# Connecting TiVo Roamio to cable without card



## barryw1964 (Aug 29, 2015)

I just cut off my cable but still have Internet though the cable company. I can connect the cable to any TV directly and pick up about 115 digital channels and 75 analog. I just purchased a Roamio. It says it has found 315 channels. However, it will only list about 20 of them. And of those 20, I have no picture. Antenna signal shows 0 for any of these channels. I hooked up a little cheap HD antenna and the picture immediately came up. Tivo's response was to get an amplifier because they say this has 4 tuners and it degrades the signal when splitting. I would venture to say that my cable has a lot more power behind it than that little cheap antenna I connected. But I did and as I thought, no difference. 

So my question is, what is do different about the tuner in the TiVo than my TV's? Even a little cheap one I bought for the kitchen ($59) picks up the channels. I no longer pay for cable service and will not be getting a card. But if my TV picks the channels up as 'air' channels, why won't the TiVo?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Well first off, the Roamio has no analog tuner, so it won't be able to pick up any of your analog channels. It only has a digital tuner, and a Roamio isn't really designed to work with digital cable TV without a CableCard in it. 

You can try buying a CableCard for a few bucks off ebay to see if it will map the clear-QAM channels for you. Different cable companies use different brands of CableCards. There are two main brands: Cisco/Scientific Atlanta and Motorola/Arris. The brand of the cablecard needs to match your cable company's headend equipment in your area for it to have a chance at working.


----------



## barryw1964 (Aug 29, 2015)

I'm sure mine would be the Motorola/Arris as that is the type of modems they use. Thanks for the reply. I will see what I can find.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

barryw1964 said:


> I'm sure mine would be the Motorola/Arris as that is the type of modems they use. Thanks for the reply. I will see what I can find.


Not necessarily. Cable modems are pretty standard across brands, unlike CableCards. I'm on TWC and I use a Motorola/Arris cable modem but have a Cisco/Scientific Atlanta CableCard in my Roamio. Who is your cable company and what city are you in? You could try calling or dropping by your local cable company store and just asking them what brand of CableCards they use in your area.

Let me also point out that while using a CableCard purchased off ebay to remap clear-QAM channels should (in theory) work, and other people have reported this solution working for them, it is still very much a "your mileage may vary" type of situation.

Here are a couple threads that you might find helpful:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=525929

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=524585


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

It's real easy to test. Just go to Settings & Messages, Account & System Info, TiVo box Diagnostics. Channel down to Cable Card 1. Check the entry for Channel List Received. Check that the VCT ID number is for your cable feed. See, nothing to it.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

barryw1964 said:


> I just cut off my cable but still have Internet though the cable company. I can connect the cable to any TV directly and pick up about 115 digital channels and 75 analog. I just purchased a Roamio. It says it has found 315 channels. However, it will only list about 20 of them. And of those 20, I have no picture. *Antenna signal shows 0 for any of these channels. I hooked up a little cheap HD antenna and the picture immediately came up. *Tivo's response was to get an amplifier because they say this has 4 tuners and it degrades the signal when splitting. I would venture to say that my cable has a lot more power behind it than that little cheap antenna I connected. But I did and as I thought, no difference. So my question is, what is do different about the tuner in the TiVo than my TV's? Even a little cheap one I bought for the kitchen ($59) picks up the channels. I no longer pay for cable service and will not be getting a card. *But if my TV picks the channels up as 'air' channels, why won't the TiVo?*


It *REALLY* sounds to me like your confusing and mixing up "antenna" and "cable" TV signals and what they are and how they're connected! Cable uses QAM as its broadcast signal technology and over the air antenna broadcasts use something called ATSC using 8-VSB.

I'm thinking you need to redo guided setup. You're really confused and so is your post!

I second getting a Cablecard off of eBay or something. I have about 6-7 left of you want to buy one of mine? They're SA/Cisco brand.

Just because the tivo reports getting 115 digital channels when you connect it to your "cable" feed and do a scan, that doesn't mean those channels are unencrypted. That's why you need a provisioned, paired and authorized Cablecard from the cable co. in the first place. As stated though, if any are clear QAM then an aftermarket Cablecard should be able to map those to their proper guide slots and channels.

Good luck!


----------



## ThAbtO (Apr 6, 2000)

OTA works with the Roamio basic, never needs a cable card for that.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

barryw1964 said:


> I just cut off my cable but still have Internet though the cable company. I can connect the cable to any TV directly and pick up about 115 digital channels and 75 analog. I just purchased a Roamio. It says it has found 315 channels. However, it will only list about 20 of them. And of those 20, I have no picture. Antenna signal shows 0 for any of these channels. I hooked up a little cheap HD antenna and the picture immediately came up. Tivo's response was to get an amplifier because they say this has 4 tuners and it degrades the signal when splitting. I would venture to say that my cable has a lot more power behind it than that little cheap antenna I connected. But I did and as I thought, no difference.
> 
> So my question is, what is do different about the tuner in the TiVo than my TV's? Even a little cheap one I bought for the kitchen ($59) picks up the channels. I no longer pay for cable service and will not be getting a card. But if my TV picks the channels up as 'air' channels, why won't the TiVo?


As others have said, there are some technical problems with what you are doing; but have you also considered that your cable company will regard what you are doing is attempting theft of service by receiving a signal you haven't paid for? Cutting the cord is hip and modern but stealing cable is some pretty old-school stuff.


----------



## barryw1964 (Aug 29, 2015)

Thanks for all the replies. I have ordered a cable card. We'll see what happens. But concerning the last comment on cable theft, I am paying for Internet and phone through the cable company. The channels I receive are a byproduct of having the cable connected to my house and, according to Suddenlink, is just the way it is. I guess my question was not clear enough. If I choose cable as my source on my TV, I get nothing as I do not have their converter box. But if I select antenna as the source, I pick up all the channels available to me. I am not using the 'cable' tuner on my TV's but have selected 'antenna' as the source. I was confused that any of my TVs could pick up air channels using the 'cable' as an antenna feed, why couldn't TiVo? It gave me about 20 digital channels as I expected. However, none would display, not even the local one 5 miles away.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

I know it's not as good as digital HD on a Roamio, but If you can find for cheap one of the two-tuner Premieres w/lifetime (which integrated cable/OTA) that should work to pick up analog cable channels without a cable card needed.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

OP- you have that in writing? Or from a CSR? A signal on a cable likely does not give you the right to use it without paying, even if it is there and easy to do.

Tivo set their system up differently than your TV did.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

series5orpremier said:


> I know it's not as good as digital HD on a Roamio, but If you can find for cheap one of the two-tuner Premieres w/lifetime (which integrated cable/OTA) that should work to pick up analog cable channels without a cable card needed.


And it will not have a valid guide, making recording a chore. Even the descriptions will not match. However as you said, it will find the analog channels.

I have a Premiere without a cable card on-line and receive 5 analog test pattern channels and one clear QAM "info" channel".


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

JoeKustra said:


> And it will not have a valid guide, making recording a chore.


Depends whether TiVo has an accurate map of where the cable company has placed the analog channels. Granted nobody cares about analog channels anymore so I don't know if that info gets updated. I used to use a Premiere for about 40 basic cable analog channels and the guide was about 95% accurate.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

series5orpremier said:


> Depends whether TiVo has an accurate map of where the cable company has placed the analog channels. Granted nobody cares about analog channels anymore so I don't know if that info gets updated. I used to use a Premiere for about 40 basic cable analog channels and the guide was about 95% accurate.


I concur. If the person would include their zipcode and cable feed we could check on zap2it to see what TiVo thinks about the lineup. I'm dying to see how well the purchased but not authorized cable card functions. My nickel say it's a failure. But I can wait. It should be educational.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

barryw1964 said:


> Thanks for all the replies. I have ordered a cable card. We'll see what happens. But concerning the last comment on cable theft, I am paying for Internet and phone through the cable company. The channels I receive are a byproduct of having the cable connected to my house and, according to Suddenlink, is just the way it is. I guess my question was not clear enough. If I choose cable as my source on my TV, I get nothing as I do not have their converter box. But if I select antenna as the source, I pick up all the channels available to me. I am not using the 'cable' tuner on my TV's but have selected 'antenna' as the source. I was confused that any of my TVs could pick up air channels using the 'cable' as an antenna feed, why couldn't TiVo? It gave me about 20 digital channels as I expected. However, none would display, not even the local one 5 miles away.


Did you rerun guided setup on your Roamio, this time selecting antenna as your source?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

JoeKustra said:


> I concur. If the person would include their zipcode and cable feed we could check on zap2it to see what TiVo thinks about the lineup. I'm dying to see how well the purchased but not authorized cable card functions.* My nickel say it's a failure. *But I can wait. It should be educational.


My dime says it works. Mine works 100% for all analog and clear QAM channels on my Oceanic Time Warner system, if that means anything?


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

HarperVision said:


> My dime says it works. Mine works 100% for all analog and clear QAM channels on my Oceanic Time Warner system, if that means anything?


You are so fortunate. Did you see my post (#5). What does your premiere indicate?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

JoeKustra said:


> You are so fortunate. Did you see my post (#5). What does your premiere indicate?


 This?


JoeKustra said:


> It's real easy to test. Just go to Settings & Messages, Account & System Info, TiVo box Diagnostics. Channel down to Cable Card 1. Check the entry for Channel List Received. Check that the VCT ID number is for your cable feed. See, nothing to it.


I'm not sure I'm getting your point. It downloads the channel map for the system you're on when it's plugged in. I have the correct channel map on mine. As a matter of fact, I remember it also updated its firmware when I initially plugged it in as well.

I've plugged these cards into both a Premiere XL and Roamios with the same results.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

HarperVision said:


> I'm not sure I'm getting your point. It downloads the channel map for the system you're on when it's plugged in. I have the correct channel map on mine. As a matter of fact, I remember it also updated its firmware when I initially plugged it in as well.
> 
> I've plugged these cards into both a Premiere XL and Roamios with the same results.


Like I said, you're lucky. My cable feed does not see a cable card not in its database. So I plug in a foreign card and get nothing. The guide, on the other hand, comes from my zipcode & selected provider. Or maybe I'm just unlucky.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

HarperVision said:


> My dime says it works.


Yeah, if his cable company is offering an analog-only package so that people aren't required to have a cable box then TiVo should be on top of the program information and it should work fine.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

barryw1964 said:


> Thanks for all the replies. I have ordered a cable card. We'll see what happens. But concerning the last comment on cable theft, I am paying for Internet and phone through the cable company. The channels I receive are a byproduct of having the cable connected to my house and, according to Suddenlink, is just the way it is.


I'm not judging, as many people still do exactly what you're doing without issue. But the cable company still considers that theft. If you don't pay for cable TV service (even though you do pay for phone and internet), hook it up to a TV and watch it, that's theft, unless they specifically say basic cable is included with your internet service. In some cases, it is, but in others it isn't.

I'd still try to get clarification from the cable company in case you find yourself in a tight spot. If Suddenlink has told you it's not a problem, make sure you have proof. Cable companies can and do do audits and nail people all the time. A big reason for the digital transition is to stop this sort of thing.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

mdavej said:


> I'm not judging, as many people still do exactly what you're doing without issue. But the cable company still considers that theft. If you don't pay for cable TV service (even though you do pay for phone and internet), hook it up to a TV and watch it, that's theft, unless they specifically say basic cable is included with your internet service. In some cases, it is, but in others it isn't.
> 
> I'd still try to get clarification from the cable company in case you find yourself in a tight spot. If Suddenlink has told you it's not a problem, make sure you have proof. Cable companies can and do do audits and nail people all the time. A big reason for the digital transition is to stop this sort of thing.


I know people that moved into a home/condo and the cable is still connected, the cable service had been stoped but (in the old analog days) the cable co. did not come out to cut the service on the pole, connecting your TV to the cable inside your home and watching is not illegal, you can't be charged with anything if you did not alter the cable co equipment (like remove a trap etc). In one case it took a year before the cable co came out and cut the service, the cable co can't tell if your TV is connected or not without comming into your home, and they can't do that without your permission. Most cable co have gone digital and that solved the problem as you need a cable card or a cable box to watch anything, and the cable co can de- authorize any cable card or cable box.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Yep, it's the cable co's responsibility to turn off the service in that case, not the new homeowner.

It's the same concept, only in reverse, as the many threads here where someone complains that they were being charged by tivo (or any company for that matter) for monthly service on a box they never confirmed to cancel and they notice it months or years later and expect tivo to repay them. The burden was on them to make sure the cancellation happened, just like it is the cable co's to disconnect it if they were informed to do so by the prior homeowner.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

mdavej said:


> I'm not judging, as many people still do exactly what you're doing without issue. But the cable company still considers that theft.


The cable company may very well consider that theft, but their opinion is irrelevant. The real question is does the law consider it to be theft. My educated guess is that it isn't really theft at all. If the cable company is intentionally sending unencrypted RF signals into your home, that's their decision, and what you choose to do with those RF signals isn't any of their business. It's like your neighbor having an unsecured WiFi connection and you using it to connect your laptop to the internet. Is that theft? I don't think so. I could just as easily argue that the cable company is trespassing onto my property by sending unwanted RF signals into my home. But just because I consider it trespassing doesn't mean that it actually is.



mdavej said:


> I'd still try to get clarification from the cable company in case you find yourself in a tight spot. If Suddenlink has told you it's not a problem, make sure you have proof. Cable companies can and do do audits and nail people all the time. A big reason for the digital transition is to stop this sort of thing.


There is absolutely no way for the cable company to know if someone is viewing unencrypted channels that they are intentionally sending into someone's home. These are entirely one-way signals. The cable company can no more tell you are viewing them than local broadcast stations can tell if you are watching their OTA channel with an antenna.


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

Thanks guys. I'm happy to be wrong about most of this. I was pretty paranoid in the past and would disconnect my TVs before the service guy came out to fix something, just to be on the safe side.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

tarheelblue32 said:


> .......... There is absolutely no way for the cable company to know if someone is viewing unencrypted channels that they are intentionally sending into someone's home. These are entirely one-way signals. The cable company can no more tell you are viewing them than local broadcast stations can tell if you are watching their OTA channel with an antenna.


Actually I think there IS a way they can tell if you have cable illegally without going in your home. Wasn't there, and maybe still are, those vans that can drive by a residence with RF detection gear that could detect if a certain frequency was being watched on a tv in the house? I'm not joking either, I remember reading about this technology.

Google here I come!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

There's this:

http://www.tvproviders.com/tv-101/how-is-cable-theft-detected.html :



> *Cable Company Investigation*
> 
> Many cable companies do not realize that there might be cable theft until there has been a complaint by a cable subscriber. These complaints are typically problems with television signal or Internet speed. If a cable company receives one of these complaints and cannot find an issue with the paying customer's indoor equipment, the cable operators may begin to suspect cable theft.
> 
> ...


The talk about cable theft vans appears to be controversial though. Some saying it was false propaganda by cable cos to make the thieves afraid, but the vans didn't actually exist, with others saying it does.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> Actually I think there IS a way they can tell if you have cable illegally without going in your home. Wasn't there, and maybe still are, those vans that can drive by a residence with RF detection gear that could detect if a certain frequency was being watched on a tv in the house? I'm not joking either, I remember reading about this technology.
> 
> Google here I come!


The UK has this as you must pay a tax on all TVs in your home, but UK TV are made to be detected, US TV are not. In the old days the cable co. found illegal taps into their cable, bad news for the person that did that. Today in most of the USA you can't watch anything on cable without some cable supplied equipment. Most cable co are not even using traps anymore.

My story: For two years I used ATT cable (not U-Verse), but I paid Comcast for basic cable that I was not watching as that was less costly with the internet than the internet alone. Nothing was connected to the Comcast cable, ATT cable stopped their hard cable service, so I just connected to the Comcast cable, and was about to order expanded cable when I found that because of the internet expanded cable was not cut off, so for two years I got expanded cable without paying, until one day my wife complained that CNBC did not come in, I checked and found the Comcast had put a special trap on the pole to block expanded cable but still let the internet in. I called and the trap was taken down and all ch. came in and my price went up. This was way before HDTV came along.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

A continuous service offer is common to keep costs lowest. This is common with gas and electric utilities too. That is, the provider leaves the wire (or pipe) "on" as the trip to disconnect/reconnect is expensive, so households are obligated (by law or tariff) to call in to connect, thus everyone is better off when everyone is honest. On the flip side, the utility is then allowed to back-bill for the service when it is used without authorization. What do you want, the providers to have to increase rates and perform a hard disconnect for everyone?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

jrtroo said:


> A continuous service offer is common to keep costs lowest. This is common with gas and electric utilities too. That is, the provider leaves the wire (or pipe) "on" as the trip to disconnect/reconnect is expensive, so households are obligated (by law or tariff) to call in to connect, thus everyone is better off when everyone is honest. On the flip side, the utility is then allowed to back-bill for the service when it is used without authorization. What do you want, the providers to have to increase rates and perform a hard disconnect for everyone?


Maybe before cable companies were allowed to encrypt all channels, I would have agreed with you. But now that the FCC has given cable companies the legal right to encrypt all channels, including the local broadcast channels, the burden is on the cable companies to encrypt them all. If a cable company chooses to send unencrypted channel signals into your home, that's the cable company's fault.


----------



## schatham (Mar 17, 2007)

In my area even if you pay for it you can not just hook the line to the tv. Even basic cable is encrypted.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Maybe before cable companies were allowed to encrypt all channels, I would have agreed with you. But now that the FCC has given cable companies the legal right to encrypt all channels, including the local broadcast channels, the burden is on the cable companies to encrypt them all. If a cable company chooses to send unencrypted channel signals into your home, that's the cable company's fault.


Has the rule actually been changed or does each cable company have to seek a waiver?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

lpwcomp said:


> Has the rule actually been changed or does each cable company have to seek a waiver?


The rule was changed last year. Cable companies can now encrypt any and all digital channels. If a cable company doesn't encrypt a digital channel, it is because they have chosen not to for whatever reason.

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-system-encryption

On my cable system, TWC began encrypting all of the digital channels back when they dropped all the analog channels a few months ago. They have left 2 digital channels unencrypted. One is the local Ion affiliate, and another is a Fox branded channel that I can't even figure out what is is or find on my TiVo's guide. They also left 1 analog channel as a test pattern.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> The rule was changed last year. Cable companies can now encrypt any and all digital channels. If a cable company doesn't encrypt a digital channel, it is because they have chosen not to for whatever reason.
> 
> https://www.fcc.gov/guides/cable-system-encryption
> 
> On my cable system, TWC began encrypting all of the digital channels back when they dropped all the analog channels a few months ago. They have left 2 digital channels unencrypted. One is the local Ion affiliate, and another is a Fox branded channel that I can't even figure out what is is or find on my TiVo's guide. They also left 1 analog channel as a test pattern.


Note that the rule change only applies to systems that are _*all*_ digital.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

lpwcomp said:


> Note that the rule change only applies to systems that are _*all*_ digital.


That's only because analog channels can't be encrypted, so traps still have to be used anyway on systems that still have analog.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

Three places a Tivo DVR could get a channel (to QAM) map from:
Tivo servers/guided setup
CableCard
SDV TA (USB)

The CableCards are cheap and work very often. Just start there.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

I'm waiting for *barryw1964* to report back the results of a cable card purchase.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Maybe before cable companies were allowed to encrypt all channels, I would have agreed with you. But now that the FCC has given cable companies the legal right to encrypt all channels, including the local broadcast channels, the burden is on the cable companies to encrypt them all. If a cable company chooses to send unencrypted channel signals into your home, that's the cable company's fault.


By that logic once the technology for intruder detection became available, burglary became legal. If I leave my car unlocked, someone who takes something from it without permission is still a thief. The existence of encryption technology did not nullify the settled law that unauthorized tapping of a cable channel is theft of service.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

ej42137 said:


> By that logic once the technology for intruder detection became available, burglary became legal. If I leave my car unlocked, someone who takes something from it without permission is still a thief. The existence of encryption technology did not nullify the settled law that unauthorized tapping of a cable channel is theft of service.


Please cite me some legal cases where someone was prosecuted for simply connecting a coax cable from a wall outlet to their TV to view unencrypted channels. Can you even cite 1 case where this happened? If not, then it sure as hell isn't "settled law".


----------



## mdavej (Aug 13, 2015)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Please cite me some legal cases where someone was prosecuted for simply connecting a coax cable from a wall outlet to their TV to view unencrypted channels. Can you even cite 1 case where this happened? If not, then it sure as hell isn't "settled law".


Here's the law in one state (others are probably a little different):



> (1) A person is guilty of theft of telecommunication services if he or she knowingly and with intent to avoid payment:
> 
> (a) Uses a telecommunication device to obtain telecommunication services without having entered into a prior agreement with a telecommunication service provider to pay for the telecommunication services; or
> 
> ...


So sounds to me like if you don't pay for it, yet go to the trouble to connect your TV and watch it, you're stealing in the eyes of the law, regardless of whether the cable company neglected to shut it off.

Do millions of people do this? Sure. Do many get caught? Probably not very many. Like all those people, the OP doesn't think it's stealing, but it is.

If you want free TV and a clean conscience, get an antenna. If you couldn't care less, keep doing what you're doing.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

telemark said:


> Three places a Tivo DVR could get a channel (to QAM) map from:
> Tivo servers/guided setup
> CableCard
> SDV TA (USB)
> ...


1. TiVo servers do not have that information.

2. Using a purchased CableCARD is possibly illegal in at least two ways. a. it is arguably theft of service and b. in all likelihood, the CableCARD is misappropriated.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

lpwcomp said:


> 2. Using a purchased CableCARD is possibly illegal in at least two ways. a. it is arguably theft of service and b. in all likelihood, the CableCARD is misappropriated.


Yes, apparently some cable companies have sold obsolete DVRs without removing the cable cards; but almost certainly any cable card bought on eBay is "hot"; perhaps we should add receiving stolen property to the charge list?



tarheelblue32 said:


> Please cite me some legal cases where someone was prosecuted for simply connecting a coax cable from a wall outlet to their TV to view unencrypted channels. Can you even cite 1 case where this happened? If not, then it sure as hell isn't "settled law".


As GRRM said, I'm not your b*tch. Not responding to your request would not affect the truth or falsity of my assertion. I'm certainly not going to waste any time on Westlaw to satisfy your desire to feel good about stealing cable.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

ej42137 said:


> Yes, apparently some cable companies have sold obsolete DVRs without removing the cable cards; but almost certainly any cable card bought on eBay is "hot"; perhaps we should add receiving stolen property to the charge list?


You're really grasping at straws here. There are tens of millions of cable boxes that have CableCards in them, and when cable companies sell them off for scrap I doubt very many think to open them up and pull the CableCards out of them. Which means they aren't "hot" at all. And receiving stolen property requires knowledge that the property is stolen, which certainly doesn't apply here.



ej42137 said:


> As GRRM said, I'm not your b*tch. Not responding to your request would not affect the truth or falsity of my assertion. I'm certainly not going to waste any time on Westlaw to satisfy your desire to feel good about stealing cable.


Since you are the one making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you, my friend.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

ej42137 said:


> Yes, apparently some cable companies have sold obsolete DVRs without removing the cable cards; but almost certainly any cable card bought on eBay is "hot"; perhaps we should add receiving stolen property to the charge list?


And willful blindness != lack of mens rea.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

lpwcomp said:


> And willful blindness != lack of mens rea.


There is no "willful blindness" here. There are selles on ebay selling hundreds of cards. You really think these are people who "stole" DVRs and cable boxes from cable companies by neglecting to return them and then pulled the CableCards out to sell them on ebay? You'd think after the first 10 unreturned DVRs, the cable company would have stopped renting DVRs to them. It's preposterous.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> There is no "willful blindness" here. There are selles on ebay selling hundreds of cards. You really think these are people who "stole" DVRs and cable boxes from cable companies by neglecting to return them and then pulled the CableCards out to sell them on ebay? You'd think after the first 10 unreturned DVRs, the cable company would have stopped renting DVRs to them. It's preposterous.


You really think that the sellers are the original recipients?

_*I*_ didn't say stolen, I said "misappropriated", which they most certainly.

You also didn't address the issue of theft of service.

Whether or not anyone has been prosecuted for this isn't relevant. The only issue is whether or not it constitutes a crime.

In any case, it will be a moot point in the near future when there is little or no clear QAM.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

lpwcomp said:


> You really think that the sellers are the original recipients?


I already stated what I believe above, but I will restate it for you. I believe that most of these CableCards being sold on ebay were pulled out of old equipment that had been lawfully purchased as scrap from cable companies. That means that they are not stolen and are completely legal to buy.



lpwcomp said:


> _*I*_ didn't say stolen, I said "misappropriated", which they most certainly.


And you responded to a comment saying that "_almost certainly any cable card bought on eBay is "hot"; perhaps we should add receiving stolen property to the charge list?_" by adding "_And willful blindness != lack of mens rea._" So it certainly looks like you were agreeing with the proposition that they are stolen.



lpwcomp said:


> You also didn't address the issue of theft of service.
> 
> Whether or not anyone has been prosecuted for this isn't relevant. The only issue is whether or not it constitutes a crime.


It is not irrelevant at all. Statutes can be interpreted by courts in a number of different ways. The fact that a statute has never been tested in court and thus has no judicial interpretation as to what it actually means is very relevant.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I already stated what I believe above, but I will restate it for you. I believe that most of these CableCards being sold on ebay were pulled out of old equipment that had been lawfully purchased as scrap from cable companies. That means that they are not stolen and are completely legal to buy. ...........


Thats how I got my lot of 10 SA/Cisco cards. I purchased them legally from a salvage dealer, but if you'd care to press charges lpwcomp, go ahead and file. I have a LEGAL invoice and receipt for all I purchased! I also attained a boatload of commercial DirecTV equipment when my work location quit using LodgeNet and told me if I hauled it all away then I could have it, which I graciously did. If it was "stolen" as you're saying and not "salvaged scrap", then why did DirecTV promptly agree to add the owned H24 receiver I got from the lot onto my consumer account? Why was I able to call their business department and confirm ALL the equipment was legally owned and could be activated? Why were they willing to activate and help me setup the COM1000 QAM blade receiver system from said lot? It was in essence, and would've been if I didn't take it, just sold to an electronics salvage company and been parted out and sold as "salvage", just like most of these cable cards are on eBay.

As to the idiotic analogy of property being left in an open car and you taking stuff out of it and that being the same as using cable that's free on your coax, that's utterly ridiculous! A car is someone's PERSONAL property so taking something out of it is theft, just as taking out of someone's home is. They didn't "leave it there for you to use freely". Now if they would've taken that property, say an iPad, out of their personal car and left it on YOUR property for three months and never acknowledged or claimed it and you used it, they'd have NO CASE whatsoever in charging you for theft, the same as the cable company, who willingly leaves their cable signal (i.e. - THEIR property in this case) inside YOUR home. Case closed your honor!


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> It is not irrelevant at all. Statutes can be interpreted by courts in a number of different ways. The fact that a statute has never been tested in court and thus has no judicial interpretation as to what it actually means is very relevant.


U.S. Code Title 47 Chapter 5 Subchapter V-A Part IV § 553

(a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or receiving service; assist in intercepting or receiving defined
(1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.​
Do you have any cites that interpret this law as not applying to the matter we are discussing, or are you just asserting it is invalid because you are unaware of any test cases?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

HarperVision,

That's one of the most ridiculous spiels I've ever read. On what grounds would _*I*_ "press charges"? You think I'm going to come running up to your house yelling "Citizen's arrayest! Citizen's arrayest!"?

Of what relevance is your experience with DirecTV? Are you not paying for the service? For the most part, the people using purchased CableCARDs _*aren't*_. And just exactly what do you think would happen if someone called their cable company and tried to get one activated?

Now that I consider it, the cable company probably doesn't much care if you are using a purchased CableCARD. All it really does is enable you to get guide data from TiVo for the clear QAM channels. The "crime", if any, is connecting the equipment to the cable and using it to receive programming to which you are not entitled.

I agree that the analogy you referenced is idiotic. Theft of property and theft of service are two entirely different things, particularly in the situation under discussion.

My main objection here is to the implication that there is zero risk involved. Maybe the risk is low and maybe it is acceptable, but it is most certainly _*not*_ zero.

As I said before, the whole issue will be moot when clear QAM disappears.


----------



## jrtroo (Feb 4, 2008)

In all likelihood the resolution for the cable-co is to back-bill the customer and cut off service at the pole if that does not work. The cost of litigation is high unless there can be a case to show multiple years or in the event the unauthorized usage was for a multi-tenant property. 

So, its unlikely to find a bunch of litigation on it. But, if there is back-billing and subsequently no payments made the cost is passed on to the rest of us in their bad debt cost recovery.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

lpwcomp said:


> HarperVision, That's one of the most ridiculous spiels I've ever read. On what grounds would I "press charges"? You think I'm going to come running up to your house yelling "Citizen's arrayest! Citizen's arrayest!"?


Come on, seriously? You must know that was more tongue in cheek I hope??? 



lpwcomp said:


> Of what relevance is your experience with DirecTV? Are you not paying for the service? For the most part, the people using purchased CableCARDs aren't. And just exactly what do you think would happen if someone called their cable company and tried to get one activated? Now that I consider it, the cable company probably doesn't much care if you are using a purchased CableCARD. All it really does is enable you to get guide data from TiVo for the clear QAM channels.


The point is, if DirecTV looked at those pieces of equipment as "stolen property", they wouldn't activate them. They'd say as such, just as they do for equipment that you're trying to activate that's on another account that's in collections. I wasn't trying to make the analogy that you could get free service with those receivers. I could acquire these pieces of equipment the SAME way the salvaged Cablecards are acquired, that's the point.



lpwcomp said:


> . The "crime", if any, is connecting the equipment to the cable and using it to receive programming to which you are not entitled. I agree that the analogy you referenced is idiotic. Theft of property and theft of service are two entirely different things, particularly in the situation under discussion. My main objection here is to the implication that there is zero risk involved. Maybe the risk is low and maybe it is acceptable, but it is most certainly not zero. As I said before, the whole issue will be moot when clear QAM disappears.


I can agree with that.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> Come on, seriously? You must know that was more tongue in cheek I hope???


What? You didn't appreciate my Gomer Pyle impression?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

lpwcomp said:


> What? You didn't appreciate my Gomer Pyle impression?


It seemed more like Sgt Carter yelling at me to tell you the truth!


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

HarperVision said:


> Thats how I got my lot of 10 SA/Cisco cards. I purchased them legally from a salvage dealer, but if you'd care to press charges lpwcomp, go ahead and file. I have a LEGAL invoice and receipt for all I purchased! I also attained a boatload of commercial DirecTV equipment when my work location quit using LodgeNet and told me if I hauled it all away then I could have it, which I graciously did. If it was "stolen" as you're saying and not "salvaged scrap", then why did DirecTV promptly agree to add the owned H24 receiver I got from the lot onto my consumer account? Why was I able to call their business department and confirm ALL the equipment was legally owned and could be activated? Why were they willing to activate and help me setup the COM1000 QAM blade receiver system from said lot? It was in essence, and would've been if I didn't take it, just sold to an electronics salvage company and been parted out and sold as "salvage", just like most of these cable cards are on eBay.


If you sold them for a cable company to authorize and activate, it wouldn't violate 553; if you sold them to enable unauthorized connection to a cable system I should think it would. You'd probably also be in violation of the section of the Patriot Act dealing with the use of decryption devices.



HarperVision said:


> As to the idiotic analogy of property being left in an open car and you taking stuff out of it and that being the same as using cable that's free on your coax, that's utterly ridiculous! A car is someone's PERSONAL property so taking something out of it is theft, just as taking out of someone's home is. They didn't "leave it there for you to use freely". Now if they would've taken that property, say an iPad, out of their personal car and left it on YOUR property for three months and never acknowledged or claimed it and you used it, they'd have NO CASE whatsoever in charging you for theft, the same as the cable company, who willingly leaves their cable signal (i.e. - THEIR property in this case) inside YOUR home. Case closed your honor!


I'm sure you're saying the argument is idiotic, not me. Although I am often idiotic, for example now as I continue to participate in this thread.

The point of my analogy was not to say that stealing cable and stealing my iPad are the same thing; as you point out, they are not the same kind of crime. Stealing cable became a crime under 553; stealing my iPad out of my car has always been a crime under common law. I was pointing out that the legality of an action does not generally depend upon someone taking active measures against said action. There are counterexamples, such as adverse possession and trademark protection, but those are peculiar to those particular legalities and not general principles.

As a practical matter, I am sure the ability of cable companies to digitally encrypt their signal and the fact that they are in the process of doing so makes it unlikely that henceforth any individual tapping cable without authorization need fear legal action, whatever the actual law. If one believes that it's okay to commit a crime if you're not going to get caught, then one probably feels okay about stealing cable from a faceless corporation. I must admit to having enough bad feeling about TWC that I would certainly look the other way if my neighbor had an unauthorized hookup. (If TWC is reading this, consider it conversational hyperbole. If not, I'm serious.)


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

ej42137 said:


> U.S. Code Title 47 Chapter 5 Subchapter V-A Part IV § 553
> 
> (a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or receiving service; assist in intercepting or receiving defined
> (1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.​
> Do you have any cites that interpret this law as not applying to the matter we are discussing, or are you just asserting it is invalid because you are unaware of any test cases?


A cable co can't tell if your TV is connected to their cable inside your home and you are watching, without getting a court order and having a police raid, many laws are on the books (take the coping of music/DVD movies by many people) making many things illegal (say speeding 1 MPH over the speed limit) but almost nobody is charged with this at this time, the music co tried a few years ago to get people, but it hard to prove who did the copying, some people did fight and win some lost with the music people. One can prove if you used power or gas because of the meter, but cable has no meter.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

lessd said:


> A cable co can't tell if your TV is connected to their cable inside your home and you are watching, without getting a court order and having a police raid, many laws are on the books (take the coping of music/DVD movies by many people) making many things illegal (say speeding 1 MPH over the speed limit) but almost nobody is charged with this at this time, the music co tried a few years ago to get people, but it hard to prove who did the copying, some people did fight and win some lost with the music people. One can prove if you used power or gas because of the meter, but cable has no meter.


And anyone who has ever ordered anything online and not had sales tax collected on it is also guilty of tax evasion. I'm guessing there are tens of millions of people in the country guilty of that, and probably just about everyone on this message board.



ej42137 said:


> If you sold them for a cable company to authorize and activate, it wouldn't violate 553; if you sold them to enable unauthorized connection to a cable system I should think it would. You'd probably also be in violation of the section of the Patriot Act dealing with the use of decryption devices.


Except that CableCards purchased on ebay can't actually be used for decryption purposes (unless your cable company is willing to activate it on your account). Their only real use is remapping channels to different virtual channel numbers, which is not a violation of either §553 or the Patriot Act.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

lessd said:


> A cable co can't tell if your TV is connected to their cable inside your home and you are watching, without getting a court order and having a police raid, many laws are on the books (take the coping of music/DVD movies by many people) making many things illegal (say speeding 1 MPH over the speed limit) but almost nobody is charged with this at this time, the music co tried a few years ago to get people, but it hard to prove who did the copying, some people did fight and win some lost with the music people. One can prove if you used power or gas because of the meter, but cable has no meter.


Uh, actually it would be very possible to determine this without entering the home. For example, a television puts out an EMF signature which can determine which channel is playing; and one can measure electrical properties of the cable to determine whether something is connected. I think the only reason that's not done in the short term is cable companies find in more profitable to accuse anyone with an open connection of stealing cable, and in the long term they're going to encrypt everything so as to make it a moot point.

But really, is your point that you won't get caught so you're doing nothing wrong or illegal?


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> And anyone who has ever ordered anything online and not had sales tax collected on it is also guilty of tax evasion. I'm guessing there are tens of millions of people in the country guilty of that, and probably just about everyone on this message board..


I'm sorry, do you actually think that's *not* tax evasion? Do you think that just because some number of people commit an illegal act, it somehow becomes legal?



lessd said:


> A cable co can't tell if your TV is connected to their cable inside your home and you are watching, without getting a court order and having a police raid, many laws are on the books (take the coping of music/DVD movies by many people) making many things illegal (say speeding 1 MPH over the speed limit) but almost nobody is charged with this at this time, the music co tried a few years ago to get people, but it hard to prove who did the copying, some people did fight and win some lost with the music people. One can prove if you used power or gas because of the meter, but cable has no meter.


Do you think what you have written changes the nature of the act? All you have said is that you won't get caught.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

ej42137 said:


> I'm sorry, do you actually think that's *not* tax evasion? Do you think that just because some number of people commit an illegal act, it somehow becomes legal?
> 
> Do you think what you have written changes the nature of the act? All you have said is that you won't get caught.


There are many laws on the books that are never enforced and that are effectively unenforceable for all sorts of reasons. Maybe governments choose not to enforce them, such as the feds choosing not to enforce marijuana laws in Colorado, or states choosing not to enforce their fornication or cohabitation laws. There are 31 state constitutions that legally prohibit same-sex marriage, but those are all unenforceable now because 5 Supreme Court justices said so. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, merely that it is.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

It's anarchy!!!


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Still waiting for *barryw1964* to report back the results of a cable card purchase.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Please cite me some legal cases where someone was prosecuted for simply connecting a coax cable from a wall outlet to their TV to view unencrypted channels. Can you even cite 1 case where this happened? If not, then it sure as hell isn't "settled law".


47 U.S. Code § 553

It's called passive cable theft. There are also state laws against it as well.

It is most definitely illegal.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> There are 31 state constitutions that legally prohibit same-sex marriage, but those are all unenforceable now because 5 Supreme Court justices said so.


That do not legally prohibit same-sex marriage because those articles violate guarantees in the U.S. Constitution and are therefore invalid. I think the rest of your answer speaks for itself.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

BobCamp1 said:


> 47 U.S. Code § 553
> 
> It's called passive cable theft. There are also state laws against it as well.
> 
> It is most definitely illegal.


exactly, I occasionally torrent tv shows, I know it's not legal and don't lie to myself about it, but it's something I have made a personal choice to live with.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

BobCamp1 said:


> 47 U.S. Code § 553
> 
> It's called passive cable theft. There are also state laws against it as well.
> 
> It is most definitely illegal.


That's not a legal case, that's a statute. I want a specific case where someone was prosecuted under that statute in the scenario we are discussing here of connecting a coax cable from the wall to the TV to view unencrypted channels that the cable company is intentionally sending through to your home.



ej42137 said:


> That do not legally prohibit same-sex marriage because those articles violate guarantees in the U.S. Constitution and are therefore invalid. I think the rest of your answer speaks for itself.


My point of that example was that those are still technically laws on the books that aren't being enforced, for whatever reason. My other examples were laws not being enforced that haven't been struck down by a court as unconstitutional. But good job cherrypicking that one example and ignoring the others.


----------



## thefisch (Jul 25, 2015)

dianebrat said:


> exactly, I occasionally torrent tv shows, I know it's not legal and don't lie to myself about it, but it's something I have made a personal choice to live with.


+1. I also went over the speed limit today and ran a stop sign in a parking lot. I consider the latter to be worse.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

dianebrat said:


> exactly, I occasionally torrent tv shows, I know it's not legal and don't lie to myself about it, but it's something I have made a personal choice to live with.





thefisch said:


> +1. I also went over the speed limit today and ran a stop sign in a parking lot. I consider the latter to be worse.


You better be on the lookout for lpwcomp guys!!!



lpwcomp said:


> HarperVision, .........I'm going to come running up to your house yelling "Citizen's arrayest! Citizen's arrayest!"? ........


ROTFL!!!


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

ej42137 said:


> But really, is your point that you won't get caught so you're doing nothing wrong or illegal?


I was not trying to make a moral judgment, I was saying the USA and the states have so many laws that most people break some laws sometimes, yes, your correct, it is illegal, but if your never going to be called on it so what, 1 mile/h over the speed limit is illegal, anybody on this Forum that drives goes over the fixed speed limit many times, if their going 70MPH on a 25MPH street they should be picked up, but 1MPH over, never. It would be hard to live if one never did anything illegal, people on this post are pointing out the illegal downloads they are doing. Every original DVD movie has this big FBI warning about copying, does anybody ever look at this and say* WOW *I did not know that, and destroy all their copied DVD movies ?? Or turn themselves in to the FBI hat (or copied DVD movies) in hand ?? Let us know when you find such a person.
Everybody finds a path in life they have comfort with, and lives that way, some do a little illegal stuff, some do a lot of illegal stuff, and if you do too much illegal stuff you may get caught, like selling copied DVD movies to the public to make money. You may be the 1 in 10 million that never does anything illegal, if so good for you.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> But good job cherrypicking that one example and ignoring the others.


And good job by you avoiding answering the question I asked. Although I guess you implicitly answered the question by avoiding it. The only reason I picked on that example was because it was so blatantly false. The others points were true enough but not relevant to the question.

I could come up with some really heinous examples of laws that were not enforced for one reason or another, but I think that would get me dinged by the moderator and the thread closed. Suffice it to say that I don't think whether or not a law is actively enforced is proof that the action it prohibits is necessarily either moral, legal or insignificant, as you seem to be saying.

Appropriation of the fruits of someone's labor against their will is the action you are trying to justify. Your justification is that you want it and you won't get caught. I think you need more; I would accept any of these, for example:

1) It's wrong but not serious.
2) It's revenge on an evil corporation.
3) It's political action justified by more significant goals.
4) You were not responsible due to mental incapacity.
5) You were following the orders of your superior.
6) You have religious reasons for your actions.
7) You were having a weak moment and succumbed to temptation.​


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

lessd said:


> I was not trying to make a moral judgment, I was saying the USA and the states have so many laws that most people break some laws sometimes, yes, your correct, it is illegal, but if your never going to be called on it so what, 1 mile/h over the speed limit is illegal, anybody on this Forum that drives goes over the fixed speed limit many times, if their going 70MPH on a 25MPH street they should be picked up, but 1MPH over, never. It would be hard to live if one never did anything illegal, people on this post are pointing out the illegal downloads they are doing. Every original DVD movie has this big FBI warning about copying, does anybody ever look at this and say* WOW *I did not know that, and destroy all their copied DVD movies ?? Or turn themselves in to the FBI hat (or copied DVD movies) in hand ?? Let us know when you find such a person.
> Everybody finds a path in life they have comfort with, and lives that way, some do a little illegal stuff, some do a lot of illegal stuff, and if you do too much illegal stuff you may get caught, like selling copied DVD movies to the public to make money. You may be the 1 in 10 million that never does anything illegal, if so good for you.


Thanks for that. I have no disagreement with what you say. Except the part that suggests I might never do anything illegal; I certainly can't make that claim and keep a straight face.

I was curious to learn how OP justified his actions and I am disappointed not to get a response from him. I was not disappointed in the amazing contortions people are making to justify a minor petty theft.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

ej42137 said:


> And good job by you avoiding answering the question I asked. Although I guess you implicitly answered the question by avoiding it.


I'd be happy to answer any question you have. I went back up to see what question of yours I did not answer, and I assume you mean this one:



ej42137 said:


> I'm sorry, do you actually think that's *not* tax evasion?


Yes, it is technically tax evasion.



ej42137 said:


> Do you think that just because some number of people commit an illegal act, it somehow becomes legal?


Yes, if there is a law that nobody is willing or able to enforce, then I think it becomes de facto legal. There are literally thousands of laws all across the U.S. like this. From antiquated modesty laws for women's dress, to sexual morality laws, to blue laws about what you can and can't do on the Lord's Day (that's Sunday for all you heathens out there who didn't know).



ej42137 said:


> Appropriation of the fruits of someone's labor against their will is the action you are trying to justify.


Actually, my position is that it isn't being taken against their will. The cable companies have chosen by their own free will to not encrypt channels when they can, knowing full well that people who get internet service but not TV service can and do hook up their TVs to view these channels. Their complacency and tacit acceptance of this practice is what makes it okay.



ej42137 said:


> Your justification is that you want it and you won't get caught. I think you need more; I would accept any of these, for example:
> 
> 1) It's wrong but not serious.


Well, I think it is neither wrong nor serious. 



ej42137 said:


> 2) It's revenge on an evil corporation.


Well, cable companies are some of the most evil corporations on Earth, so... 



ej42137 said:


> 3) It's political action justified by more significant goals.


The cable companies have been breaking the letter and spirit of laws and regulations for years and have been abusing their monopolistic power to overcharge customers, so this could indeed be a form of political protest against them. 



ej42137 said:


> 4) You were not responsible due to mental incapacity.


You seem to think I'm crazy, so maybe that qualifies. 



ej42137 said:


> 5) You were following the orders of your superior.


Satan told me to do it. 



ej42137 said:


> 6) You have religious reasons for your actions.


Jesus told me to do it. 



ej42137 said:


> 7) You were having a weak moment and succumbed to temptation.


My hot girlfriend told me to do it, or else she wouldn't sleep with me.


----------



## barryw1964 (Aug 29, 2015)

So I'm reporting back to you that the M-card did work but had I was having some quality of audio issues on many channels. And, as some have said, the guide wasn't too accurate as our air channels are different than the standard ones. So I will be returning the unit. I'm sorry I kicked off some kind of firestorm on cable theft. But, just as a final word, I emailed my cable company and the response was this, "There is no way for us to block signal from coming into your house if you are paying for other services. So if you are picking up basic channels with your TV from that signal on the antenna setting, there is nothing wrong with you doing so. You just won't have access to our guide or support if there arises a problem with your signal." This came from the main office in Texas. So everyone needs to get off the 'cable-theft-bandwagon'. It's not like I can watch HD channels for every network. I am picking up basic analog and a few digital air signals that are available.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

barryw1964 said:


> So I'm reporting back to you that the M-card did work but had I was having some quality of audio issues on many channels. And, as some have said, the guide wasn't too accurate as our air channels are different than the standard ones.


The card was suppose to fix any guide discrepancies, but you would be using your zip and a Cable plan, in guided setup. Not any of the OTA plans.
Do you have an example what's broken?

Roamio's are digital tuners, so the audio comes in digitally as well. What does the audio issue sound like?


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

barryw1964 said:


> So I'm reporting back to you that the M-card did work but had I was having some quality of audio issues on many channels. And, as some have said, the guide wasn't too accurate as our air channels are different than the standard ones.


If you are answering questions I wonder if you checked any of the cable card diagnostics. Specifically the VCT ID and Channel List Received?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

barryw1964 said:


> So I'm reporting back to you that the M-card did work but had I was having some quality of audio issues on many channels. And, as some have said, the guide wasn't too accurate as our air channels are different than the standard ones.


Try rerunning guided setup and selecting a different cable TV channel lineup for your area until you find one that matches correctly with where your channels are being mapped to. If the CableCard is remapping the channels, then at least one of the cable TV lineups for your area should work.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

tarheelblue32 said:


> try rerunning guided setup and selecting a different cable tv channel lineup for your area until you find one that matches correctly with where your channels are being mapped to. If the cablecard is remapping the channels, then at least one of the cable tv lineups for your area should work.


^^^^^this^^^^^^


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

barryw1964 said:


> So I'm reporting back to you that the M-card did work but had I was having some quality of audio issues on many channels. And, as some have said, the guide wasn't too accurate as our air channels are different than the standard ones. So I will be returning the unit. I'm sorry I kicked off some kind of firestorm on cable theft. But, just as a final word, I emailed my cable company and the response was this, "There is no way for us to block signal from coming into your house if you are paying for other services. So if you are picking up basic channels with your TV from that signal on the antenna setting, there is nothing wrong with you doing so. You just won't have access to our guide or support if there arises a problem with your signal." This came from the main office in Texas. So everyone needs to get off the 'cable-theft-bandwagon'. It's not like I can watch HD channels for every network. I am picking up basic analog and a few digital air signals that are available.


Great answer to the idea of cable theft, if one does not screw with the cable co equipment, than cable theft should never be a problem for that person. If your friend has you over to watch a HBO movie (he pays for HBO you don't) is that cable theft in anybody's opinion ? You are watching a program you and your home did not pay for, I would doubt if anything is written about doing this as to being or not being legal.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

lessd said:


> Great answer to the idea of cable theft, if one does not screw with the cable co equipment, than cable theft should never be a problem for that person. If your friend has you over to watch a HBO movie (he pays for HBO you don't) is that cable theft in anybody's opinion ? You are watching a program you and your home did not pay for, I would doubt if anything is written about doing this as to being or not being legal.


I've seen that question answered several times in explanations of broadcast video copyright. It is illegal if you charge your friend to watch the HBO movie, otherwise it is fair use. 503 only restricts accessing the cable signal, not who watches it your TV.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

barryw1964 said:


> So I'm reporting back to you that the M-card did work but had I was having some quality of audio issues on many channels. And, as some have said, the guide wasn't too accurate as our air channels are different than the standard ones. So I will be returning the unit. I'm sorry I kicked off some kind of firestorm on cable theft. But, just as a final word, I emailed my cable company and the response was this, "There is no way for us to block signal from coming into your house if you are paying for other services. So if you are picking up basic channels with your TV from that signal on the antenna setting, there is nothing wrong with you doing so. You just won't have access to our guide or support if there arises a problem with your signal." This came from the main office in Texas. So everyone needs to get off the 'cable-theft-bandwagon'. It's not like I can watch HD channels for every network. I am picking up basic analog and a few digital air signals that are available.


Thanks for that. I congratulate you on your honesty and bravery in contacting your cable company. The story I heard over and over when people contacted their company about an open cable was the the cable company would attempt to bill for service back to the time the previous tenant paid their last bill. Which confirmed my low opinion of cable companies. I'm guessing your cable company isn't TWC or Comcast.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

So I decided to hook up my TWC cable directly into my TV to run a channel scan to see what is still coming through in the clear. I mentioned earlier that back when TWC went all digital in my area several months ago, they only left a couple channels unencrypted. Well, after doing a channel scan today, it turns out that they TWC has decided to unencrypt several additional channels including the local CBS affiliate, VH-1, and some home shopping channel. I have to believe that their decision to unencrypt these channels was deliberate, and that they are doing it so that anyone with a TWC connection for whatever reason can view them.


----------

