This is the same misleading method used by record companies to estimate how much they are losing on MP3 downloads.
and not all people stealing cable steal the whole kit and kaboodle. I knew a few people in my youth who actually paid for the basic cable, and then added their own descrambler box and got HBO, Showtime, and all the Pay Per View stations for free. That is probably one of the easier ways to “steal” cable.
Of course, some of these people were not smart, and before some PPVs the Cable Company would put a message (visible only to those with illegal descramblers) on saying “Hey you won a T-Shirt, call this # now!” which was one of the easiest ways to catch these scofflaws. I always wondered how many people they caught …
How could they do that? If they could filter out the image to just go to the “illegal” ones, why don’t they just shut of signal to them and be done with it?
The signal doesn’t only go to ‘illegals’
Here’s how it works:
a message is put on a premium channel (HBO, Max, etc.) that reads something like: If you are one of the next 100 callers, you will receive a new HBO hat! (or shirt, whatever) - The programmer supplies the free stuff and the MSO puts the LOCAL call number on the message.
Then,…when calls come into the call center, the rep asks for their address, phone number, etc. They pull up the cable account WITH THE CALLER ON THE PHONE. If an account does not exist - BOOM. They just got caught for stealing cable.
Even though the message usually only reads ‘for the first 100 callers’, the number of calls that come in are usually enough to bust about a dozen or so people stealing cable.
This is a pretty common practice for MSO’s and premium programmers. This type of project is usually run about once every year or so.
I hope I got my numbers right but here goes. You say standard price is $40, I can accept that. Now if there is 6.6 billion being stolen then that comes out to about 13,750,000 households stealing cable per year (6.6b /(40*12)). I think that there are around 300,000,000 people in the US and each household, at least what I used, is 3 people, that leaves us with 100,000,000 house holds. 13,750,000/100,000,000 = 0.1375 or 13.75% of Americans are stealing cable? I find that hard to believe. I just hope I got the numbers right.
The signal could quite well be sent only to illegal boxes, or at least, be filtered out by legal boxes. I’m just speculating here, as I don’t watch pay-per-view, but addressable boxes have the ability to turn on descrambling for a specific indicated channel number at a certain time, and show a different channel (such as a purchase confirmation, a preview show or a PPV schedule) for the same indicated channel number at other times. So just before the paid, legal boxes are set to switch to the PPV channel, the cable company could run the T-shirt ad. Since the illegals are already desrambling the picture, they’d see it, but the legal box owners would still see the purchase confirmation.
I’m not sure about the 100,000,000 households in America, however, $40.00 is only an average and is based on standard service. You also have to take into consideration that over 50% of the illegal cable users are caught with premium services (see my above post). These services can be an additional (gross MSO revenue) of $12.95 to $40.00 for these services.
The other thing to recognize is that the 6.6 mil figure is based on possible GROSS revenue. MSO’s PAY NO FRANCHISE FEE"S, LISCENSING FEE"S OR OPERATIONAL COSTS for illegal users- so that 6.6 mill should be MUCH LOWER if you deduct those numbers.
Some can argue that illegal users take away from signal quality, thus causing higher labor costs for maintence repairs, truck rolls, etc. and that may be another figure used in coming up with the 6.6 mill figure.
Lid is an archaic term dating back to my ::cough cough::: college days. I always understood it to mean half an ounce of grass. Generally the dealier just gave you a wad of grass in a baggie and said it was a “lid.” It was relatively cheap back then $10 to $20 an ounce. I’ve since given it up since the penalties for drug use are insanely harsh thanks to the War on Americans.
Re: Cable theft numbers
I am sure the cable companies assume that everyone is stealing all premium cable services when they steal cable, and paying nothing for them, and that if they just didn’t steal it they’d naturally pay for it. They also probably factor in the cost of trucks and so forth.
That 13 percent figure is interesting, I wonder what the total market penetration is for cable homes. I bet in some areas the cable companies figure theft to be higher than legal use.
It’s funny that you decided to use ::cough cough:: when talking about weed and your college days.
This is not true in all areas. Some MSO’s are “overbuilding” their competitors in some locations now. “Overbuilding” simply means there are two cable operators runnings totally separate plant within a franchise. Thus, subscribers in overbuilt areas have a choice of cable providers.
So that makes thievery acceptable.
Good information, mister_me.
Um… I was under the impression that the cable companies put filters out on the pole before the drop to the house. This blocked all of the frequencies except basic cable. Otherwise you could just buy the box and have access to all the channels. The filter prevents the upper tier cable from even getting to the house.
Standard cable insnt filtered because you dont need a box to view it.
When I had cable istalled the tech had to climb the pole and do some work up there before the signal worked at the TV. Here we have three + tiers available. The lowest two don`t need a box to view them. Basic basic was only like thirty channels, then standard basic has about sixty channels. How else could they differentiate between the two lowest tiers without a box to control them? That is why I believed the tech when he said he installed a filter on the pole to allow passage of standard cable but not the service that you need the box for.
Who can verify this?
This is why I think only basic cable is being pirated, not the premium service.
The filter is used to block higher tier BASIC services (usually channels 22-60 or so)
The only reason a filter would be used is if someone only wanted a very limited (lowest tier) basic service.
*All basic channels (with most MSO’s) are open - traps are only used to trap basic channels for customers who do not want them.
*All premium channels (with most MSO’s) are transmitted with a ‘scrambled’ signal and need an authorized converter, or box, to ‘descramble’ the system.
“The filter is used to block higher tier BASIC services (usually channels 22-60 or so)”
I have HBO on channel 16. But only basic service. HBO shows up as gray wispy lines.
Ok so double the amount for charges if someone is stealing everything, and to make it easier that’s $80 a month, that would make the numbers come out to be 6.8% of Americans are stealing cable. That’s still a huge number of people and thats assuming that every American would get cable which they do not.
I found a semi cite for the 100 milllion households here, they say that half of households 52.7 million… so twice that is 105.4 so I was close. I find those numbers to be way to high and can not belive that almost 7% of people are stealing cable.
Through some quirk of my cable connection, I’m getting “expanded basic” cable service when I only pay for “basic” cable programming. Simply, I’m getting extra channels (but no free premium channels).
I heard the theory once that cable companies may actually do this on purpose. As explained, and somebody can tell me that this isn’t so, a cable company pays a content supplier like the Discovery Channel a certain $ per viewer. So by “accidentally” supplying a subscriber more channels, the cable company ensures that viewer’s satisfaction, keeping him around longer, but doesn’t have to pay the Discovery Channel any extra money.
After all, it doesn’t really cost the cable company more real dollars to supply me the extra stations.
Any idea if this is really true?
{ hijack }
OK, as to your first point, strictly speaking, cable companies are not monopolies at all. Most of them entered into deals with their local communities to get monopoly rights when they first underwent the expensive process of “building out” cable service in the community. But those monopoly rights were granted for a limited number of years and in most cases they’ve expired. So in most cities, theoretically you can go in and build a second cable network to compete with the first, if you want.
However, as a practical matter it’s a bad idea to go in there and try to compete with a cable company that has already built out, because you’re going to be offering pretty much the same services they do, but your expenses are gonna be a LOT higher than theirs. Plus, they already have had first shot at all the customers in the community, so to succeed you are pretty much going to have to persuade people who already have cable service to switch to yours – once again, while offering pretty much the same services they do.
So although cable companies are not monopolies by law, they are for all practical purposes monopolies. The few cases where multiple cable companies operate in the same geographic area are very much an exception to the rule. And the worst thing is, since the cable companies are not monopolies by law, they are also unregulated as legal monopolies are, which means that people have no recourse but take their services exactly as offered or refuse them.
Which is why it’s so good that satellite TV and DSL offer alternatives to cable movies and cable modems. As I said initially, without them people would truly learn the meaning of the term “run roughshod.” As it is, they are kinda rigid in what kind of deals they offer customers. Like, why can’t I pick and choose the channels I get and not pay for all them damn religious channels?
{ /hijack }
As to whether or not it is all right to steal cable signals, I don’t recall venturing an opinion on that topic. I’m kinda suprised that YOU think it’s OK, though. :eek:
That is very interesting.
Well, I didn’t come up with 6.6 million figure so unfortunately I can’t speak for every MSO and they way they came up with their own figures but I assume that the figures are quite skewed toward loss for the MSO.
There are other factors besides gross revenue loss to consider (as mentioned in earlier post). MSO’s claim signal dilution from illegals meaning more labor costs - the average ‘truck roll’ cost in my system is $43.00. Then figure labor costs just to maintain an audit team to catch illegals - another, say,…$12.00 an hour.
In any event, I’m sure that 6.6 mil number is stretched to the max.
I CAN give you one solid number though: number of illegals in 2002 in a (specific) 92,109 (homes passed system):602 (homes).
Interesting point though: of those 602 were any repeat offenders? I’l have to look into that.
I’ve always had a problem with this logic. Those losses assume that people who are currently stealing cable would have actually been paying for it had they not been able to get it illegally, which is totally absurd. Same with software piracy. No one is out billions in sales since I believe most people acquiring this stuff would never pay for it anyway.
Heh. I don’t. That sentence was supposed to be terminated with a question mark rather than a period. It wasn’t necessarily in response to any remark you made either; I’m not entirely sure why I quoted you there—my apologies. My remark was directed more towards Pottery Accumulator for his/her comment “Cable companies have historically poor customer service records, so screw 'em.” That would seem to me to be an attempt at justifying theft of service. Not that any of this really has anything to do with the topic at hand; I just wanted to clear up any misconception.
>>>I’ve always had a problem with this logic. Those losses assume that people who are currently stealing cable would have actually been paying for it had they not been able to get it illegally, which is totally absurd. Same with software piracy. No one is out billions in sales since I believe most people acquiring this stuff would never pay for it anyway.
I’ve always had a problem with THIS logic. Just think if you were the service provider…would you let all the people that normally wouldn’t buy…have it for free? When I play music at a club, I want to get paid for every person that walks through the door. If you wouldn’t normally pay the cover, then get out. If I was messaging feet for a living and someone used my service but didn’t pay me just because they otherwise wouldn’t have used my service…then I’m pissed.