that apartment off, but it doesn't mean someone has the right to tap into it if it doesn't.
I don't really think you can keep stuff that comes in the mail, can you?
It's still considered passive theft. You're receiving services that you're not paying for. True, the cable company should shut that apartment off, but it doesn't mean someone has the right to tap into it if it doesn't.
I don't really think you can keep stuff that comes in the mail, can you?
Within reason you can. if I get a package with your name and address on it no I don't have the right to keep it. But if some company sends me a package of fishing lures I didn't order, and then sends me a bill for them, my understanding is by law I can keep them, and use them, without paying for them because I never ordered them.
Don't quote me on it but that's always been my understanding it's supposed to prevent companies from "tricking" people into paying for stuff they dont' order. The most common such situation is the calls people get at work for toner for copiers or for lightbulbs, all they want to do is confirm your name and maybe your job title and they send it off to you with your attention on the invoice and then bill your company. At least in California that sort of business practice has repeatedly been determined to be illegal, that the recipient can either refuse the package at no cost, or keep the package and STILL not pay because they didn't really order it.
Linear Mode
