# Take receiver to friends house?



## atDev (Sep 13, 2010)

My friend has DirecTV. Is it possible for me to give him my receiver and he can watch NFL sunday ticket by simply switching out the receivers?

Will this throw up any flags on DirecTV's end where they may charge or cancel me?


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

atDev said:


> My friend has DirecTV. Is it possible for me to give him my receiver and he can watch NFL sunday ticket by simply switching out the receivers?
> 
> Will this throw up any flags on DirecTV's end where they may charge or cancel me?


What you are proposing appears to violate the Terms of Service, so the issue isn't "flags from D*", but asking how safe it is to violate the TOS, which is a no-no on dbstalk.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

"possible", yes, but is against the customer agreement big time!


----------



## atDev (Sep 13, 2010)

Can you point me to where this is covered in the TOS?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

atDev said:


> Can you point me to where this is covered in the TOS?


It has to do with the service location [address on the account].


----------



## atDev (Sep 13, 2010)

I see. Yet they allow it to be viewed via a phone/internet connection anywhere despite location.

They also offer their "Sat-Go" equipment.

To me it seems that if you pay for the subscription it shouldn't matter where you watch it. It's not like your stealing anything. But I guess if its in the TOS it's not a good idea.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

atDev said:


> I see. Yet they allow it to be viewed via a phone/internet connection anywhere despite location.
> 
> They also offer their "Sat-Go" equipment.
> 
> To me it seems that if you pay for the subscription it shouldn't matter where you watch it. It's not like your stealing anything. But I guess if its in the TOS it's not a good idea.


But, that's not what you asked:

"give him my receiver and *he can watch *NFL sunday ticket"

He didn't pay for ST, you did. You propose that he double dip off your fee.

It might be a different matter (at least ethically), if you took your receiver to a tailgate and watched it. There has been a lot of discussion about that, and quite a few people do it. They get a 2nd dish (small), and take it to the game. In this case, you paid and you are very temporarily watching it at a new "portable" location. It still may be a technical violation of the TOS, but at least it passes the "smell" test.

Loaning a box to your buddy so he can watch what he didn't pay for doesn't come close to passing the smell test, in my opinion. Then again, my opinion doesn't count, and D*'s does.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

atDev said:


> I see. Yet they allow it to be viewed via a phone/internet connection anywhere despite location.
> 
> They also offer their "Sat-Go" equipment.
> 
> To me it seems that if you pay for the subscription it shouldn't matter where you watch it. It's not like your stealing anything. But I guess if its in the TOS it's not a good idea.


I didn't write the rules. You asked, and I tried to answer.
"I think" the difference between what they do offer via phone/internet and actually from the receiver is these aren't HD, so they are a degraded feed.
I doubt you'll find a lot of people sitting in front of an Iphone watching the sunday ticket, like you would a big screen.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I think this is an area where _valor_ is the better part of discretion. Do the right thing, but what you have to do according to how you interpret the TOS, but just don't bring it up in a public forum.



Personally, I make my own decisions. I would rather ask forgiveness than (not then) ask permission.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

atDev said:


> I see. Yet they allow it to be viewed via a phone/internet connection anywhere despite location.
> 
> They also offer their "Sat-Go" equipment.
> 
> To me it seems that if you pay for the subscription it shouldn't matter where you watch it. It's not like your stealing anything. But I guess if its in the TOS it's not a good idea.


Thank you!



veryoldschool said:


> I didn't write the rules. You asked, and I tried to answer.
> "I think" the difference between what they do offer via phone/internet and actually from the receiver is these aren't HD, so they are a degraded feed.
> I doubt you'll find a lot of people sitting in front of an Iphone watching the sunday ticket, like you would a big screen.


So it is ok if I take a D12 and my little 6" TV somewhere else than my service address? It is a pretty degraded feed from an HD plasma.

IMO, if you want to take the box somewhere and watch it yourself, do it. HD or not. Now giving it to a friend to watch, that is a little different.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

atDev said:


> My friend has DirecTV. Is it possible for me to give him my receiver and he can watch NFL sunday ticket by simply switching out the receivers?
> 
> Will this throw up any flags on DirecTV's end where they may charge or cancel me?


If you are visiting your friend for the weekend, and you guys want to watch at his house for that weekend, then thats what some do, but for you to give him one of your receivers so he can watch at his house and you watch at your house, thats a complete no-no. That is technically account stacking, and that is super against the rules.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

atDev said:


> Can you point me to where this is covered in the TOS?


Section 1(h)


DIRECTV Customer Agreement said:


> (h) Private Viewing. We provide Service only for your private non-commercial use, enjoyment and home viewing.


----------



## r028806 (Mar 12, 2010)

This is a violation of FCC regulations. You cannot have receivers authorized in 2 homes at the same time. There is much more to this but for simplicity's sake that's what it is.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

r028806 said:


> This is a violation of FCC regulations. You cannot have receivers authorized in 2 homes at the same time. There is much more to this but for simplicity's sake that's what it is.


Surely, you must be kidding, right? The FCC has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with this issue. It is between D* and the customer, and appears to be a violation of the TOS, nothing more.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

People take receivers out of their homes and connect them in their campers all the time.
Just go camping.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

Watch on your computer with NFLST to GO


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Originally Posted by DIRECTV Customer Agreement 
(h) Private Viewing. We provide Service only for your private non-commercial use, ENJOYMENT and home viewing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't enjoy the football game today so I think I violated the TOS.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

NR4P said:


> Originally Posted by DIRECTV Customer Agreement
> (h) Private Viewing. We provide Service only for your private non-commercial use, ENJOYMENT and home viewing.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

r028806 said:


> This is a violation of FCC regulations. You cannot have receivers authorized in 2 homes at the same time. There is much more to this but for simplicity's sake that's what it is.


If you're working for the provider's legal dept, post to us a QUOTE from the FCC document !


----------



## r028806 (Mar 12, 2010)

Sorry folks but the FCC is involved because of local channels. A consumer cannot obtain locals from multiple locations with 1 acct. This is called mirroring fraud. Legal source to follow.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

r028806 said:


> Sorry folks but the FCC is involved because of local channels. A consumer cannot obtain locals from multiple locations with 1 acct. This is called mirroring fraud. Legal source to follow.


Poppycock and maybe even a rousing hogwash.

The FCC has substantially no purview over how someone uses their receiving equipment. The FCC is all about signals that are sent.


----------



## r028806 (Mar 12, 2010)

From the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999:
‘‘(f ) VIOLATION OF TERRITORIAL RESTRICTIONS ON
2 STATUTORY LICENSE FOR TELEVISION BROADCAST STA3
TIONS.—
4 ‘‘(1) INDIVIDUAL VIOLATIONS.—The willful or
5 repeated
6 secondary transmission to the public by a satellite
7 carrier of a primary transmission embodying a per8
formance or display of a work made by a television
9 broadcast station to a subscriber who does not reside
10 in that station’s local market, and is not subject to
11 statutory licensing under section 119 or a private li12
censing agreement, is actionable as an act of in13
fringement under section 501 and is fully subject to
14 the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506
15 and 509, except that—
16 ‘‘(A) no damages shall be awarded for such
17 act of infringement if the satellite carrier took
18 corrective action by promptly withdrawing serv19
ice from the ineligible subscriber; and
20 ‘‘(B) any statutory damages shall not ex21
ceed $5 for such subscriber for each month dur22
ing which the violation occurred.


----------



## r028806 (Mar 12, 2010)

The FCC has its hands all over satellite TV, the "Act" is 214 pages long.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/shva/shvia.pdf


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

That governs rules the satellite company must abide by, not the end user.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

r028806 said:


> *Sorry folks but the FCC is involved because of local channels*. A consumer cannot obtain locals from multiple locations with 1 acct. This is called mirroring fraud. Legal source to follow.


As an FYI it's not possible to receive someone else's locals if you are not in their market. The locals are on spotbeams, so taking an authorized receiver from NYC to North Carolina will not get you NYC locals.

I'm not sure if that's what you meant with the above bold, but wanted to point out that moving a box does not pose "issues" with local channels.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Davenlr said:


> That governs rules the satellite company must abide by, not the end user.


Same as I'm READING quotes and documents.

To r028806: How it come into your head - an subscriber's violation ?! The papers say nothing about us.


----------



## narcolept (Mar 1, 2007)

dsw2112 said:


> As an FYI it's not possible to receive someone else's locals if you are not in their market. The locals are on spotbeams, so taking an authorized receiver from NYC to North Carolina will not get you NYC locals.
> 
> I'm not sure if that's what you meant with the above bold, but wanted to point out that moving a box does not pose "issues" with local channels.


Actually, in the spirit of you're point, you're right, but in the application of an example you're wrong.

NYC and LA locals aren't a spotbeam, they're national for DNS. If you took a receiver authorized for a NYC location anywhere you can receive a signal, you'd be able to receive NYC locals.

Now, if you were to take a receiver from North Carolina to NYC, you wouldn't receive the North Carolina DMA's locals in NYC, due to being outside the spotbeam for the NC locals.

Just offering clarification on your specific example.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

r028806 said:


> The FCC has its hands all over satellite TV, the "Act" is 214 pages long.


In addition to applying to the carrier and not the consumer, the act that you refer to has twice been superseded. See SHVERA (2004) and STELA (2010).

For future reference, STELA sunsets in 2015.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

dsw2112 said:


> As an FYI it's not possible to receive someone else's locals if you are not in their market. The locals are on spotbeams, so taking an authorized receiver from NYC to North Carolina will not get you NYC locals.


Actually I believe it might because aren't NY locals also national feeds?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

TBlazer07 said:


> Actually I believe it might because aren't NY locals also national feeds?


Bad example, but I think everyone got the jist...


----------

