Insight into ESPN's thought process

[upstater]

Call Time Warner and thank them for the free cable.

Then, turn the television on and count down from 10....

I'm sure they won't care. If this is a surprise to them (that they send signals to EVERYONE'S home), then they won't care. If it isn't a surprise, they already know. Multiple people have reported this is how they work.

You say it's stealing. Even though I ordered service, this is what I got. I then asked others in my situation, and they said it's the same exact thing for them. Clearly, this is how TW works. Read minidarren's post; he thinks TW can't be bothered to send subcontractors out (because that's what they are in my town, they don't work directly for TW) for what will likely mean a minimal payout (i.e. most internet-only users would dump cable since almost all channels are available over the air).

 

[upstater]

http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/residential-home/internet/plans.html

The 64.96 price includes basic cable. It's a package.

I clicked the link but didn't see that. Where did you get it? To be clear, I pay $55 a month for turbo.

 

[zls44]

I'm sure they won't care.

Somehow I find that unlikely.

 

[J187Money]

I don't see the prohibition there. It sounds like boilerplate. It has nothing to do with the person who pays for cable. It has everything to do with the person setting up a slingplayer account. There's nothing there that says the slingplayer account person is the same as the cable account. This is why my original example was about multiple slingboxes in the same residence. Each slingbox can only be viewed by one person. Not multiple people. That's how they work. So if several individuals purchased multiple slingboxes, hooked them up, never revealed their passwords to anyone else, they wouldn't be in violation of slingbox's terms. Certainly not illegal anyway.

1) I know it is a straw man argument, but there are technical limitations. You actually have to do some work to figure out how to run multiple slingboxes off of one cable hookup. 99% of people wouldn't be able to do it anyway.
2) If you did, you'd get away with it. Slingbox wouldn't care, because you spent hundreds on hardware.
3) Even if there were 1000 such people doing this in the US it wouldn't move the needle. You'd have to do something on a grand scale (like mp3 piracy) to make a difference. I imagine more people in NYC are splitting their cable signals today to share between apartments than people have even contemplated doing what you suggest.
4) When slingbox came out (I was an early adopter) the big fight WITH the cable companies and content owners was to prohibit things like this on a grand scale. One of the concessions was to have it locked down so there can only be one user at a time, etc. Which covers 99+% of the use cases.
5) http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads...olicy-on-sharing-cable-service-with-neighbors

You'd run afoul of TWC in #5 and NOT slingbox in your setup. And possibly federal law.

Likelihood of getting caught? Next to nil.

If you did? Probably a big deal. Kinda like all of the people that got swept up by the RIAA for piracy.

 

[pepband99]

I'm sure they won't care. If this is a surprise to them (that they send signals to EVERYONE'S home), then they won't care. If it isn't a surprise, they already know. Multiple people have reported this is how they work.

You say it's stealing. Even though I ordered service, this is what I got. I then asked others in my situation, and they said it's the same exact thing for them. Clearly, this is how TW works. Read minidarren's post; he thinks TW can't be bothered to send subcontractors out (because that's what they are in my town, they don't work directly for TW) for what will likely mean a minimal payout (i.e. most internet-only users would dump cable since almost all channels are available over the air).

You're stealing. Period. TWC "doesn't care" because they don't have a remedy at present, but you're stealing TV.

People in your situation are exactly why even basic cable is being put into digital/encrypted now. That's their remedy, but it's a fairly major endeavor.

 

[ddminct]

You're stealing. Period. TWC "doesn't care" because they don't have a remedy at present, but you're stealing TV.

People in your situation are exactly why even basic cable is being put into digital/encrypted now. That's their remedy, but it's a fairly major endeavor.

He might be stealing but they have a remedy. At least Comcast does. We cancelled our cable but kept Internet. They sent someone out and blocked us from getting any cable but we kept getting Internet.

 

[upstater]

1) I know it is a straw man argument, but there are technical limitations. You actually have to do some work to figure out how to run multiple slingboxes off of one cable hookup. 99% of people wouldn't be able to do it anyway.

Oh, I don't think anyone knows how to do it off one cable hookup. You have to have multiple live outlets. All slingbox does is control the TV. That's it. So it's the same as having cable connections in 2 different rooms. The cable TV subscriber pays for both outlets. But each slingbox unit then has its own password and service, but it can only be used by one person at a time.

2) If you did, you'd get away with it. Slingbox wouldn't care, because you spent hundreds on hardware.
3) Even if there were 1000 such people doing this in the US it wouldn't move the needle. You'd have to do something on a grand scale (like mp3 piracy) to make a difference. I imagine more people in NYC are splitting their cable signals today to share between apartments than people have even contemplated doing what you suggest.

I was just wondering why slingbox isn't illegal. Not for any revolutionary uprising. In truth, Slingbox's picture is not all that great--and now it doesn't even work well on the new Apple mobile OS (I have an iPad).

4) When slingbox came out (I was an early adopter) the big fight WITH the cable companies and content owners was to prohibit things like this on a grand scale. One of the concessions was to have it locked down so there can only be one user at a time, etc. Which covers 99+% of the use cases.

Yes, correct. Only one user at a time. But you can have boxes on multiple outlets.

5) http://www.satelliteguys.us/threads...olicy-on-sharing-cable-service-with-neighbors

You'd run afoul of TWC in #5 and NOT slingbox in your setup. And possibly federal law.

Do you? Again, that's neighbor's setting up cable boxes between apartments. Very different than what slingbox does, which is to send over the internet. My example is obviously hypothetical. Until SNY, however, I had no access to local Husky games and used a slingbox off a Conn. TV to watch the Huskies play.

Likelihood of getting caught? Next to nil.

If you did? Probably a big deal. Kinda like all of the people that got swept up by the RIAA for piracy.

Again, I assume this is stealing if you have multiple slingboxes for a variety of people, but then you'd have to show where the cable subscriber is prohibited from allowing a family relation elsewhere to own a slingbox in the home. I've never seen such a prohibition anywhere. The fact that they got slingbox to agree to allow only one user at a time tells me that they were unable to put any other prohibitions on slingbox. Which means, slingbox(es) are legal.

 

[upstater]

You're stealing. Period. TWC "doesn't care" because they don't have a remedy at present, but you're stealing TV.

People in your situation are exactly why even basic cable is being put into digital/encrypted now. That's their remedy, but it's a fairly major endeavor.

They do have a remedy. Apparently. As I learned yesterday. They could block the signal. I think the definitions of stealing here are questionable at best. This is programmatic on TW's part. It's how they operate. Why would this be the consumer's problem? Heck, there are a ton of people all over the region who probably don't even realize basic is being pumped into their house.

At best, I'm stealing UConn Husky games (i.e. the only time I'll watch). But I used to do that legally through slingbox as well.

 

[upstater]

Somehow I find that unlikely.

If they did care, why won't they block it? Didn't ask for it, wasn't here when I got here, didn't take it, have never been inside my cable box.

 

[noeynox]

They do have a remedy. Apparently. As I learned yesterday. They could block the signal. I think the definitions of stealing here are questionable at best. This is programmatic on TW's part. It's how they operate. Why would this be the consumer's problem? Heck, there are a ton of people all over the region who probably don't even realize basic is being pumped into their house.

At best, I'm stealing UConn Husky games (i.e. the only time I'll watch). But I used to do that legally through slingbox as well.

I haven't read every single post in this debate, but I'll add my two cents. In an effort to save money, I went with Dishnetwork, and Cox for internet (no home phone service). The cox internet guy left an extra cable in my garage hooked up and told me that I could get the basic channels if plugged a tv in. In less than a year however, I paid the early termination fee and left dish, in part because they lost SNY, in part because I needed a fax more than I thought I would, and in part because I wasn't really saving any money. So i never took adavantage of the free basic, but it was available through cox as well.

 

[upstater]

I haven't read every single post in this debate, but I'll add my two cents. In an effort to save money, I went with Dishnetwork, and Cox for internet (no home phone service). The cox internet guy left an extra cable in my garage hooked up and told me that I could get the basic channels if plugged a tv in. In less than a year however, I paid the early termination fee and left dish, in part because they lost SNY, in part because I needed a fax more than I thought I would, and in part because I wasn't really saving any money. So i never took adavantage of the free basic, but it was available through cox as well.

I wonder if he was doing this on the sly.

Is this the thinking? Basic is "basically" barren of anything you can't otherwise get with antenna. And over-the-air HD is better anyway, so maybe they figure what the heck, plug in. SNY is about the only thing on there for me.

 

[pepband99]

They do have a remedy. Apparently. As I learned yesterday. They could block the signal. I think the definitions of stealing here are questionable at best. This is programmatic on TW's part. It's how they operate. Why would this be the consumer's problem? Heck, there are a ton of people all over the region who probably don't even realize basic is being pumped into their house.

At best, I'm stealing UConn Husky games (i.e. the only time I'll watch). But I used to do that legally through slingbox as well.

Yes, they can "trap" the frequency for analog TV, but it's a per-house and per-system fix. $$$$$ for little benefit. It doesn't fix the fact you're stealing.

 

[minidarren]

I wonder if he was doing this on the sly.

Is this the thinking? Basic is "basically" barren of anything you can't otherwise get with antenna. And over-the-air HD is better anyway, so maybe they figure what the heck, plug in. SNY is about the only thing on there for me.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that Cox does not provide basic cable to its internet only customers.

If that tech were to be caught he would be fired. Risky move to "hook up" someone you don't even know.

The fact that TW is using sub contractors may be why there is a high incidence of internet only customers receiving basic TV as well.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[upstater]

Yes, they can "trap" the frequency for analog TV, but it's a per-house and per-system fix. $ for little benefit. It doesn't fix the fact you're stealing.

Your version of stealing is bizarre. It's like the water being pumped into my house with old meters. I'm told the new meters are much more accurate and will surely raise my bill. Am I going to run out and get a new meter? I get water that I'm not apparently paying for. I have no idea how much. But there it is. It's not on me to worry about the service I'm getting. It's on me to pay for the services I contracted for. If you can't run your business in an efficient way, then get better. Minidarren works for a company that does block signals. As I said, are the people who never watch cable but get it also stealing? Is stealing then based on whether or not you get it pumped into your house without paying for it? Or is it based on watching it occasionally? Or--as with adthe.net links being posted here during the season--is watching a UConn game on adthe.net also stealing then? What's the difference?

I'll add one more for you. I get ESPN3 through my internet without having ESPN. What's your ethical stance on that? I went to ESPN's site, put in my roadrunner password, and there it was: ESPN3.

 

[J187Money]

Again, I assume this is stealing if you have multiple slingboxes for a variety of people, but then you'd have to show where the cable subscriber is prohibited from allowing a family relation elsewhere to own a slingbox in the home. I've never seen such a prohibition anywhere. The fact that they got slingbox to agree to allow only one user at a time tells me that they were unable to put any other prohibitions on slingbox. Which means, slingbox(es) are legal.

If you had 10 people living in one location and 10 slingboxes, I'd agree. If you were using multiple slingboxes to give "free" cable to people who don't live with you and who wouldn't have access otherwise, you'd be wrong. Again, you'd never get caught, but you'd lose that fight.

 

[upstater]

If you had 10 people living in one location and 10 slingboxes, I'd agree. If you were using multiple slingboxes to give "free" cable to people who don't live with you and who wouldn't have access otherwise, you'd be wrong. Again, you'd never get caught, but you'd lose that fight.

It's an extreme hypothetical of course. I was pointing out, though, that there is no restriction on slingbox being sent to ONE person who does not live in that household (in my case, I have slingbox hooked to my octogenarian parents TV, but my bro and I pay all bills. I use it to watch the Patriots these days). There is no restriction there (not because I pay for half, there wouldn't be one even if I didn't).

 

[noeynox]

I can tell you with absolute certainty that Cox does not provide basic cable to its internet only customers.

If that tech were to be caught he would be fired. Risky move to "hook up" someone you don't even know.

The fact that TW is using sub contractors may be why there is a high incidence of internet only customers receiving basic TV as well.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I don't think it was hook up as much a heads up, since apparantly they don't have or didn't have at the time about three years ago a block/filter to differentiate the two. It couldn't have been a hookup, because when a second tech came out diagnose a problem with the internet he said the same thing. "You know you can plug in to this line and get basic cable right". I never used it, and get everything through uverse now, but its 212.oo a month, and with a 3 and 2 year old, in the house don't know if it is going to be worth keeping going forward to be honest.

 

[pepband99]

Your version of stealing is bizarre. It's like the water being pumped into my house with old meters. I'm told the new meters are much more accurate and will surely raise my bill. Am I going to run out and get a new meter? I get water that I'm not apparently paying for. I have no idea how much. But there it is. It's not on me to worry about the service I'm getting. It's on me to pay for the services I contracted for. If you can't run your business in an efficient way, then get better. Minidarren works for a company that does block signals. As I said, are the people who never watch cable but get it also stealing? Is stealing then based on whether or not you get it pumped into your house without paying for it? Or is it based on watching it occasionally? Or--as with adthe.net links being posted here during the season--is watching a UConn game on adthe.net also stealing then? What's the difference?

I'll add one more for you. I get ESPN3 through my internet without having ESPN. What's your ethical stance on that? I went to ESPN's site, put in my roadrunner password, and there it was: ESPN3.

Your continued attempts at rationalizing this is what's bizarre. You're stealing, and getting away with it. Smile.

Your ESPN3 scenario is perfectly plausible. Not every cable op has put in a provision for internet-only customers. Some have.

 

[minidarren]

I don't think it was hook up as much a heads up, since apparantly they don't have or didn't have at the time about three years ago a block/filter to differentiate the two. It couldn't have been a hookup, because when a second tech came out diagnose a problem with the internet he said the same thing. "You know you can plug in to this line and get basic cable right". I never used it, and get everything through uverse now, but its 212.oo a month, and with a 3 and 2 year old, in the house don't know if it is going to be worth keeping going forward to be honest.

Call it whatever you would like to call it, but cable providers do not provide basic TV to internet only subscribers. Its unethical for the technician to be advising you that you can just hook up to this line to get free TV. Because, quite frankly, there is nothing different about that line than the one that feeds to your cable modem. Throw a two way splitter behind your modem and put in a TV, voila!

Cable providers have to pay broadcast stations for the content that they distribute. In what wacky business world would it make sense for them to give a product away for no charge while the broadcasters are trying to up their rates by >100% each contract negotiation. Yes, the same broadcasters that send their signals out over the air CHARGE cable operators to carry their signals.

Short of climbing a telephone pole and hooking yourself up, I dont think your situation Upstater, means that you are a cable thief. The responsibility of providing the cusotmers with the correct service rests with the cable provider. Are there questionable ethics? Sure. Im not patting myself on the back or anything, but I once went through a drive thru at Wendy's. Handed the guy a 20.00 bill for my 9.** meal. The guy hands me back a 100.00 bill and some change. I drove off to the parking lot where I normally went to eat my dinner on 3rd shift. I felt wrong by keeping that $100.00 bill so I went back through the drive thru and gave it back to the guy. He was greatful as it probably would have cost him his job for his drawer being off my $100.00.

I have no idea what TW does for their internet only customers. By you saying they only use contractors tells me a lot of what is going on up there. Maybe Warren Buffets investment has made it so that TW could give a damn less about a few hundred thosand dollars per year. Does TW each that dollar per subscriber as negotiated in the article below? Or do they pass the buck onto the customer? Keep in mind, this is signal that is sent over the airwaves and can be picked up with an antenna.

http://www.today.com/id/34632823/ns/today-entertainment/t/fox-time-warner-reach-programming-deal/

 

[minidarren]

Your continued attempts at rationalizing this is what's bizarre. You're stealing, and getting away with it. Smile.

Your ESPN3 scenario is perfectly plausible. Not every cable op has put in a provision for internet-only customers. Some have.

ESPN3 is typically provided with any higher tier internet package. I think all the providers offer it now.

 

[zls44]

US Open tennis moving to cable-only starting in two years. I await upstater crying out about what a disservice it is to take the final off free TV.

 

[huskymedic]

Love how stuck in the muck most sports fans are in their thinking, living way back in the ancient past of 2011 or something. Most of the young who will be driving the media access of the future don't give two farts about TV options and are moving to internet choices at a rapidly expanding rate. So if cable does start charging the proverbial $150 for a station, the rush to abandon cable will just escalate. As the saying goes, "It's the economy, stupid," and if cable does institute a la carte pricing that is still more onerous, customers will start streaming for the exit in even larger numbers due to the non-economics of an antiquated restrictive system. Sure, ESPN will still figure out ways to pull decent revenue off the internet, but there is far less control and much more of a "give it to me free" attitude on the net. And there's so much free sports on the web that young sports fans can learn to change their viewing habits without much trouble. Yeah, old timers who are flush enough to not care about the money will probably still be wrapped around cable for many years down the road when much of America's youth has moved on.

ESPN Eyes Subsidizing Wireless-Data Plans

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324059704578473400083982568.html

"ESPN, the cable sports channel majority-owned by Walt Disney Co., has had discussions with at least one major U.S. carrier to subsidize wireless connectivity on behalf of its users, according to people familiar with the matter. Under one potential scenario, the company would pay a carrier to guarantee that people viewing ESPN mobile content wouldn't have that usage counted toward their monthly data caps."

 

[minidarren]

ESPN Eyes Subsidizing Wireless-Data Plans

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324059704578473400083982568.html

"ESPN, the cable sports channel majority-owned by Walt Disney Co., has had discussions with at least one major U.S. carrier to subsidize wireless connectivity on behalf of its users, according to people familiar with the matter. Under one potential scenario, the company would pay a carrier to guarantee that people viewing ESPN mobile content wouldn't have that usage counted toward their monthly data caps."

Thats pretty cool and tells you the kind of money those dudes have...

 

[J187Money]

ESPN3 is typically provided with any higher tier internet package. I think all the providers offer it now.

I can watch ESPN3 in the house because I have AT&T Uverse internet. But I can't watch it outside of the house because I don't have AT&T Uverse TV (I have DirecTV).

 

[J187Money]

Thats pretty cool and tells you the kind of money those dudes have...

Because of our tax breaks of course