# Is "moving" illegal?



## ARKDTVfan (May 19, 2003)

I'm barely in the Shrevport DMA, if I lived about 10 miles north I'd be in the Little Rock DMA which are the locals I want when D adds them,of course if DBS was playing by the same rules as cable I'd be able to get both.


----------



## davhol (Oct 29, 2002)

Strictly speaking, yes, "moving" (in the sense of falsifying your address to receive something for which the current laws do not allow you to receive) is illegal. You have to deal with the moral consequences/obligations of your actions. Strictly speaking, it is just as "illegal" as fabricating a smart card to allow you to get programs that you don't pay for (a matter of "degree"). Others may disagree, but you asked a question that implies a moral standard for the response. This is my response to your question.
Oh, as for the "DBS rules"... this is/was imposed by Congress/FCC and not the DBS companies. They want you to have the same (level) playing field that the cable companies enjoy.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2003)

but you are paying for a service and you are not stealing anything..........


----------



## davhol (Oct 29, 2002)

It is considered "stealing" if you're not entitled to the service, whether you pay for it or not. These are the current laws. Whether they _should_ be this way or not is not the question. The question is (rephrased): can I lie to a service provider about my qualifications to get something the law currently doesn't allow me to get if I told you the absolute truth? Paying for it is irrelevant.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2003)

no its not!!! the providor should be punished for not verifying addresses...not the legal consumer


----------



## waydwolf (Feb 2, 2003)

joe said:


> no its not!!! the providor should be punished for not verifying addresses...not the legal consumer


This is the same attitude as people who say, "well, the cable company should have shut me off two years ago. It isn't my fault their guy never did it and left the line active."

You have both LEGAL and MORAL responsibilities to NOT receive anything you are not rightly entitled to and the responsibility is yours to do everything in your power to not receive anything you aren't supposed to. If you get the wrong channels for your area, or the cable is left on and you aren't paying, or the power is on when you don't have an electric company account, or whatever.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2003)

waydwolf said:


> This is the same attitude as people who say, "well, the cable company should have shut me off two years ago. It isn't my fault their guy never did it and left the line active."
> 
> You have both LEGAL and MORAL responsibilities to NOT receive anything you are not rightly entitled to and the responsibility is yours to do everything in your power to not receive anything you aren't supposed to. If you get the wrong channels for your area, or the cable is left on and you aren't paying, or the power is on when you don't have an electric company account, or whatever.


 no i'm paying for service i'm not stealing anything


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

It is not "stealing" or "illegal", for no laws are violated. (FCC regulations are not "laws" and they do not apply to consumers, they apply to DBS and broadcast industry providers.) In your case, If you choose to use an address that is 10-15 miles down the road, that is your business, and frankly, I don't believe E* really gives a damn. 

In my case, I actually moved 300 miles down the road and, whoops, 'forgot' to tell E*, so I still get locals from my former DMA.  What they don't know or choose not to know doesn't hurt anyone, and I still pay full boat thru autopay. 

It's the idiotic rules by which we learn to play the game.


----------



## CrankyYankee (Feb 19, 2003)

Zip code 05001(White River Jct, VT)...Dish Network will not/can not sell me any Boston channels.
However, Adelphia cable has WBZ-TV4(Boston) on the cable for it's customers. Is that level?!
Cable customers in Windham County in southern VT have Boston channels on their cable, but Dish cannot sell them VT channels! (Southern VT is in the Boston ADI.) Zip code 05363(Wilmington VT) has six Boston channels, and three VT stations.
In This Zip code, Dish will let me order the Boston stations, but not the VT channels. Eh?!


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Dish Network customers in Baltimore cannot get Baltimore channels, is that level?

Until all markets are up, consumers shouldn't be worried about getting two or more sets of locals when many markets cannot get their own market.


----------



## digipoke (Jun 2, 2003)

"It is not "stealing" or "illegal", for no laws are violated. (FCC regulations are not "laws" and they do not apply to consumers, they apply to DBS and broadcast industry providers." 


This has nothing to due with the FCC. A law passed by Congress governs the delivery of local-into-local.

For the first time, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA) permits satellite companies to provide local broadcast TV signals to all subscribers who reside in the local TV station’s market (also referred to as a Designated Market Area ("DMA")), as defined by Nielsen Media Research. This ability to provide local broadcast channels is commonly referred to as "local-into-local" service.


----------



## Unthinkable (Sep 13, 2002)

CrankyYankee said:


> Zip code 05001(White River Jct, VT)...Dish Network will not/can not sell me any Boston channels.
> However, Adelphia cable has WBZ-TV4(Boston) on the cable for it's customers. Is that level?!
> Cable customers in Windham County in southern VT have Boston channels on their cable, but Dish cannot sell them VT channels! (Southern VT is in the Boston ADI.) Zip code 05363(Wilmington VT) has six Boston channels, and three VT stations.
> In This Zip code, Dish will let me order the Boston stations, but not the VT channels. Eh?!


 I imagine you are already aware of this, but I recently vacationed up in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick Canada where most every hotel I stayed in featured the major Boston locals on the various Canadian cable providers. I can only imagine what the local Canadians think on a nightly basis when they see ads for KFC showing family meals priced WAY WAY lower in the US then what they are paying for the same thing. Unbelievable difference in prices for some things like food and hotels. Gas was like $2.69 a gallon up there at one station.

One other example:

Wendy's 5 piece Chicken Nuggets: 99 cents US in the US.
Wendy's 6 piece Chicken Nuggets: 2.69 Canadian in Canada.

Conversion was like .702 or something as far as the Canadian dollars worth to the US dollar.


----------



## Brett (Jan 14, 2003)

The selection of local channels on hotel lineups can be interesting. A Mt. Holly hospital nearby me carries WWOR and WPIX on their channel lineup, even though the local Comcast cable system doesnt offer it. And it looks WWOR and WPIX are over the air pickups being grainy (definitely not E*. E* supers can look smeary but not grainy).


----------



## Brett (Jan 14, 2003)

There is a federal crime: mail fraud. However "moving" is lying about the service address, not the mailing address and doesnt involve mailing.

At the other forum, discussion of "moving" is permitted. Dan Collins explained:



> "Moving" to a place where you do not, in fact, have a residence is a violation of the user agreement, in which you agree that all information provided to the provider is correct. If they ever wanted to make a point of it, it is grounds to terminate your service.
> 
> It is not unlawful. It is, however, highly unethical.


----------



## bills976 (Jun 30, 2002)

"Moving" to avoid Pegasus is justified, imo. "Moving" to get additional locals, less justified, though still has merit.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

_"It is not unlawful. It is, however, highly unethical."_

"Highly unethical"? According whose "ethics"? Those of the _*S*atellite *U*sers *C*rying *S*ociety_? "Highly unethical?" I pay for what I get and *you* get no say in the matter.

As long as I pay for the programming I am receiving, what does it matter if my address is on one side of an arbitrary line or another? Rules made by fools are made to be broken, or at least severely 'bent'. And don't give that tired old argument that the local broadcasters and their advertisers lose (not loose) because my eyeball (see avatar) is not captive to the plethora of screaming-maniac car dealer spots. I could care less; that's why I have AEP and am building a library of movies on DVD. I'll watch what I want to watch, when I want to watch it.

I say f*** the advertisers - I pay a bunch to watch commercial-free TV, and the advertisers, with their lousy, boring, repetitive, *un*entertaining spots, get nothing from me!

But, that's just my opinion. Yours may differ...


----------



## Chris Freeland (Mar 24, 2002)

Yea, it is the ethical thing that has kept me from moving to Atlanta, if it was not for that I would have moved long ago, I can not judge other people but I can not in all good conscience move :shrug: . I will just be patient and wait for the Chattanooga locals and the SuperDish to come in Q4  .


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2003)

The other less talked about advantage to moving is the sports package. I've moved to pick up the RSN I want to watch vs. the one Fox wants me to watch. This gets me around another group of dictators...MLB. Just because I live in a certain geographical spot does not mean I want to watch that team. Again...who gets hurt here? I wouldn't watch the local offering on Fox (Dodgers/Angels) and I do watch the teams I want to see (Giants/A's). Because I am watching Fox Net, I am also seeing their commercials. If I didn't move, I wouldn't see them at all.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

This is one of those things that are in gray area, just like those that take a satellite receiver to another location. If you do that then you still receive those channels at the other location (like a second home or your get away cabin).


----------



## Brett (Jan 14, 2003)

Nick said:


> _"It is not unlawful. It is, however, highly unethical."_
> 
> "Highly unethical"? According whose "ethics"? Those of the _*S*atellite *U*sers *C*rying *S*ociety_? "Highly unethical?" I pay for what I get and *you* get no say in the matter.


That was not my statement. I was quoting from somebody else, and the last line was just an opinion. I shouldnt have included the last line.

The point is its not illegal by law, but just a lie to the service provider and the service provider could terminate your service. However both service providers want your money.

The NAB could make an issue about it though and get Congressional legislation to force the DBS providers to verify the service address is the actual address the receiver is located.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

This is probably not that big of a problem in that this is not done enough for it to be worth messing with for them.


----------



## Zach2 (May 18, 2003)

Probably technically illegal but this is one of the few "wrong" things I have NO problem with. They have this ridiculous law that we can't get locals from wherever we want even though we are paying for them yet we can get a newspaper from wherever. The law is a joke and I would encourage you to do whatever makes you happy.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

I work for the Texas Criminal Justice System and if the public only knew what is done by state officials in their name , they would be appalled. Bending the rules is done everyday when running the prisons of Texas. Also breaking the rules is done everyday in order to get the job done at the end of the day. I've seen more illegal things done in the 10 years I've been there by Wardens, Majors, Capts, etc that when I see people talking about the illegaility of "moving" on these web boards I can't help but laugh at the irony. People in Government : state ,federal, county, small town , what ever bend and sometimes break the rules and Laws that they are sworn to uphold on a daily basis. So if they can do it why should we have any reason to feel guilty when we "move" to Pay for out of area locals .


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I think some of the things that are listed as illegal was not really intended for some other particular things in which is done but is still technically illegal. Something like an unenforced rule.


----------



## jrjcd (Apr 23, 2002)

i love threads like these, where you find out very quickly where the actual moral/ethical substance of a person really is(i'm against abortion and i do not support capital pinishment, but, damn-I'll do ANYTHING to keep my locals)...

sorry, boys and girls, but we just entered into situational ethics territory-i realise that for those who choose to "break the rules" will continue to do so, but don't justify your actions by saying it's a stupid law/rule so I don't have to follow it-i DON'T like being "forced" by law to buckle my seatbelt(THAT should be a matter of individual choice), but i like not getting tickets even better...I also find stop signs inconveniant, but the other drivers on the road find that if i obey the rules of the road, EVERYONE ends up where they're going in much better shape...

lies are lies, whether we view them as white or black, and there really ISN'T a grey area here, because the rules are clear-the posters here will do what they want, but please-be honest about what you're doing-don't mask it in idiotic rheatoric that tries to make you sould like you're doing something bold and heroic by "standing up against" rules/law that make it inconveniant for you to get certain programming you're really not allowed...people who move are just like card players who deal from the bottom of the deck...

and oh-the arguement that we should behave in an untoward manner because others do it?????oh please-spare me-sometimes i wish people would just listen to themselves..... :nono2:


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Do people remember their collective history of this country? America and Austrailia for that matter, were started by tax dogers and people with bad credit and some in Austrailia were inmates and prisoners. When the "people " of the American colonies were tired of the unfair taxation and no real representation in their government , they rebelled and a revolution was started. 

My point is when a "law" is deemed unfair and repressive in this country the citizens often will rebell and change it . Maybe this is the start of another revolution. Look at where people live in China and other repressive countries. They try to censor the internet but it doesn't work. This law is stupid and is based on a antiquated system of affiliates that were used to establish the T.V. system in the 50's . It's time it was changed to reflect the technological changes that have evolved. Anyone can buy papers from other areas of the country and world, but no one objects; they pay for it just like we do with Locals out of area.

There are laws on the books all over the country that are old outdated and not enforced everyday in this country. Would you really like to be arrested for spitting on the sidewalk on Sundays ?

The recent Supreme Court decision Struck down Sodomy laws in the country. That was a law that was ignored by straight and gay people for years. What a person does in their own bedrooms is their business. That lawsuit stemmed from a 1986 case of two policeman who accidently got the wrong house in a drugbust , caught 2 men in the sack so they charged them with violation of the Sodomy statute. Thank God the supreme court saw this as a violation of privacy and did not rule on moralistic personal choices. That was a victory for all people in U.S. .

It's time the law changed . Sooner or later the satellite companies will have all the locals up across the country and this will probably not even be a issue anylonger. But till then people will still "move" to Pay for the locals of their choice. I kind of like to think that is what America is all about: Freedom to choose. We the people are free to make our own moral judgements instead of the government doing it for us. 

This has been my patriotic editorial for the 4th of July. People think for yourselves and you decide. Well I'll get off my soap box now.


----------



## jrjcd (Apr 23, 2002)

...ahhhh, I'm not getting locals, distants so i'm "repressed" :ewww: :nono2: :rolling: ???????


i'd type further, but it's hard to do so when i'm ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING MY FAT ARSE OFF!!!!!!!!!! :thats:

(collecting himself)this is CERTAINLY on the level of taxation without representation(suppressed chortle)....

geez....


----------



## ARKDTVfan (May 19, 2003)

jrjcd said:


> ...ahhhh, I'm not getting locals, distants so i'm "repressed" :ewww: :nono2: :rolling: ???????
> 
> i'd type further, but it's hard to do so when i'm ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING MY FAT ARSE OFF!!!!!!!!!! :thats:
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2003)

Are we really going to debate whether trying to get distant/extra channels is right/wrong/legal/illegal?? The same advertisers who are keeping us from seeing whatever channels we want are routinely screwing us. 8cents worth of chemicals? That'll be $5.99 thank you. The ground beef that brfeaks off the burger?? Thats chili-$2.99 please. This whole ethical question of moving your address is ridiculous. The folks who made the rules/acts/laws we are to adhere to if we are to be ethical were made by politicians after the lobbyists from the cable/broadcasters gave them money and hookers.OH- its those guys we are trying to be ethical in the eyes of. I say get what you can anyway you can and stop being a phony!!


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Obviously I must have been talking over some of the more juvenile heads of the audience out there. 

Sorry if you couldn't understand my point. They showed the other day on "Good Morning America"when they asked questions about the constitution and who was vice president , that the majority could not answer the questions. Most people do not understand History nor do they choose to learn it so they are doomed to repeat it. Can you say "Trickel Down Economics" Pres. Bush? 

At least Mattyro gets it. These laws are stupid and anyone who wants to defend them well, try to get off your" fat Arse" and do so if you don't feel to "repressed "to do so .


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

The bottom line....

No, it's not illegal. No one will come and arrest you for buying out of market locals.

It is, however, against various regulations which will cause your locals to be suspended should you be caught.


----------



## waydwolf (Feb 2, 2003)

Yes, it IS illegal. It comes under the heading of FRAUD. It ALSO comes under the heading of THEFT OF SERVICE and is a FEDERAL FELONY. Don't think so? Receiving programming you are not entitled to is THEFT whether you do it with a pirate card or by deception. Pure and simple. DTV and E* legal will tell you so.

I am so sick of hearing things along the lines of "some rules are meant to be broken" and "I have the right to get whatever I want to pay for".

That second one I hear from drug users and k1ddie p0rn people all the time on the net. Their money, their decision what to do with it, so on.

BULLSH*T.

If you don't like the law, then work to see it changed and if not, be an adult and obey it like the rest of us. That compromise is the essence of a representative democratic republic. We have the total chaos of everyone doing anything they want or feel justified in on the one and the total order of all things being governed by others beyond their control. In between, we have a nation of elected officials, voting citizens, and laws and regulations. If you don't like the speed limit, do you do 90MPH in a 25MPH zone? Do you lie to your town and claim your car spends over 50% of its time in some other town to avoid property taxes?


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Its like saying its a gateway drug in which one little lie or breaking the law in which is very minor will lead to bigger worse things. Does that mean that someone that steals a candybar will steal a car? Does that mean that someone that kill more deer than they should will kill a human? 

Perhaps this can be compared more to someone underage buying beer. Is it illegal for him to have the beer/cigarettes even though he paid for it?

I always like to look at things at two points of views so I see what other people are thinking because sometimes there is no real right answer to everything. Just beacuse it is the law does not make it right. Its just like asking if its right to steal medication that you do not have the money to pay for in order to save someone's life that needs that medication. Of course, we are not talking about a life and death situation here either.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> This law is stupid and is based on a antiquated system of affiliates that were used to establish the T.V. system in the 50's . It's time it was changed to reflect the technological changes that have evolved.


The affiliate system treats viewers as commodities instead of customers. The law is there to codify the now antiquated system and to make sure it never gets changed. The original intent of making sure each station has enough eyeball to let it be a viable business concern has long since been fulfilled, so well in fact that some question whether some of these stations deserve to be viable. If viewers were not a party to the original contracts, I fail to see why they should be bound by their terms. Technology thought unfeasible even 10-15 years ago (DBS LIL and distants) has opened the possibility (technical, not business) for people to choose the provider of their network programming and get away from protected affiliates that don't pass on that programming as delivered or scheduled.


----------



## jrjcd (Apr 23, 2002)

I'm not saying it's a good rule/law and yeah-i hated losing my distants as much as anyone -BUT.....

at least be honest about what you're doing is all i'm saying. people who give false addresses are basically liars because they are giving false information to get a service they aren't entitled to under the proper circumstances...

the nice thing about this country is that if you and others of like thinking feel strongly enough about something being wrong, there are steps you can take to correct it(and no-i don't mean armed rebellion)-but it does take numbers and it does take time and it takes committment and it might even take money to do it, but going about effecting change in the right way usually doesn't happen overnight and it's usually not easy-


----------



## juan ellitinez (Jan 31, 2003)

waydwolf said:


> Yes, it IS illegal. It comes under the heading of FRAUD. It ALSO comes under the heading of THEFT OF SERVICE and is a FEDERAL FELONY. Don't think so? Receiving programming you are not entitled to is THEFT whether you do it with a pirate card or by deception. Pure and simple. DTV and E* legal will tell you so.
> 
> I am so sick of hearing things along the lines of "some rules are meant to be broken" and "I have the right to get whatever I want to pay for".
> 
> ...


 if you are a legal PAYING subscriber,,WHO ARE YOU STEALING SERVICE FROM BY "MOVEING"?


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Is it illegal if you pick it up on your antenna when Dish or Direct will not let you subscribe to it? No, not to my knowledge. So does that make it illegal if you pick it up on Dish or Direct by other means? Maybe its more about the way one goes about doing it that is illegal than actually getting the channels if that were to be the case, in a sense.


----------



## Brett (Jan 14, 2003)

waydwolf said:


> Yes, it IS illegal. It comes under the heading of FRAUD.


By "moving", One is lying to the service provider, that's it! Its as if wanting to reserve a table at a restaurant, the restaurant askes for the family name, but for whatever reason the family provides wife's maiden' name. Is that fraud? Or is it the restaurant's responsibility to check whether name is really the family's name. As long as the restaurant gets paid by the family at the end of the meal, they dont care!



waydwolf said:


> If you don't like the speed limit, do you do 90MPH in a 25MPH zone? Do you lie to your town and claim your car spends over 50% of its time in some other town to avoid property taxes?


Bad analog. Speeding limits are meant for logical reasons, as providing safety.


----------



## digipoke (Jun 2, 2003)

"By "moving", One is lying to the service provider, that's it! Its as if wanting to reserve a table at a restaurant, the restaurant askes for the family name, but for whatever reason the family provides wife's maiden' name. Is that fraud?"

Congress has not passed any laws governing seating at your local restaurant. Congress has however passed a law that governs the delivery of locals by satellite. So yes a law is being broken if you use an address that is not your physical address in order to receive locals. The legal liability would rest with the service provider and not the end user. 


For those that thinks it is ok to provide a bogus address to your satellite provider for locals, would it also be ok to use a bogus address to keep from paying taxes on satellite service? What if the bogus address being used for locals does not have a tax on satellite service. Would this just be an added bonus? If you reside in Florida, this would save you almost 15%.


----------



## Neil Derryberry (Mar 23, 2002)

Here's my take:

It is indeed illegal to receive service in the way that was described. When you sign up for service with either carrier, you enter into a contract, which is a legally binding document. By falsifying information pertaining to that contract, you are committing perjury, which is a criminally punishable offense pretty much everywhere. Are you stealing? By letter of the law, no. Misrepresenting yourself? Absolutely. What will happen if you get caught? Most likely, nothing but removal of the channels you shouldn't get. The chances of either provider being willing enough to take you to court is most assuredly zero, so do what you like... just be prepared to deal with the consequences if the axe falls... it is nobody's problem but your own.


----------



## bills976 (Jun 30, 2002)

I've described my situation before, but let me do so again because I think there are some legitimate reasons for "moving."

I sub to Directv. My house is physically in the town of Lagrangeville, NY, which is in Directv territory. By definition, this means I am entitiled to all promos and whatnot given out in Directv territory. My mailing address is in Pleasant Valley, NY, which is in Pegasus territory. My cable company used the Lagrangeville address as my service address, yet Directv was unable to find it in its database (as they more than likely use the postal service's version of streets/zips). However, the address was auto-corrected by the Directv computer to a similar sounding street name in Lagrangeville, only one letter off. So as it is, my service address is in Lagrangeville on a different street, and billing address in Pleasant Valley. I honestly don't think I'm breaking the law in this situation.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

_"Bad analog. Speeding limits are meant for logical reasons, as providing safety."_

Not only that, but it's a bad analogy, too. 

Thing is, most analogies are either off the mark to begin with, or they break down pretty quickly.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

waydwolf said:


> Yes, it IS illegal. It comes under the heading of FRAUD. It ALSO comes under the heading of THEFT OF SERVICE and is a FEDERAL FELONY.


Please quote me the law to which you refer.

To this day, I have yet to see anyone who can show that this is anything other than a civil breach of contract. And with all due respect, I encourage you to try.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

''Moving'' could be like going 60 mph in a 55 mph zone when robbing a bank is like doing 120-150 mph in a 55 mph zone. One worse than the other but still not right either way.

Its more like that underage example where one will purchase beer or cigarettes that are underage, not stealing, but getting product they are not supposed to get.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

No, that's not my point, Jacob. AFAIK, "moving" is simply a violation of your terms of service with D* or E*.

No sheriff will show up at your door because you're watching TV from NYC.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I posted that before I went to the 2nd page and read your post, sorry about that.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Dish just cares about getting their money for the most part. Heck, I bet if you talked to the right person they would let you do it if you told them about it, although I would not do that. I think if you take the receiver to a different place that you own that happens to be at a different address that this is not wrong. Even Charlie himself said it was ok to do that. That is different than having a seperate physical address to get locals from a different location.


----------



## CrankyYankee (Feb 19, 2003)

...from an eairler post...
"Dish just cares about getting their money for the most part."

Well, they are a business, and they are in business to make money.

However, they have spent a ton o'bucks to get locals for folks that want them and either can't get them with an antenna, or don't want anything to do with cable companies.

The "local stations" also have invested a lot of money in getting their product to you and would be very glad if folks that are beyond antenna(rural) or beyond cable, signed up to get their station(s) via Dish/DirectTV. If you lived in the "Green Mountain State", a station in Burlington,Vt would much rather you watch them for local news and network than a station in Tuscon. Also, so would the Burlington advertisers who pay to promote their products and in turn pay the salaries of those that work at the local(to you) station(s). This is what I believe Dish and Direct are trying to be protective about.

Methinks it used to be more of a concern that "Joe Average" might subscribe to HBO or a PPV event at his legal "home address' and then bring his authorized-to-receive-HBO/PPV receiver or cable box down to the local thirst parlor for all his friends to enjoy(or worse, make $$$ from). How wacky is my thinking?!


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

I agree with that, in that they are a lot more concerned with what you are talking about. However, maybe they can see it as a good thing to take it to the local thirst parlor for all his friends to enjoy because that person that owns the place may get an interest in buying one and also people will ask where to get one and could generate more business than a loss for the satellite company. I would say more than likely they would still be upset about that and do something about it, depending on the intentions.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

mnassour said:


> Please quote me the law to which you refer.
> 
> To this day, I have yet to see anyone who can show that this is anything other than a civil breach of contract. And with all due respect, I encourage you to try.


Waydwolf....we're still waiting for that law you insist exists..... :hi:


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Lets not forget people that get an address broker to get Canadian DBS services in the U.S. and those in Canada that get DBS services from the U.S. in which would be the same thing using a different address.


----------



## razorbackfan (Aug 18, 2002)

But if I live in an area that Dish doesn't carry my locals, I don't have cable, and not able to get my locals using an OTA, but my locals refused my waiver, and I "move" 15 miles to get the distant networks and pay for them so I can watch something I couldn't get any other way, is that illegal? I'm not too concerned with "ethics" when it comes to television.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

You are supposed to have some type of test done in which either the locals station or the satellite company has to pay for if it is successful in that they determine that you cannot pickup the locals at your home but you have to pay for it if it does show you as able to pick them up at your home.

I think it is ethical for you to be able to receive the channels in that manner if that is what you have to do to receive them if thats your only way that you should be able to receive them one way or another, but that does not mean that is the legal way of doing it, and also does not mean that the law will be enforced on you if you do decide to do this since the law was put into effect to prevent those that can pick up the local signals from being able to watch the distant signals causing the local stations to lose local viewers to local advertisements.


----------



## CrankyYankee (Feb 19, 2003)

...From an earlier post...

"But if I live in an area that Dish doesn't carry my locals, I don't have cable, and not able to get my locals using an OTA, but my locals refused my waiver, and I "move" 15 miles to get the distant networks and pay for them so I can watch something I couldn't get any other way, is that illegal? I'm not too concerned with "ethics" when it comes to television."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMHO. if DISH does not offer your locals, and you can't get an antenna to pull them in, and cable is available on the pole outside your home, why not just get the "Basic/Lifeline" package from the cable company for about 10-12$ a month, and then you will havbe them, even when it rains/snows!


----------



## jrjcd (Apr 23, 2002)

"I'm not too concerned with "ethics" when it comes to television."

....sadly, it ALWAYS starts with the things that seem inconsequential and the slippery slope goes downhill from there....


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Not all cable companies offer lifeline service. Some make you take their basic package in which can be $20, $30 or more to get your locals. A lot of people would take the lifeline cable package and get Dish Network/DirecTv for everything else plus the cable company would not make as much money so thats why the cable company forces you to get the basic package for a lot more money and why consumers stay with cable because they do not want two programming bills. This is why satellite gets more business when they offer locals because people do not have to have cable anymore to get them. They can get only one service for both as they did before when they were on cable.


----------



## razorbackfan (Aug 18, 2002)

Slippery slope? It's TELEVISION. I'm not selling drugs on the school yard. It's TELEVISION.


----------



## oljim (Aug 6, 2002)

What you city folk fail to see is the DMA system sucks, my daughter is in the dma of a city 80 miles away. The so called local cable only has one station from that city. The other stations are from 2 other dmas. The city dma that she is in is not on dish or direct. A city that is 75 miles away is carried on D and E. When she tried to get a waver it was for citys in 3 dmas(all over 60 miles) As far a life line on cable, most small cable co. never had one.


----------



## razorbackfan (Aug 18, 2002)

It's funny that your local cable monopoly can carry stations from 3 states to your home, but you can't subscribe to the network station of YOUR choice with satellite.


----------



## Jacob S (Apr 14, 2002)

Sure, its just television, but some of my customers are disabled and cannot get out of the house much and the only thing they have to do is watch tv. What might be just television to some is what others rely on for entertainment to others.


----------

