Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh. Media Television

Users Conned by Cable Con 442

Posted by timothy from the nelson-laughs dept.
RJ Mansfield writes "MSNBC is running a story on users attempting to con their cable companies being connned. The high-cost filter being sold on Ebay and through email Spam to bypass Pay-Per-View (PPV) digital cable systems is a readily available filter that only temporarily blocks the PPV charges. Users are getting shocked when the cable company then bills the cable user for all of the ordered PPV."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Users Conned by Cable Con More

Users Conned by Cable Con

Comments Filter:

  • Sounds fair to me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spytap ( 143526 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:37AM (#5542711)
    Sounds fair to me, but knowing the type of people who do this, their first reaction is going to be one of "What a second! We weren't told about this!! We were busy reaching around your jacket to get your wallet, we didn't know that you were grabbing ours in the process!"

    • Re:Sounds fair to me (Score:5, Interesting)

      by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @06:52AM (#5542982) Journal

      Sounds fair to me, but knowing the type of people who do this, their first reaction is going to be one of "What a second! We weren't told about this!! We were busy reaching around your jacket to get your wallet, we didn't know that you were grabbing ours in the process!"


      Honestly, people dumb enought to getting ripped off while they are trying to rip off someone else deserves what they get.. people beliving spam even more so. After all, a fool and his money is easily parted.


      I am however puzzled over one simple fact; can it really be legal in the USofA (where I presume this is happening) to sell such a device? Over here (Norway for those who don't get the clue from my nick) it would be quite illegal to sell something which is intended to allow the (l)user to break the law.

      • Re:Sounds fair to me (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Gleef ( 86 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:05AM (#5543706) Homepage
        WegianWarrior asks:

        I am however puzzled over one simple fact; can it really be legal in the USofA (where I presume this is happening) to sell such a device? Over here (Norway for those who don't get the clue from my nick) it would be quite illegal to sell something which is intended to allow the (l)user to break the law.

        In the USA it is and it isn't. My understanding is, in most states, it is illegal to sell something for the purpose of committing a crime. As a corrolary to this, it is illegal to use criminal activities as selling point when making a sale. This makes the spam and many of the auctions illegal. It doesn't make selling the device illegal, you just have to limit yourself to the legal uses (filtering non-cabletv signals over coax).

        Another example is the crowbar. If you work at a hardware store, and someone wants to buy one, you can assume they want to use it for legal purposes and legally sell it to them. If, however, they come to the counter talking about using it in a burglary or assault, you can not legally sell it. Likewise, you can't put a sign up advertising the "Crowmaster 2000, busts neighbors locks 30% faster" and continue to sell the product legally.

        Some state laws may vary. I am not a lawyer, the above should not be considered legal advice.

      • Re:Sounds fair to me (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Methiphisto ( 518724 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:18AM (#5543783)
        If this is the same sort of device I remember using in college for this purpose then it is simply an inline hi-pass filter that you can buy at radio shack for a couple of bucks. I always worried we would eventually get a GIGANTIC bill, but luckily that never happened. The worst that ever happend was during a boxing match the screen blanked out and a message came on saying 'We know you are stealing this broadcast' or something to that effect. Scared the shit out of us, but nothing ever came of it. We later speculated that maybe the cable company figured out a way to send the message to people with the filters (which were pretty rampant at the time) but couldn't necessarily tell who was using them.

        • Re:Sounds fair to me (Score:3, Informative)

          by Cyberdyne ( 104305 )
          If this is the same sort of device I remember using in college for this purpose then it is simply an inline hi-pass filter that you can buy at radio shack for a couple of bucks. I always worried we would eventually get a GIGANTIC bill, but luckily that never happened. The worst that ever happend was during a boxing match the screen blanked out and a message came on saying 'We know you are stealing this broadcast' or something to that effect. Scared the shit out of us, but nothing ever came of it. We later s

    • Re:Sounds fair to me (Score:5, Funny)

      by synaptik ( 125 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:30AM (#5543847) Homepage
      So now I have to ask...

      "How much cable could a Cable Con con if a Cable Con could con cable?"

    • Re:Sounds fair to me (Score:4, Informative)

      by ergo98 ( 9391 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @12:32PM (#5544629) Homepage Journal
      Contrary to the tone of the article, this isn't and instance of the cable company "conning" users. The gist of the story is this (since so many don't seem to read): People bought a filter that blocks the box from talking to "headquarters", so the cableco doesn't know what movies you are watching. The problem? The cableco realizes that your box hasn't called home so hey shut it down, and once you bring it in they can easily retrieve all of the movies that you watched (the box has a long memory of all those late night porn flicks). They aren't "conning" people, but rather are charging people for events they TRIED to steal, but couldn't.

      Saying that the cable company "conned" them is like saying that Walmart is conning you if they make you pay for a chocolate bar you ate while walking around the store.

  • LOL (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:37AM (#5542712)
    Suckers; Look what happens when you try to 'Steal' without research.... hehehe

    • Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)

      by UPi ( 137083 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:47AM (#5542748) Homepage

      As clearly stated in the Acts of Gord [slashdot.org]: Think, then steal! Think, then steal! Not the other way around!

      Seriously: This type of scam works because subscribers don't understand how the system works. If you advertised a device which will allow you to pay no taxes, everyone would catch on quickly.

      I can see it now... "For $10 you don't need to file your taxes anymore! The deal of the century!..."

      • Re:LOL (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Moses Lawn ( 201138 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @05:06AM (#5542792)

        Seriously: This type of scam works because subscribers don't understand how the system works. If you advertised a device which will allow you to pay no taxes, everyone would catch on quickly.


        Sadly, you'd probably sell a bunch of them. People wouldn't catch on until the IRS came by to visit. For every semi-clueful person out there, there's a tax crank who's saying "Yeah - I'm getting one of these! I told you they had no constitutional right to do that!"

      • Re:LOL (Score:3, Informative)

        by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 )
        Those of us who do research this stuff have tried to warn people. My god, believing a poorly worded ebay auction?

        Ugh.

        My digital cablebox site [24.125.76.224] will tell you what little is known. If anyone wants to help, and designs PCI cards or demodulators for a living...

  • Theft is theft (Score:5, Funny)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:38AM (#5542714) Homepage Journal
    Users are getting shocked when the cable company then bills the cable user for all of the ordered PPV."

    I imagine Nelson (from Simpsons fame) saying "Ha-ha!"

  • Scammed... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    We had free PPV for awhile, and we couldn't figure out why. We thought that they were charging us the whole time, so we called and asked, they hadn't known a thing. Ah well, all that free porn...

  • Seriously, are there people here on Slashdot who believe that stealing pay-per-view movies is better than just paying the cable company the $3.25 or whatever for a movie? I'm actually curious if anyone reading this site has tried one of these things, and if so, what the rationale behind using it was.

    • I've never tried one, but I know people who have. Why do people do it? To save that $3.25. Greed. People will go out of their way to hoard free stuff.
    • $3.25? Try $6.50. Cable is expensive, PPV moreso.

      Cable descramblers are great! My friend has one for DirecTV. He gets every single channel, all the pornos, all the pay-per-views. There's still nothing on.

      • A guy walks into a bar. He says to the other guy, "Hey! I got these great CABLE descramblers for DirecTV SATELLITE systems!" The other guy says "okay, i'll take two! buh-dum-dum.

        Seriously, your friend probably has a hacked satellite reciever box. There is a card inside which can be modified or replaced with "all you can get" info on that card. I don't know any more spacifics because i'm a cable person. However, i know a few guys with direcTV who have done this sort of thing.
    • Back before Cox moved all the good channels to 3 digits, I.. I mean a friend of mine had a nice little black box he ordered COD from a company somewhere that really worked wonders.

      Well you still had to pay basic $13 a month, but you also got PPV free on 3 channels, SPICE, Cinemax, HBO, Showtime, and all the other channels that used to be 'extended' cable. Gave it up though. It was nice while it lasted.. just wish I'd thought to buy one earlier (or had the balls).

    • $3.25 or whatever for a movie?

      Ha! I can tell you it's a hell of a lot more than $3.25. I can go to the video store and rent one for much less, and then watch it as many times as I want and on my own schedule, including watching part now and part later. PPV is a flaming rip off. All the cable company has to do is flip a virtual switch (bool PlayMovie;) for you to be able to watch the movie, yet they think it's worth more than a hard copy rental? Some people deal with it by stealing, I deal with it

    • GPL (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Interfacer ( 560564 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @07:31AM (#5543033)
      I think a lot of /.ers suffer from hypocrisy.

      it is ok to con the PPV channel.
      it is ok to con the music industry
      it is ok to con Microsoft by copying all their software (for those of you who use it)

      but when someone else (other article some time ago) violates the GPL by not opening their code, you rant and rave about 'theft'.

      seriously, it is all the same.
      the only difference is POV.

      Int.

  • A single tear rolls down my cheek (Score:5, Insightful)

    by davmoo ( 63521 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:39AM (#5542720)
    Wahhh!! That's so sad!! I need some tissue to dry away the tears!!

    Not.

    Anyone who is stupid enough to buy one of these devices is getting what they deserve. If you want the premium channels, then pay for them. If you think the cable company charges too much, then complain to them and rent DVDs. But that doesn't give you any right to steal the programming.

    • Re:A single tear rolls down my cheek (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:52AM (#5542762) Journal
      Actually, it sounds like a good business model. Instead of making a superior product, it's better to build a lousy one, devise a con tool, anti-virus, anti-spam whatever.

      Sell it to as many suckers as possible. When you reach a critical mass, devise a tool to kill the first product and milk the buggers dry.

      X-Box modders watch out as well.

      How much does the spirit of an 800lb gorilla weigh?
    • Choice quote from the article:

      "The problem here is consumers conveniently don't employ common sense," she said. "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

      marty

  • Getting busted for movies eh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kethinov ( 636034 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:40AM (#5542724) Homepage Journal
    Morons for not downloading a divx movie on Kazaa instead =P
    That's much more effective piracy.

  • Yikes (Score:4, Funny)

    by Kirby-meister ( 574952 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:41AM (#5542726)
    Wow, it's good to know that internet porn pay sites can still be gotten into for free without any surprising bills at the end of the month.

    Otherwise /.ers everywhere would be either broke or divorced or both.

    • Re:Yikes (Score:3, Funny)

      by terraformer ( 617565 )
      Otherwise /.ers everywhere would be either broke or divorced or both.

      That is assuming they still have jobs and were ever married...

  • This is great! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Buzz_Litebeer ( 539463 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:41AM (#5542728) Journal
    I just read the article, and the people are getting charged HUGE bills for watching TV that they didnt pay for, live, while it was being broadcast.

    Hey they watched pay per veiw, a service that has been around a while and been accepted as being viable, and they are being told to pay for it. They dont even have ground to complain, it would be like getting robbed by a drug dealer who gave you bad drugs!

    "well officer, I was trying to by some cocaine, and i found out that it was 50% sugar!"

    I just find it funny some people are complaining about about being "cheated" by the product.

    • Actually this is terrible (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @06:26AM (#5542947)
      >"well officer, I was trying to by some cocaine, and i found out that it was 50% sugar!"

      How about I was buying coke and half of it was cut with cyanide and a few friends died? Do we laugh them? If the nanny state says, "No drugs for you" that doesn't mean con artists get a free ride to do whatever they please.

      I see no reason why the users of these devices shouldn't sue the retailers and manufacterers for false advertising. Just because something is contra-band doesnt give you the right to do what you please.

      Its illegal to make lethal booby traps for criminals and for a good reason too. Not just to protect the police who might stumble on them (or kids or whomever) but because criminals actually have rights! Due process and all. Look it up sometime in the Constitution, its a fading fad thanks to post 9/11 hysteria but its still a good idea.

      • Re:Actually this is terrible (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Dausha ( 546002 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @06:58AM (#5542993) Homepage

        I see no reason why the users of these devices shouldn't sue the retailers and manufacterers for false advertising. Just because something is contra-band (sic) doesnt (sic) give you the right to do what you please.

        Please sue. Then you can testify in court how you attempted theft and were robbed in the process. Then, after you win your civil case and receive your settlement the District Attorney can arrest you for the crime you committed. It will be an open-and-shut case since you have already given sworn testimony admitting to the crime. The DA can give it to his freshest assistant and chose to prosecute to set an example.

        Its illegal to make lethal booby traps for criminals and for a good reason too. Not just to protect the police who might stumble on them (or kids or whomever) but because criminals actually have rights! Due process and all. Look it up sometime in the Constitution, its a fading fad thanks to post 9/11 hysteria but its still a good idea.

        While it is illegal to make lethal booby traps--the 'nanny state' at work; you are making a false comparison. Sting operations are conducted all the time, and are only called entrapment when the police fail to follow procedure or give due process. What we have here is more equivalent to a police sting operation, which is really a legal confidence game. The case here is criminaly-run, private enterprise sting operation. The victims are brought into this game with intent to commit a crime. Unfortunately, they are caught because of the ploy and consequently have to pay. The fact that the cable company does not press charges is what should be amazing here.

        Due process and all. Look it up sometime in the Constitution, its (sic) a fading fad thanks to post 9/11 hysteria but its (sic) still a good idea.

        Sorry, recent changes in the law do not mean that due process has been hurled out of the court system. We still have the same judges. We still have the same defense attorneys who thrive on lack of due process. We still have the American Civil Liberties Union to take egregious violations of the Constitution, and laws that support said violations, to the Supreme Court.

        However, I am glad that you are incensed when the Constitution is abused by such laws. Perhaps you should be equally incensed when judges chose to legislate from the bench, which belongs to the legislative branch or to loosely interpret the Constitution to suit their needs.

        • >Then, after you win your civil case and receive your settlement the District Attorney can arrest you for the crime you committed.

          So be it. That money could pay off the fines or at least help. No where did I advocate letting them go scott free. In fact, I wonder how many people can even afford to pay them off without sueing the retailer? Hey, that means our cable rates go up if they don't to pay off their default.

          >While it is illegal to make lethal booby traps--the 'nanny state' at work; you are
      • From my law classes, IANAL but management masters degree require law classes, in most states you cannot use criminal or civil law when you were both commiting illegal acts, as in the cutting the cocaine. Or I paid him for the drugs and he did not deliver.
        Now if the cocaine was cut with cyanide you get into another level where the state is bring the criminal case against the person. As for the cable cable for all purposes this is a legal item just used illegally, excluding any DCMA things. So I would gue
    • Or the Nigeria scams.

      "well judge, I thought I was cheating a poor country out of their much needed cash, and I found out that I was being conned"
    • It is very difficult to con honest people.

      These people buying the 'free cable links' are thieves. The people selling the devices are cons looking for dishonest people to fleece. I have no sympathy for someone getting conned when they buy a device that is meant to help them steal.

      The illegal drug analogy doesn't work, this is more like buying a set of lock picks then going to the police to complain they don't work on the local liquor store.

  • Just goes to show... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bravehamster ( 44836 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:41AM (#5542729) Homepage Journal
    Hehe, suckers! I haven't had any problems with the one I got off ebay last week! 24/7 porn and pay-per-view, and it's all free! I'm glad I didn't get tricked like any of those guys.

  • Who's the real bad guy? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Max Romantschuk ( 132276 ) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:43AM (#5542733) Homepage
    It seems fair to me that someone trying to cheat on PPV charges would get burned.

    A more interresting question is who did more wrong... Is it worse to try and circumvent PPV charges, or are the people selling these devices the real bad guys?

    Opinions?

    • Re:Who's the real bad guy? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bios_Hakr ( 68586 ) <xptical@gmEEEail.com minus threevowels> on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @05:16AM (#5542815)
      Isn't it a common geek mantra that the maker of a device isn't bad, the device isn't bad, it's just the way it is used that is bad?

    • To me, the people who purchase the devices are just as responsible for their actions as those who sell the devices. Both know that their activities are illegal and continue anyway. Everyone is responsible for his or her actions.

      If I tell you to commit murder and you do, am I responsible? How about if I stand up on a soapbox and hand out guns to a crowd, telling everyone to commit murder? Those who are accepting the guns and pulling the triggers are still moral agents responsible for their actions.
      • If I tell you to commit murder and you do, am I responsible? How about if I stand up on a soapbox and hand out guns to a crowd, telling everyone to commit murder? Those who are accepting the guns and pulling the triggers are still moral agents responsible for their actions.

        Good point. However, the law in most places would dictate that you had assisted to murder. In some murder cases the people doing the actual killing have gotten milder sentences than those who are determined to be the "mastermind" of the

  • Does that mean... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    that these devices are legal?
    • From the description of the device, it sounds like they are selling a $10-$200 diode worth about three cents. What makes a diode legal in one use and illegal in another is it's intended use.

      From the DMCA:

      No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that...is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protectio

  • Diabolical (Score:3, Funny)

    by sssmashy ( 612587 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:43AM (#5542736)
    Talk about a devious ploy... this just reinforces my suspicions that cable companies are run by supervillains with dark hats and twirly moustaches.

  • It's all one big plot! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by razormage ( 145522 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:44AM (#5542739) Homepage
    And two years from now, the RIAA charges everyone that's been using Napster/Kazaa/Morpheus/Gnutella/Etc for all the music they've "bought".
  • I just discovered that Ebay is holding shares of the mentioned cable company ! They are the ones that sold the damn thingie while trying to increase their PPV profits !

    SUE! SUE! SUE!

  • SKY PPV (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:45AM (#5542742) Homepage
    Sky in the UK have cottoned on this sort of thing as well. With SKY if you order PPV the box dials up sky to get authorisation. People realised this, unplugged the phone and found that they sky box would then grant them access as it gave them the benefit of doubt.

    What they didn't realise that they box has a £50 credit limit so if you hit this then it stops. So people then plugged the box back in, it dial sky and they get a bill for £50 :) Fantastic

    Rus
    • Cable STBs in the UK have a default credit limit of £30 AFAIK. If for some reason the box isn't polled or the return path fails, then the local service centre has to poll the STB to collect all the purchase information and reset credit limit.

      Tim

    • I would trust such a system. Any restrictions on the client side is bound to be broken. How long before someone talented enough find out a way to circumvent the $50 limit i.e reset it back to $0 on the receiver box ?
      The PPV dicussed in the article does it right, it works on the basis of signals sent i.e. doesnt matter if the programming was ordered, if it was viewed thats good enough for billing them.

      • The PPV dicussed in the article does it right, it works on the basis of signals sent i.e. doesnt matter if the programming was ordered, if it was viewed thats good enough for billing them.

        But that's a cable system. SKY is a satellite broadcast so there is no way to detect that you have watched the program unless your box is connected to the phone line.

    • Re:SKY PPV (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EkiM in De ( 574327 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @07:30AM (#5543031)
      A colleague of my brother did this and found this out when he hit the limit. Being an enterprising chap he called up Sky and claimed that his young kid had taken the card out and destroyed it.
      Sky sent him out a new card and he sent them back, by return of post, a smart-card which had been throughly decimated with a hammer.

    • Re:SKY PPV (Score:3, Informative)

      by Mister Transistor ( 259842 )
      It's the exact same way with DirectTV satellite service - you can unplug the box from the phone line, and you won't get charged for PPV until you reach a dollar limit, or 25 events. Then the box has to call home and "unload" the billing information, and you are charged for all the purchases at once.

      A friend used to do this sometimes when he was financially strapped, then next month when he got paid, he'd plug the phone back in and pay for all the purchases. He wasn't really stealing - just delaying the b

  • Ebay link (Score:5, Informative)

    by nstrom ( 152310 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:53AM (#5542764)
    This [ebay.com] is what we're talking about. A little crappy coax coupler. I saw this on ebay a couple days ago, and thought to myself 'This must be a scam -- such a little thing can't work, since real descrambler boxes are pretty large and complicated'. Guess I was right.

    • Re:Ebay link (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Moses Lawn ( 201138 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @05:23AM (#5542830)
      That's hilarious - it's just a coax connector. If you read the copy, it never says anything about giving you free PPV, or even descramblig anything. It's a "Digital Cable Descrambler Filter for PPV", which means it's a filter for the descrambler. It happens to be a filter that passes everything. You're just left to assume that it gives you free porn. Cute. I wonder if that would work in court.

      What's really funny is that somone's already bid $7.00 for it. It's a shame he only has one of them - he could make a lot of money. Or is he just bidding against himself?

      • It happens to be a filter that passes everything


        Okay, I actually read the article. It actually does something. It just doesn't do much.


        That's what I get for not reading first...

    • Re:Ebay link (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tweakt ( 325224 )
      I'm guessing it's supposed to be an RF Notch filter which will block the return channel. But think for a second. How can it selectively pass the request to actually order the PPV channel, while blocking billing from taking place.

      It's just plain flawed logic. Digital descramblers (for Motorola systems especially) have been advertised as "Coming Soon" since there is no equivelent to the currently perfected "black box" made for standard analog "scrambling".

      That's because digital uses strong crypto (relativel

      • Re:Ebay link (Score:3, Informative)

        by Wumpus ( 9548 )
        I'm guessing it's supposed to be an RF Notch filter which will block the return channel. But think for a second. How can it selectively pass the request to actually order the PPV channel, while blocking billing from taking place.

        It just blocks all the upstream communications. This works because PPV purchases are handled and authorized by the box, and then stored for later retrieval by the headend. What this thing does is block the retrieval process, not the purchase. You could try to periodically destroy

  • Its sad but. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by torre ( 620087 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:59AM (#5542778)
    In reality, from experience these people tend to fall into two camps.... "I don't like digital", and "anything digital is good". And its for the exact same reason: how easy is it to pirate the material and how likely they are to accept change.

    The acceptable use norm of material has been founded on the concept of being able to make a copy of whatever and whenever. Old analogue stuff was way too easy for anyone who had a vcr, digital stuff takes some work but once you have it you can ultimately do whatever you like. This is of course not what they owners/licensees want. And unfortunately this philosophy of anything intangible should ultimately be free as it cost them nothing to reproduce goes down deep in modern society.

    What is needed is compromise on both parties, companies need to make things affordable instead of gouging consumers and the consumers have to realize that it cost somebody money and time to produce something so they should pay for it. I know this sounds a bit circular and communistic but the reality is that both camps can be happy if they both cooperate.

    But this in the end is wishful thinking as the article clearly points out that there's plenty of people out there ready to cheat the system and complain when they get caught.
  • I hate to be a pedant, and I imagine bringing this up will not be a popular action, but can you tell me exactly how the cable companies are 'conning' people here? It looks to me quite clearly that the cable companies are merely charging their users for services that they agreed to pay for when they signed up for service. Is this really a con?

    Obviously the real scammers here are the selfish, dishonorable scum who sell these 'filters'.

    And no, before one of you "information wants to be free" people chime i

    • For once, the editors are okay here. Break it down:

      The "Cable Con" part referred to in the title: "You can get free PPV, if you buy this thingy. Con your cable comany!"

      However, those people who think they are going to con themselves get conned, because they actually bought a worthless piece of crap. See how the users got conned by a cable con?

  • You Can't Cheat An Honest Man (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Scooby71 ( 200937 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @05:24AM (#5542831)
    As the saying goes.

    Though I have to say I'm slightly puzzled by the consensus here that it is wrong not to pay for content and the 'victims' deserved all they get, but elsewhere on Slashdot there is outrage when action is taken against filesharers. When is copyright material not copyright material?

    • Re:You Can't Cheat An Honest Man (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thunderbee ( 92099 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @05:28AM (#5542835)
      Action is taken against filesharers regardless of shared content. If the action is taken against them just because they are running a file sharing program, it is wrong. There are legal and honest uses to such programs. That's the difference I guess (at least, that's the difference I make).

    • Re:You Can't Cheat An Honest Man (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @06:44AM (#5542974)
      Though I have to say I'm slightly puzzled by the consensus here that it is wrong not to pay for content and the 'victims' deserved all they get, but elsewhere on Slashdot there is outrage when action is taken against filesharers. When is copyright material not copyright material?

      -P2P has noninfringing uses as has been pointed out. "Steal cable for free" filters do not (unless they are simply off-the-shelf coax parts being sold as such).
      -Slashdot does not speak with one voice. Many people post here. The individuals who express outrage over P2P crackdowns in other threads are not necessarily the ones giggling at this story.
      -P2P crackdowns are just depressing; they're yet another example of corporate dominance and control. This cable filter story, on the other hand, introduces the concepts of greed and gullibility. A little schadenfreude shouldn't be surprising.

    • Scooby, that is a good question.

      My take is it that when I order a PPV, I typically know in advance what I am going to get. A fight. A porn show. Whatever. Its a one-time thing. Its not like something I intend to keep for quite some time. I might even time-shift such a thing. But I feel I have incurred obligation to pay for the service rendered, and have no problem doing so.

      With music, I have no idea what I like until I sample some of it. I collect particular types of music that mean something to m

      • Re:You Can't Cheat An Honest Man (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mosch ( 204 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @09:11AM (#5543389) Homepage
        Your argument holds no water, at all. You simply enjoy stealing music.

        Let's be honest, when you order pay per view porn, there's no way to know if the chicks will look good, or if they'll try to cram some sort of ill-fitting storyline into the movie, instead of admitting that the target market just wants to see people fucking. Same with the fight, sure you know who will be in the fight, but sometimes the fight sucks. Sometimes the dude gets knocked out in the first minute, while you were busy getting beers for your friends.

        There's no guarantee placed on any content. Why do feel that you need to pretend that there's some sort of rational reason to steal music, but not cable? Either steal them both gleefully, or don't steal either of them at all.

  • Um so then what if... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JoeShmoe ( 90109 ) <askjoeshmoe@hotmail.com> on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @05:38AM (#5542853)
    ...you clear the memory of your cable box? You block the upstream, it unscrambles the show, the box gets bulletted disabled, you clear the memory and then call to report a problem. They reset the box and everything works fine? Sure it might be a tad inconvenient but if you really really wanted to watch that boxing event...

    Or, if you can't clear the memory, box um "dies" and takes the bill with it. Return box to cable company and get replacement.

    I'm not saying of course these are legal or ethical but I'm just saying that if someone's stealing PPV what would prevent them from doing either of these? Rule number one when you are stealing a service is you don't call tech support. If your box quits working, then, make sure the box *quits working*.

    - JoeShmoe
    .
  • In an interview says, "Man, you just can't trust anybody these days. Everyone's a crook. I feel like I've been robbed."

    Police say an arrest has already been made, of the purchaser for possession of burglary tools, when he attempted to file a complaint.

    Film, well, you know when.

    It's times like these when I fully understand the maxim of W.C. Fields, "A fool and his money were lucky to get together in the first place."

    To which he added, "Never smarten up a chump."

    KFG

  • Similar thing happened to me :) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @05:44AM (#5542867)
    A couple of years ago, when i was addicted to quake, lived at home and only had access to dialup i got hold of some strolen accounts. These were not ordinary "free" dialup accounts that looks like just another phonenumber on your phonebill, but a toll-free number that billed the owner of the account.

    Yeah, i know, it was a really low thing to do on my part.. but i knew i was not the only one using the account, and the real person that owned the account would never end up having to pay the bill. So i felt i only screwed over a "big company".
    I was young and dumb :)

    Anyways, a couple of months later, my ordinary phonebill dropped down in the mailbox. It was a *little* bit bigger than usual. There were no additional notes on the bill and there was no warning about legal actions from the company, so i payed the bill and kept my mouth shut.

    I got what i deserved and i learned my lesson :)

    • Re:Similar thing happened to me :) (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      i did something similar. back in the day of rampant back orifice and netbus infection, i would scan computers for earthlink accounts. earthlink had a little publicized 800 number service, useful if you travelled. but, you got a charge each time you used it. free dial-up for a few months. it was nice.

      how did i get caught? well, i rotated accounts, but there are logs of everything. :) i eventually got a call from the erathlink noc! haha. it was a pimply-faced kid, i could tell, and he asked me if i used ear

      • How you got caught: A.N.I. (Score:5, Informative)

        by kris_lang ( 466170 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @12:20PM (#5544543)
        In both of these cases, calling the 1-800-xxx-yyyy number created an account entry with the phone numbe you were calling from on it. This account entry was provided to the owner of the 1-800-number, who used it to call you back.

        While a 1-{800 | 888 | 877 | 866} number is free to the calling party, except for some nefarious call redirection scams, it is NOT free to the receiving party. They pay for the call. They can receive ANI information detailing which phone number is calling them.

        Unlike Caller-ID information which is transmitted in-band (on the same line) between the first and second telephone ring and can be blocked by the dialing party, the ANI service is transmitted off-band and CANNOT be blocked when you call an 800 number. It's always there.

  • revenge? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tankdilla ( 652987 )
    Since it's known that Ebay gives out information about customers to law enforcement agencies, it's probably possible to get information about the peddlers selling the descrambler. Hope they covered their tracks.

  • I'm not sure (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vmalloc_ ( 516438 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @05:51AM (#5542882)
    I'm not sure what the difference is between the large boxes and the coax filter, but I do know that it takes more than a simple coax filter to do descrambling. (There has to be filter tuning, which involves user control, which makes it so you can't just do "Plug-n-Play" of descramblers)

    It's my guess that you need a -real- cable descrambler (as in, one from the official cable company) to use the coax filter, and that cable box needs to send data to the cable company to work, so the coax filter blocks one half of the transaction or something. This puzzles me, though, because I think getting the legitimate descrambler box would cost more than it would to get a "pirate" cable box anyways.

    Anybody know more than I do about this?

    (P.S. NO I DON'T STEAL CABLE. Why would I anyways, all they ever do is play shitty movies that involve naked women and exploding cars and crap.)

    • Re:I'm not sure (Score:4, Informative)

      by sheol ( 153979 ) <recluceNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @06:41AM (#5542969)
      This is not a descrambler at all, that's handled entirely by the cable box. The only thing this particular device achieves is to prevent the PPV order from being transmitted back to the cable provider. The digital cable box, or "DCT" will let you order as many movies as you want, up to a credit limit set by the cable provider. For AT&T Broadband in the greater Chicago area anyway, it usually defaults to $100 or $150. As far as the DCT is concerned, you're watching the movie, and being billed for it. Once the DCT fails to respond for a certain time period, usually a couple weeks, it'll be shut down, and prompt you, the subscriber, to call in. You're then forced to have a technician come out and check out the DCT to find out what's going on before you're allowed to have the service restored, unless the problem can be determined by a bit of quick troubleshooting on the phone.

      All in all, this little filter does the same thing as leaving the phone cord unplugged on older networks where the cable network wasn't two-way. I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who thought they would get away with it. There would be no use in trying to convince the tech that the DCT is broken either. They have diagnostic tools and whatnot. Even if you were to convince a technician that the DCT is broken, and they swapped it for a new one, guess what? You're still billed for those PPV movies that are remaining in the DCT. They clean those out once the DCT is returned and put them on your bill, sometimes as much as 6 months later ;)

      (disclaimer: i worked for at&t broadband chicago until about 2 months ago)

  • Scary... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @06:22AM (#5542940)
    ... how people here are pointing out the balantly obvious fact that the people who are getting the bills are getting exactly what they deserve, since they have enjoyed a service that they have agreed to pay for, and therefore is only fair if they, well, pay for it...

    While a couple of articles back these same people were defending the virtues of file "sharing" networks, where users are comfortably ignoring the fact that they have agreed *not* to redistribute the copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holders.

    Really, make up your minds: either file sharing a la KaZaa is ok and the people who bought these devices shouldn't pay for the content they "downloaded" for free or file sharing a la KaZaa is *not* ok and the people who bought these devices should pay for the content they downloaded.

    It's very simple: you want content X? You pay for it. Why? Because the content provider says so and we have given them the power to be like that.
  • How could these users be conned by Cable Con? Everyone knows that Cable Con just makes the cables... 'Iron' Jimmy and 'Brother' Nunzio do all the hard work like conning people, and breaking their kneecaps... Jeez, people.

    Surprised if Cable Con doesn't sue slashdot for slander.

  • Make the voices STOP! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sllim ( 95682 ) <{ten.knilhtrae} {ta} {ecnahca}> on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @06:38AM (#5542965)
    Is there any possibilty that it is someone from a cable company posting these things on eBay?

    Consider....
  • The guys selling this or getting burned by this should invoke the DMCA by arguing that the cable companies illegally cirumvented the 'privacy/security' device they happened to have connected to their TV. (arguably, isn't this thing essentially a simple firewall for outgoing traffic)

  • stealing? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by arty3 ( 64523 )
    People here always argue that copying music isn't stealing because nothing is in reality stolen. Everyone seems to agree with that. How is it then that cable piracy is now being called stealing, and everyone agrees with that too. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but come on, pick a side and stick to it.
  • That's why you don't buy anything like that until you've done extensive research, and it's been on the market for awhile.

    Otherwise you end up like these people and get stuck saying, "What porn? I didn't order any porn honey..." (mumbling)"GOD DAMN FILTER!"

  • Something similiar in Spain (Score:5, Interesting)

    by srboneidle ( 648298 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @08:03AM (#5543153)
    Satellite TV in Spain (cable didn't catch on) relied on a smart card that contains all the information about what the subscriber has paid for. This meant that if you reprogrammed the card to contain the most recent user codes, you could access all the PPV channels for free. If you have a legit card, it recieves the new codes from the satellite signal itself.

    There was a huge underground industry around - it got to the point were people where actually selling cards with PICs on them which would reprogram themselves automatically, getting the info from the satellite signal.

    Obviously the satellite company knew about it, as did everybody else. I cannot think of anyone that didn't have one of these cards (if they had satellite obviously). The TV company didn't do anything about it for a couple of years. Why? Market share. The more people that signed up for their service and got a box, at a higher price than it would be with the compentition, the better in the long run for the company. People were signing up left right and center with the expectation of being able to unlock all the channels.

    And then all of a sudden - clamp down! The company started verifying the user info in a different way an bingo - millions of subscribers that are addicted to 24/7 PPV.

  • Why bother trying to warn people? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BenjyD ( 316700 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @08:06AM (#5543164)
    The people buying these filters are clearly :

    1) Trying to break the law by stealing cable content
    2) Complete morons

    Why is anyone spending time and money taking out adverts on Ebay to warn them?

  • Legally not a scam (Score:3, Informative)

    by fygment ( 444210 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @09:34AM (#5543522)
    This is the device (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ite m=3013536743). Aside from the name, the write up only says you can get PPV, etc. when the coupler is connected to the appropriate box. Which is true since it is just a coupler. The buyer is inferring from the _name_ that the device will make the viewing free. A court case would revolve around whether it is reasonable to assume a descrambling ability when no such ability was mentioned in the description. The description would be argued as being the seller's definition of the name. Their definition does _not_ mention descrambling. Which makes the scam a rather tidy one.

  • playboy and spice? (Score:3, Funny)

    by asv108 ( 141455 ) <asv@@@ivoss...com> on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @12:08PM (#5544449) Homepage Journal
    Who would pay for that, when you can download multiracial, teen anal, midget fisting porn for free?

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close