Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

http://telecom.csail.mit.edu/judy-sammel.html

by resolutebat • 3 years ago

513 432 3 years ago

telecom.csail.mit.edu

Even though this happened 25 years ago (sidenote, good God I'm getting old) it still made my blood boil. Makes you wonder how many people who weren't as proactive weren't as fortunate as to have the bogus charges dismissed.

incompatible5• 3 years ago

It seems fairly tame to me, as far as historical injustices go.

3-cheese-sundae2• 3 years ago

Sure, I suppose just about anyone could shrug off having their life ruined by an unsubstantiated criminal charge by simply framing it in the context of genocide or thermonuclear war.

jonny_eh• 3 years ago

I feel like if something this dumb happened now, there'd be no way to get it resolved that quickly, and without hiring a lawyer. Getting Comcast lawyers to respond to you at all is the one bit in particular I can't picture happening.

coding123• 3 years ago

You can't even get a lawyer to call you back anymore because they're working from home too - which means they are at the beach all day with the kids, and will maybe check their voicemail in the next few days.

ryandrake• 3 years ago

Have you tried to get in touch with a handyman, or a building contractor, or a pool service guy, or a CPA, or a doctor’s office or basically any service provider lately? Nobody seems to be picking up the phone anymore in any profession. I had to leave a message on a home painter’s voice mail saying “I have a stack of cash right here that I want to give to you to paint my house! Please for fuck’s sake call me back!”

gnicholas• 3 years ago

Oh man, lawyers are delightfully responsive, at least in my experience (both working as a lawyer, and working with outside counsel). I send emails after 11p and get a response before midnight, even as a pro bono client.

Whenever that happens, I am reminded of what my life was like when all of my work emails were promptly responded to. I am also reminded that I should be glad to have escaped a world where such timeliness-at-all-hours is the expectation!

qingcharles5• 3 years ago

I remember during COVID lawyers starting doing their court calls on video. They would regularly do them from the driving seat of their cars, and I watched one doing his call while shopping for groceries.

kelnos4• 3 years ago

This ran through my head so many times while I was reading this. I hesitate to believe Comcast was ever a good company, but it seems they were a much better company back then.

And yeah, I expect if this happened to anyone today, the first bit of advice anyone (including myself) would give them would be to get a lawyer to handle it.

charles_f2• 3 years ago

Yeah, even accounting issues are unresolvable today. My cable company started charging me for an ultra HD TV supplement... While I have internet only.

I didn't notice right away so a couple months went by. I called them, they stopped charging me, and credited my cable account back. But what is utterly crazy, is that that credit is never used. The months come and go by, and balance is still -$50 (i.e. I have an over payment of 50)

I called a few times to get to money back, because, it's my money. I received 3 different explanations that were obviously made up and contradicting each other (call centers make shit up all the time). Eventually someone told me the balance will be paid off when I close my account and the only way I have to recover it is to change operators. Except they don't have competition where I am.

It's trivial, not a jail time, but this simple enough process of "take that amount and write a cheque" is already impossible because a) no-one knows b) no-one cares c) I'm not gonna sue on such a low amount d) I can't leave e) there's no incentive whatsoever for anyone to expand some effort to understand what is happening to my account f) no-one has any sort of any power, and escalations are a myth

londons_explore• 3 years ago

'miss' a payment, and the credit will be used to cover it.

nitwit005• 3 years ago

Legal can be much more responsive than the other parts of an organization.

You can get away with ignoring customer complaints, but generally not their lawsuits, unless you're okay with losing by default.

Eisenstein2• 3 years ago

Anyone have a link to the 'Multichannel News' article? The link is dead and archive.org doesn't have a snapshot.

Edit: I found it https://www.nexttv.com/news/get-cable-modem-go-jail-142544

qingcharles5• 3 years ago

Ah, good detective work. I was trying to find the print magazine, and this is the best I could find:

https://archive.org/search?query=creator%3A%22Cahners+Busine...

hgsgm• 3 years ago

Comcast/Xfinity is a criminal organization. Hasn't changed. Don't give the your money.

When's the last time an honest, reputable business changed its name? I've seen name changes in restaurants, social networks, apartment buildings, duct cleaning scammers, and it's never for a good reason.

haggy102• 3 years ago

The problem is that it's often the only choice. ISPs often have a monopoly over their territory.

throwaway54_56• 3 years ago

I moved a mile away from my old house and had to switch cable providers. I preferred the old one, but apparently I crossed the boundary.

OhMeadhbh20• 3 years ago

Interestingly... in the UK... they did something similar to the DSL Provider / ISP split we did here in the states. So you could order cable service from one company and layer 3 from a completely different company. People tell me it's done wonders for competition there.

emodendroket9• 3 years ago

Yeah, just sign up with a different provider rather than the one that enjoys a monopoly over your home.

OhMeadhbh20• 3 years ago

Well there was the time Facebook changed its name to Meta... oh wait... that's probably a bad example.

Hizonner2• 3 years ago

While Comcast should get plenty of blame here, it's also true that it's flat out dereliction of duty for a prosecutor to file a case based on nothing but an uninvestigated complaint from some random corporation.

At least Comcast made some attempt to fix it... and also got stonewalled by the State's Attorney's office.

shusaku• 3 years ago

In Which I Find Out that the Attorney for Comcast Actually Does Have a Sense of Humor

I think the work by this attorney really did a lot to take the blame off of Comcast, which is probably why the author felt fine not suing at the end.

emodendroket9• 3 years ago

You know, I've had similar thoughts about the Hertz debacle where people were thrown in jail for having rented cars and used them as agreed. I don't think if I made a phone call to the local police department and told them so-and-so stole my car they'd throw them in jail without asking any questions (at least I hope not). Why is Hertz any different?

AaronM• 3 years ago

Growing up my best friend dated a girl with very strict parents, who did not approve of the relationship. He was pulled over and arrested for grand theft auto. Spent three days in jail until she was convinced to make a statement at the police station and they let him go. Parents reported the car, which they must have owned, as stolen, and gave my friends description to police

sidewndr46• 3 years ago

Because they have more money and power than you

aidenn04• 3 years ago

If you lend a car to a friend and then report it stolen, your friend will absolutely end up in jail.

grecy• 3 years ago

Why is Hertz any different

The Police exist to protect the money of corporations.

morpheuskafka• 3 years ago

As soon as the DA got the letter from their only witness stating that no crime occurred (unless they thought Comcast was lying then, which doesn't seem very possible in this scenario), they would have been obligated by Model Rule 3.8(a) to discontinue the prosecution. Whether or not it was "already scheduled" should have been irrelevant.

qingcharles5• 3 years ago

How many times have you seen a prosecutor sanctioned under 3.8? Believe me, I have tried and tried to get prosecutors cited under it. I know prosecutors who flat-out commit felonies and the State won't do anything. Is there evidence that any prosecutor ever has been brought up on this Rule?

And I don't think just because the only witness states no crime occurred that the prosecutor will drop the charges. I would say in at least 50% of domestic battery cases the complainant will call the prosecutor at some point and tell them that no crime happened and please can they let the defendant out of jail. In almost zero cases this happens, in my experience. Normally they run it all the way to trial and sit there holding up the court waiting for the no-show witness to turn up before the judge acquits.

OhMeadhbh20• 3 years ago

I don't think ABA model rules are legally binding.

qingcharles5• 3 years ago

I guess you've never met any prosecutors? This is pretty much modus operandi of every prosecutor office I know of.

Hizonner2• 3 years ago

Oh, I totally believe you.

They wouldn't have time to do anything like due diligence on all the cases they're asked to handle. Criminalization is the go-to answer for everything nowadays. And I'm also sure that most of the time the court is unwilling to actually enforce any of a lot of different standards, or to go through its procedures in a way that actually accomplishes those procedures' purpose.

Dereliction of duty is pretty much SOP for lots of people, many of them in supposedly responsible jobs that affect other people's lives.

jandrese2• 3 years ago

This is what life is like on the bleeding edge. In 1999 he was one of the first to "cut the cord" and it was a situation that Comcast was not yet ready to understand.

minaminamina• 3 years ago

She

usaar333• 3 years ago

Seems also like too much talking with the company. I had cable internet only around this time and for some time a trap wasn't set. Why would you tell the company? Just don't watch cable TV if you have concerns.

jandrese2• 3 years ago

That's what was tried, but Comcast still started a criminal case.

freitzkriesler22• 3 years ago

Holy moly blast from the past. I remember reading this on slashdot. Let's not all visit the site at the same time lest it get slashdotted!

dsr_• 3 years ago

It's all static content (and badly in need of refurbishment, which I will be responsible for) -- but, yes, please don't abuse the good folks at MIT's CSAIL who donate the hosting.

brewdad• 3 years ago

Don’t read the article before commenting? I’m way ahead of you. :)

owenmarshall5• 3 years ago

I feel like this story could be titled “In Which a Smart Person Overestimates Their Competency With The Legal System”

Always get a lawyer.

quickthrower26• 3 years ago

= always have $10,000+ liquid on hand in case you need to?

emodendroket9• 3 years ago

The article gives an estimate closer to $1000, which sounds likely in what sounds like a pretty straightforward case.

extraduder_ire2• 3 years ago

"on hand" being metaphorical here, because if you actually have anywhere near that amount of cash some cop could civil asset forfeiture you.

emodendroket9• 3 years ago

It does seem like it would have saved a lot of heartache to have just coughed up the money for an attorney but that in itself is unfair -- it's a significant enough expense and for some is likely to be out of reach altogether.

owenmarshall5• 3 years ago

Yep, it absolutely sucks. And while the average person in this circumstance has some limited recourse, they certainly have no guarantee of being made whole.

But here’s the rub: I’ve seen very intelligent people run up against the legal system before - some civil cases, some criminal. The ones that came out well were the ones that realized their opponent was an uncaring machine designed to grind people into dust in a competition whose rules they found alien. The others thought they didn’t need an attorney, and that their intellect would carry the day.

Totally unfair. Biased against plenty of disadvantaged people, even. Sucks, but them’s the breaks.

bagels2• 3 years ago

Unfair, but the practical solution.

wyldfire• 3 years ago

But ... he didn't need a lawyer. He needed to threaten litigation but you don't need an attorney to do that for you.

sulam• 3 years ago

(she)

owenmarshall5• 3 years ago

This was related to a criminal case. Threatening any kind of litigation or trying to defend yourself without an attorney puts you in the category of pro se litigant, the territory of jailhouse appellants and sovereign citizens. Even if you are smart and right, the system has already decided you are crazy, stupid, or both. You’re screwed from the get go.

MobiusHorizons• 3 years ago

What are you talking about? Everything turned out pretty much exactly as it should, albeit with a silly amount of beaurocratic overhead (as should be expected for the legal system).

Not saying you shouldn’t get a lawyer, but I don’t see how you can claim she “overestimated her competency”

debaserab2• 3 years ago

She got everything dropped and her record expunged and didn't pay a dime in lawyers fees... seems like she estimated her competency with the legal system pretty accurately actually.

* EDIT: fixed gender pronouns

OhMeadhbh20• 3 years ago

she.

krisoft3• 3 years ago

seems like she estimated her competency with the legal system pretty accurately actually.

Or she got lucky?

You know if something in your home catches fire and smoke is billowing out of it is recommended to call the fire brigade and to try to put it out. Yes, sometimes you will get lucky and it will just peter out. And because of that sometimes you will find stories where something caught fire, they did all the wrong things and yet they ended up all okay. Would you conclude from that that they "estimated their firefighting competency accurately"?

devnullbrain3• 3 years ago

It's very characteristic of HN to suggest that paying $1000/hr well in advance of the court date is better than spending time calling people.

owenmarshall5• 3 years ago

$1000/hr

Oh, give over. It's a basic fraud case, you're not hiring a white-shoe firm to represent you.

A few hundred bucks gets a lawyer to look at the case and make the phone calls - or send a letter or two - on your behalf. And the bonus is that they actually know what to say, as opposed to whatever you frenetically google, and know who to say it to, as opposed to whoever you happen to find in the phone book. Just having a lawyer signals to your counterparty that you are not winging it; that combined with an incredibly weak (at best) case & a complainant who has backed away can lead to your case being dismissed with less investment in time & worry than if you did it yourself.

cogman103• 3 years ago

I thought this might be fiction because the amount of time for pirating cable seemed crazy.. However [1] there are indeed up to 6 month penalties for stealing cable. That's just ludicrous. How could copyright theft ever be anything other than a civil action? Jail time for stealing cable, that's just insane. Nobody gets hurt from stolen cable.

We really need to look long and hard at what we allow jail time for. Jail time in service of big media corporations seems just insane.

[1] https://www.tec.com/legal/cable-theft-information

erosenbe03• 3 years ago

Copyright is a property right. It is not unreasonable for theft of property to carry the possibility of criminal charges. This is not strictly done in service of big media---if organized crime rings come in to town and do a ton of rogue hookups with impunity, then the cable company leaves and you have a cycle of degradation in the quality of life. Preventing organized crime is why it is a federal offense. Of course, the judicial system ought to utilize its authority with discretion so as not to severely punish simple petty thefts. Also note that cable theft (e.g., the physical tampering element) can damage emergency communication lines and can create dangerous electrical problems.

hovden• 3 years ago

crazygringo• 3 years ago

It is not unreasonable for theft of property to carry the possibility of criminal charges.

There is no theft. In the digital world there's merely copying, but in this case it was just tuning into an existing signal with a wire.

Theft of property would require that you broke into HBO's office and stole the master tapes, for example.

cogman103• 3 years ago

Copyright is a property right. It is not unreasonable for theft of property to carry the possibility of criminal charges.

Property theft and intellectual rights theft are two very different things. If I steal your car, you are now out a car and the use of a car. If I steal a copy of your artwork, you still have that artwork and can still sell copies of that artwork. I only start impacting your bottom line if I start selling copies.

To the extent you are impacted by a copyright violation, you can be made whole with a market rate payment for the copies created and a penalty. That's what civil law is for.

Wage theft has a much bigger negative impact on people's lives yet it's basically never criminally prosecuted. So why should copyright theft ever be criminally prosecuted?

Also note that cable theft (e.g., the physical tampering element) can damage emergency communication lines and can create dangerous electrical problems.

Fair point, though I can't see why we'd punish that more harshly than we'd punish unauthorized digging (which is typically just civil to replace damaged lines.)

Zuiii5• 3 years ago

Copyright is a property right.

No, it isn't. The hint is right there in the name. Copying does not deprive people of their property. That's why they came up with the word Infringement to use instead of Theft, because they are fundamentally different things.

It worries me that there are people now who think that information is like property and that it can be owned.

aidenn04• 3 years ago

Copyright is a property right

Huh? The term "Intellectual Property" is a metaphor, not literal. There is zero intrinsic moral imperative against copying; copyright is a policy decision to encourage creation under a capitalist system. Other systems for encouraging creation have existed in the past (and exist concurrently with copyright).

If copyright were a property right, then "fair use" would be legalized theft.

OhMeadhbh20• 3 years ago

As Stuart Leslie Goddard and Marco Francesco Andrea Pirroni once quipped: "What's the point of robbery when nothing is worth taking?" I'm sure I would be interested in illicit bittorrenting, but it all seems like crap these days and hardly worth the effort.

[Edit: Also... La propriété, c'est le vol!]

tzs4• 3 years ago

It has nothing to do with copyright.

dylan6042• 3 years ago

Right. Its using a service without paying for it which is theft if proven that it was done intentionally. Not sure how copyright was brought into this conversation.

cortesoft• 3 years ago

I was thinking about this. It is crazy that a private company gets to deputize the state legal apparatus to enable their business model. They want to be able to sell something that is very difficult to restrict access to, so they use the legal system to make sure it stays restricted.

They want to be able to install a cable all the way to someone’s house, and then have the state prosecute them if they dare touch it.

wheybags• 3 years ago

It is crazy that a private company gets to deputize the state legal apparatus to enable their business model.

One could argue this is a major purpose of the state. When you can't deputize the state to resolve disputes, you get gang violence (see the drugs trade for more examples than you can count)

jaystraw• 3 years ago

Where I grew up north of Philadelphia in the 90's, the cable companies bid for municipalities and were given a monopoly -- I grew up with Lower Bucks Cablevision, for example. Since the local government got a cut, I would imagine that's why the penalties are/were harsh and criminal, as opposed to civil.

dools3• 3 years ago

Here in Australia, you would just need to call the TIO to get it sorted out. Likewise if financial institutions are stuffing you about, call ACMA. If it's an energy company, call Energy and Water.

A perfect example of how the private sector cannot self regulate to the benefit of consumers simply because a profit motive exists.

Every time I've made an ombudsman complaint I have received Good Service™ from the company and a speedy resolution to my problem.

emodendroket9• 3 years ago

It seems worth saying that in this instance a lot of the problem was that once it got into the hands of the prosecutors Comcast could not simply "just drop" the charges but only request that the state do so.

dools3• 3 years ago

I actually think that a lot of the problem is the fact that "cable theft" is a class of crime all on its own!

"Sometimes, operators turn on a signal by accident or forget to deactivate it after a tenant stops a cable subscription. People are liable for any services they use in this way and it is generally advisable to contact the cable company to report an unexpected cable signal"

https://www.mylawquestions.com/what-is-cable-theft.htm

That's absurd, it can only be the result of corruption.

ajxs• 3 years ago

Fellow Australian here. I can confirm every word of this. The TIO gets things done. The telecom companies live in fear of the ombudsman's office, to the point that even mentioning their name can get things moving.

ETH_start2• 3 years ago

The private sector is not expected to be able to self-regulate by free market advocates. With the exception of anarcho-capitalists, those who believe in a free market regard the government's role as integral, in providing public goods like an effective justice system that polices misbehavior like fraud.

What distinguishes a belief in free markets is believing that misbehavior—that government bodies have a right to punish and prohibit—does not include mutually voluntary interactions, like selling high-risk financial instruments to willing customers, who according to a court, are deemed to have provided informed consent to those risks.

OhMeadhbh20• 3 years ago

Every time I see the phrase "free market" I like to point out the term originated from Adam Smith who used it to describe "markets free from rent-seeking behaviour." Which is COMPLETELY different than the way the phrase is used today.

Also, "Capitalism" used to mean "using capital to increase capital." We now use it to mean "using capital to increase private wealth."

I understand what you're trying to say and am not refuting it. I just think it's funny we let "bandits" [1] redefine the vocabulary of the social construction of commerce.

1. Obviously I do not mean to imply bankers are "bandits" in the classical sense. Not a single one of them went to jail in 2008. Were they bandits, they most certainly would have wound up in the hoosegow.

dfex• 3 years ago

I think you mean APRA (Australian Prudential Regulation Authority), not ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority).

You call ACMA when someone is interfering with your licensed radio spectrum, and from experience, the service is excellent!

dools3• 3 years ago

Sorry I mean AFCA

neoCrimeLabs• 3 years ago

"26 April 1999: I've been "slashdotted". " [1]

Wow, that brings back memories! I remember reading this article when it was posted to Slashdot because I had /just/ ordered @Home service.

Instead I went with DSL service with the phone company (forgetting the Ma' Bell branch at the time). The service never worked, it took 30 days of calling support, going through the script to get past Tier 1 (remove software, install software...etc), only to be put on hold for 30 minutes before getting dropped.

I finally went with @Home, which worked without going to jail.

The early days of broadband were an interesting time. It was a nice upgrade from ISDN or Dial-Up, though.

[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/99/04/26/1229227/get-a-cable-...

xattt• 3 years ago

The comments on the article are a nice time capsule that show how little perspectives have changed.

thatoneguy• 3 years ago

I was a "broadband technician" around then and AT&T Broadband did not give AF if you were stealing cable or not. I only handled cable modem installs and quit after a year to go major in philosophy and because:

- Getting quietly threatened once (with AR-15 up against the customer's front door) on a troubleshooting call that I wasn't able to leave until "the internet started working".

- Having to increasingly go do cable TV disconnects because people were usually in a bad way and I had more than one colleague that had either had a gun pulled on them or straight-up shot and left to die up a pole for most of a day while trying to disconnect cable.

- Having to increasingly go on cable TV installs because people's shitty TVs backfeeding electricity into the cable line meant I was getting zapped at least once a week.

That said, I met a lot of cool people, gave out a lot of free TV/HBO because I didn't care unless the customer was a dick, wrote down a lot of funny stories and ultimately realized that I could go college in spite of dropping out of high school because I happened to install the non-traditional student advisor's cable modem.

My colleagues said they'd see me back at the shop in four years after I graduated with a philosophy degree. Jokes on them, I dropped out after getting a job at Google.

boneitis• 3 years ago

I guess it really did depend on the mood and demeanor of whatever technician got sent out on a given day.

Back in those same years, it was a painful, nonstop pendulum swing every month-or-two, between a) cripplingly unusable internet, and b) working Internet but with absolutely every channel unlocked for free.

Everytime something happened that required a technician to come out while it was in state "b", it always triggered a stern talking to to teenage-me from a tech and them putting the filter back on and ruining the Internet again until finally the next time another tech presumably couldn't fix it without again removing the filter. I frequently had successive visits that left me stranded in state "a".

Comcast, man.

euroderf2• 3 years ago

The invisible hand of the free market has clearly worked to perfection.

noduerme8• 3 years ago

Most of this story is horrific and ...funny. You should write a screenplay.

We had free HBO in my house in the early 90s because the cable guy apparently just decided to let us have it. I never understood how that worked.

hn72774• 3 years ago

A small in-line filter

tamrix• 3 years ago

Sounds like a bigger problem with your society than the job.

OhMeadhbh20• 3 years ago

Now now. Be nice.

wkat42424• 3 years ago

The amount of incidents involving firearms is astonishing. I'm glad I live in Europe where literally nobody has guns except police and heavy criminals that only really use them to shoot their rivals.

I thought most people in the US were proud of their firearm handling professionalism which of course includes not brandishing, threatening or murdering people. I'm really a bit surprised to hear this.

I did a similar job early on in my career (involving cheap phone calling devices with customers including consumers and often dodgy 'calling shops'). But the most dangerous situation I faced was a customer with a heavy dose of the flu, lol. And roadside fastfood.

dreamcompiler• 3 years ago

I thought most people in the US were proud of their firearm handling professionalism which of course includes not brandishing or murdering people.

I take it you have not actually visited the United States.

kmeisthax• 3 years ago

You're right that the US is very proud of their trigger and muzzle discipline. Or at least half of it. The other half points loaded guns with the safeties off directly at their own crotches to own the libs[0].

Going a layer deeper, Americans really, really love to abuse the shit out of customer service workers. To put it extremely charitably, we're used to being fucked by corpos so we pre-emptively fuck them back in the dumbest way possible. Less charitably, our country has a bunch of bullies that want to shout at anything they can bully. I don't think they'd actually pull the trigger, but, y'know, law of large numbers, times small but non-zero probability of homicide by virtue a gun being present on the scene equals probably at least one murdered cable tech.

[0] https://pluralistic.net/2020/05/28/holographic-nano-layer-ca...

xwdv2• 3 years ago

The rule of thumb is you are still way more likely to be killed by other things before being killed with a firearm. It’s not really that bad. Once you graduate from school your risk of being shot dead dramatically lowers and other normal causes of death take the top spot.

PrivateButts• 3 years ago

I think it's mostly a numbers thing. Willing to bet that most people take owning a gun seriously, but there's a loooooooooot of guns in the US. There's enough in US circulation alone to give a gun to every citizen of the US, Canada, and the UK. That much floating around and there's bound to be some dumb fuck in the news waving around their new bang stick.

Like others have said, you've got a lot of other things in the US to worry about than guns. However, since we're sharing gun incidents, mine is that I had a sheriff's deputy LARPing as a SWAT officer bust in to the bathroom at work and point a rifle at me while I was trying to use the urinal. Lots of yelling until they realized that I was not a part of the drill and had my pants unzipped. Not happy that they didn't inform us that the cops were going to use the building we're in for school shooting training. Dangers of working in a repurposed school I guess?

geodel• 3 years ago

I thought most people in the US were proud of their firearm handling professionalism

Well, in US so many times heavily armed police act like chump in face of serious criminals so not sure that general populace are proud of professionalism.

diogenes44• 3 years ago

I just watched someone do a sale of a fully loaded glock for a zip during a smoke sesh. Loaded straight into fairly skinny jeans without checking the safety. Bear in mind that handguns are by far the largest contributors to domestic gun-related homicide (intentional and unintentional) and that most gun control safety targets "assault rifles" and other scary shapes. I don't think this is a nightmare we can exit any time in the near future even in the most ideal scenario.

About ten years ago, i was buying weed from a cop (i got the hookup through his highschool friend). He bragged that every one of the ten or so AR15s on the wall in his bedroom over his gravity bong and below the bullet holes was registered to a different person. Why he thought that might have interested or impressed me is something I still try to puzzle out on late nights.

Interestingly, same city for both events.

russdill• 3 years ago

You should see some of the nextdoor and facebook communities. So many people are super eager to shoot someone over pretty much any petty crime.

CalRobert5• 3 years ago

When I lived in rural Ireland most of the farmers had a shotgun or rifle.

puchatek• 3 years ago

In some European countries there's a recent trend to attack people perceived as "the state", such as firefighters and paramedics in certain situations. Afaik, this is usually done by low income, uneducated people that good stone grudge and then lash out. You can indeed be happy that they don't have access to firearms.

sneed-oil• 3 years ago

I'm glad I live in Europe where literally nobody has guns except police and heavy criminals

I live in the EU and that's not true, I know multiple people who own guns and go to the shooting range every other weekend

Ylpertnodi• 3 years ago

Europe where literally nobody has guns except police and heavy criminals

Europe? Literally lots of people have guns, where I live, from 01 Sept there's plenty of gunshots ringing out scaring one of my dogs. I know two people in the uk that have shotguns (police checked, locked away in the attic). There are many ww2 firearms in circulation (Serbia, I believe just had an amnesty), so 'literally' is incorrect. The difference is: guns aren't common, and certainly aren't often carried, and most definitely not openly (apart from farmers and hunters, but the gun must be unloaded and broken(. My fave is talking to Americans that 'can't wait to get back home so I can carry my gun, for protection, it's my right'. Not a single one of them has been threatened whilst here. Nor have they been threatened in the States....but it's their right to protect themselves from the government. I always ask, if their government started being 'oppressive', how long would either sides' ammunition last? Not a single person I've spoken to has more than a few days ammo available.

hoseja• 3 years ago

I'm glad to live in Europe where people have lots of guns but basically never threaten others with them because they are generally decent folk.

solidsnack900014• 3 years ago

In Europe, it is not literally true that "...nobody has guns except police and heavy criminals..."; but it is true that owning pistols and AR-15s is relatively rare in Europe. My understanding is that the only country with a well-established concealed carry community is Czechia.

refracture• 3 years ago

Americans take pride in having them, but being properly trained in safely handling or effectively using them is optional. Try and force it and you’ll get the tyranny talk.

Sadly I’ve heard many stories of cable/dish techs dealing with this nonsense.

RektBoy• 3 years ago

What are you talking about? What country in EU ? Because for example here in CZ, there's a lot of firearms. But guess what, you must pay for a gun license and have a doctor examination with possibility of psych. evaluation, then a gun license exam is really hard also practice test of gun handling and shooting is pretty hard and not cheap.

So you will think twice to get it and you really don't want to loose it. Basically turning gun owners into the most law abiding citizens there is.

If you're talking about countries like UK or similar, where you can't legally defend against attackers and biggest cities are controlled by gangs with kitchen knives and acid bottles. Even police don't have guns and can't arrest them, cuz racism or something. GG EZ.

esperent• 3 years ago

I live in Europe where literally nobody has guns except police and heavy criminals that only really use them to shoot their rivals.

Come on, this is totally untrue. I grew up in rural Ireland and it's very common for farmers to own guns. Hunters too.

Check here [•] - Finland, for example, is only a couple of percentage points behind the US in number of households that own a gun (42% vs 37%).

The difference is in the culture, not gun ownership. In Finland, Ireland, and every single developed country in the world (and most developing countries too) except for the US, privately owned guns are for hunting or for killing pests, not for threatening humans. That's the difference.

•https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percent_of_households_with_g...

agloe_dreams2• 3 years ago

One thing I would note is that, unlike other utilities, Cable and Internet are not deemed 'necessary' in the us. This means that they exist in nearly unregulated space when it comes to their business operations. These Cable companies are remarkably careless and are liable to take rather abusive actions such as delivering non-functioning service and then billing tech charges to 'fix' the service with many customers ending up in a loop of paid techs coming to fix things they cannot fix because the issue is elsewhere. It is a brutally helpless feeling and when the only thing that can make you feel in control is a gun...

All of that is to say that the companies really do put the techs in harms way in their operations.

mk67• 3 years ago

Literally quite a lot of people have guns in Europe though, many many millions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...

Nevertheless never heard of such a thing happening.

tristor• 3 years ago

Most of the replies have turned this into a gun debate. Realistically it’s because he was involved in disconnecting service. When you have to do any sort of job that puts you in the position of taking something away from poor people, you’re at high risk, because taking something away from someone who is desperate and likely feels the got the short end from society is not a recipe for a jolly day.

In your average American neighborhood none of this would happen. In the rougher poor neighborhoods, everybody thinks everyone is out to get them (and frankly they might be right), is on edge, and likely has a loose association to the law or social mores.

Without going into an entire sociology diatribe, in America there are many reasons someone may end up poor, but low impulse control, lack of education, and an inability to follow rules tend to top the list, all of which can lead to very troubling outcomes that wouldn’t happen among the gainfully employed average, whom also pay their bills and would not be targeted for disconnection of service.

The majority of Americans own or have access to firearms (although it’s barely a minority of “households”), but incidents involving firearms happen in poorer neighborhoods predominantly. The mix is not great, and we should do something about it as a society but it’s a complex and somewhat intractable issue that’s not fully solved by just throwing money at it (just look at council houses in the UK as an example of similar outcomes despite social support).

dfxm122• 3 years ago

I thought most people in the US were proud of their firearm handling professionalism which of course includes not brandishing, threatening or murdering people.

Why did you think this?

throw109203• 3 years ago

This comment is incredibly manipulative and dishonest.

I thought most people in the US were proud of their firearm handling professionalism which of course includes not brandishing, threatening or murdering people.

Nothing about the parent comment implies otherwise. You're intentionally making up points that nobody made in order to push your agenda.

I'm really a bit surprised to hear this.

...and you're not really surprised - this is just another use of emotionally manipulative language.

NoZebra120vClip• 3 years ago

I feel you about getting zapped. I visited Catalonia for a month in 2008, and I was trying to help improve OTA reception on my fiancée's TV. She had a roof antenna installed.

Little did I know that the antenna in Europe is actually energized by design (I think I found out later?) and I received several non-damaging but definitely "means business" shocks whilst trying to manipulate the cables.

mschuster91• 3 years ago

Little did I know that the antenna in Europe is actually energized by design (I think I found out later?)

A normal rooftop antenna is not energized. However, if that's in a house, there likely is a power amplifier placed in the line (or, for more fancy setups, a powered splitter box) to make sure every antenna socket can have a TV plugged in without compromising signal integrity.

NavinF• 3 years ago

the antenna in Europe is actually energized by design

wtf. Wanna drop some links?

Aloha4• 3 years ago

It generally was never their TVs.

It was the neutral to their house failing and using the cable line shield and it's associated grounds as a neutral.

themerone2• 3 years ago

I met an at&t installer who was intercepted by law reinforcement who wan'ted him to go into a house wearing a wire.

tortue0• 3 years ago

When I worked at an ISP in the 90s the amount of threats and verbal abuse from customers was wild.

One guy who ran a event ticket operation (selling tickets to events) we installed a T1 for the phone company wouldn't go out unless they could bring a security guard. The same guy once came to our office and waited outside in the parking lot and followed one of my coworkers home demanding that she fix his internet. Her father came out and confronted him and he took off.

Another time someone was mad that his address didn't qualify for DSL because "the man was keeping him down from getting fast internet".

Later in life I worked at the phone company and linemen told me stories about being high on a pole in rough neighborhoods and being accosted by folks on the ground brandishing pistols demanding to know whose phone line they were tapping (they tried to explain that stuff is done remotely but they didn't understand).

znpy• 3 years ago

"the man was keeping him down from getting fast internet".

as a non-american... who is supposed do be "the man" ?

foobazgt• 3 years ago

A very long time ago I had internet (but not cable tv service) with Comcast. It was generally mediocre reliability, but it's the only option we had. At some point, the service just up and went out entirely.

For approximately two months, we had absolutely zero internet service, while Comcast continued to collect our monthly fees. We kept calling, and they kept sending out tech after tech. I don't recall what the final tech fixed, but they complained that all of the previous techs should have spotted the issue. We never got reimbursed for those two months of non-service, but we did magically start getting cable tv after the final tech visit. We figured it was their gesture of kindness for the Comcast hell we'd been through.

OhMeadhbh20• 3 years ago

In 2006 we lived at the end of a wooded street and the lineman told me squirrels would run along the elevated cables and after a couple years they would nick the insulation sufficiently for water to seep in and then suddenly the whole neighborhood would lose IP dialtone for several months while they replaced the cables.

Sometime around 2015, Comcast seemed to get better. I was able to get dual-stack v4/v6 to the house and bandwidth exceeded advertised rates. When I returned their cable modem after buying my own, returning it was zero-drama / no paperwork problems. Also... in 2015, if you got dual-stack, your support calls were handled by a group with better hold times and generally knew more about what was really going on (rather than reading off a script.)

My last experience with Lumen was pretty horrific. Worse than any problems I ever had with Comcast (including the time we didn't have internet service for 3 months.)

It's very strange to hear myself say this, but I now have a generally positive opinion of Comcast.

mrguyorama15• 3 years ago

Only about 1 out of 5 techs actually have any idea what they are doing at these cable internet providers. It's great because the company doesn't actually care whether the techs do their job or not because they will bill regardless, and as long as you are waiting for a tech to come fix your service, you aren't taking them to court to get it actually fixed.

What the fuck are you going to do about it? Spectrum's ancestor agreed to not offer service in this county so go ahead and switch back to dialup you worthless maggot.

throwaway_e66m• 3 years ago

I'm not questioning the veracity of your comment, but given the number of comments here (from e.g. non-Americans) expressing surprise or disgust at the seeming frequent and cavalier use of firearms, I think it should be pointed out that it is missing some details that are highly relevant.

1. Pointing a firearm, AR-15 or otherwise, at the cable guy (or anyone else) in a threatening way is a felony in all 50 states, just like in Europe and elsewhere. Using threat of force to prevent a person from leaving is an additional felony (kidnapping) in all 50 states, just like in Europe. I assume you called the police as soon as you got out of there and the perpetrator went to prison for many years? You left that part out, and it's important to stress because non-Americans seem to be getting an erroneous or exaggerated perception of everyday life in the USA.

2. A nitpick, but the firearm in question likely wasn't an AR-15 as "around then" was midway through the valid time frame of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban [1] and while a limited number of pre-ban AR-15s were grandfathered in, they were rare and very expensive. The floodgates opened after its sunset in 2004, after which they became very popular, unlike before the ban.

3. "Pulling a gun on" the cable guy, or shooting the cable guy and "leaving to die up a pole," like all murders, is a felony in all 50 states. You made the right decision to leave such a dangerous job, I feel awful for all your colleagues, and I do hope that the perpetrators did a long time behind bars.

4. Fortunately, that spate of violence seems to have been localized in both space and time: to the best of my knowledge, while such incidents do occur, they're rare. I don't work in the industry, I know several people who do (for many years), and they've told me that they've never had anything like that happen, the main problem they encounter is peoples' hostile dogs in the yard/house. A web search turns up a few incidents, but not many considering how many cable installations take place in America each year. Also, keep in mind that it goes both ways: sometimes the cable guy attacks the customer (and there's no need for a gun, e.g. [2]).

5. "People's shitty TVs backfeeding electricity into the cable line" My guess is, it's not shitty TVs, but rather faulty wiring in the user's house (ground loop, etc.). Anyone who's performed with enough PA systems has had the experience of grabbing the mic and getting a 110 VAC shock.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[2] https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2022/0...

Jiro• 3 years ago

I'm not questioning the veracity of your comment, but...

Given your explanation, maybe you should question the veracity of his comment.

behringer• 3 years ago

Tip for anybody in a similar situation, when they give you a gift card and a years free service, it means they are certain you can sue them for at least 10 times that amount.

Eisenstein2• 3 years ago

I would pay 10 times that amount not to be in a lawsuit against a large corporation. Have you ever had to do a videotaped deposition? They get to ask you anything they want while you are under oath for about a day and they aren't very nice about it. And that is just one thing you are going to have to do for your measly couple thousand dollars.

nullc• 3 years ago

Ah the good ole days when comcast was easy to deal with and would correct their errors.

euroderf2• 3 years ago

This actually happened ? Do we have an example of enshittification ?

icedchai2• 3 years ago

I remember getting a cease-and-desist letter, registered mail, from @Home because I was running a server off of my cable modem. Still, it was pretty amazing at the time! A 3 megabit connection (only 128K upstream, IIRC) in 1998 was nothing to sneeze at...

aidenn04• 3 years ago

Most ISPs still have clauses forbidding running servers on non-business accounts; they just don't pursue them much

icedchai2• 3 years ago

Yes, absolutely! But you probably won't get a registered letter about it. Maybe a nasty call or an email. I remember having to call into the @Home NOC and have them re-scan my server.

russell_h• 3 years ago

I don’t understand why she would have to sign a waiver absolving Comcast in order to have her criminal record expunged. What am I missing?

senkora• 3 years ago

I know nothing about law, but I thought maybe expunging the record was like “garbage collecting” the records of the case, which would make it impossible to reference them in future litigation, such as the counter-litigation against Comcast.

denton-scratch3• 3 years ago

How can there be any criminal record to expunge, if there hasn't been any criminal conviction?

mnw21cam• 3 years ago

That does seem to me like a fairly obvious case of evil to me.

I guess the reason is that they probably could have sued for malicious prosecution and asked the court to expunge it without signing a waiver, but it was easier to just sign.

wkat42424• 3 years ago

In the Netherlands customers were often left connected even in the analog days. The base package was cheap and the premium channels were scrambled anyway. I had cable for free like this after I moved into a new place for years.

I spent a lot of time soldering descramblers which worked for a year or so until the coding changed again. Only for personal use. They usually only managed video anyway, not audio. But it didn't matter as in the premium material I was interested as an exploring teenager the video was way more important than the audio >:)

Of course this was pre-internet which solved that material access issue.

But I don't think people ever actually went to jail for this stuff. With the premium boxes there was no way to detect it, they could only go after the sellers of the kits.

themerone2• 3 years ago

I suffered with crappy DSL for several years because dealing with Comcast was worse than having bad internet.

riwsky• 3 years ago

Corporate swatting at its finest.

killjoywashere• 3 years ago

You can love your country all you want, your country does not love you.

mihaaly• 3 years ago

It resonates a tiny bit to my brief experience with Comcast (or actually any other providers being hostile to clients) in 2014 when stayed in the US briefly and they were the only one providing much needed broadband in that area (unsure if I was doing a study on the competitors otherwise). As you can imagine having broadband just for 4 months for a forigner was something of a unique deal for them, we had to go into some sort of special agreement at the Comcast desk (I do not remember much of the specifics) of which I felt I must have a proof about on top of the spoken promise of the representative that 'this and that will work this way in your situation'. Somehow I felt the one cancelling my service will not be that keen on alterations like the one I talked with about getting into contract with them. I am unsure but I think I asked for a written additional note some sort or perhaps went into an agreed recording of the conversation, but what I am sure about is that my wife - who left later than me and managed the closure of the service - had difficulty convincing them that it was just a 4 months service not an early termination of a 12 or 24 months one. Those proof asked was life saver with them and left a dent in my recollection that words of Comcast is not to be trusted easily but you need armor strength explicit proofs surrounding you in dealing with them.

And actually with several others. Since then the similar paranoid defensive dealing with overly kind and eager representatives saved me lots of trouble. It is exhausting not to trust anything and is shame we have to waste time and energy on such instead of just honest processes.

munro• 3 years ago

This is really the amazing part of the internet, seeing a file that has been casually hosted on a web server since 1999, not even budging for HTTPS-- I feel teleported back in time

ifdefdebug• 3 years ago

What strikes me most is the level of anxiousness people in the US develop when faced with frivolous/absurd charges. This guy is working so hard - hours and hours - trying to convince Comcast to get their shit right and install a video trap! Here where I live, you would just lough out loud, lean back and continue watching TV.

Because you know it would take a judge exactly 1 minute to consider two facts - 1) you had a contract for that cable and 2) installing a video trap is not your job - before he'd slap the charges back into the face of the cable companies attorney.

kaapipo• 3 years ago

*gal

tgaj• 3 years ago

I don't know where you live but even in my European country you should be anxious when interacting with judicial bureaucracy. Kafka's "The trial" is still relevant today.

krisoft3• 3 years ago

This guy is working so hard - hours and hours - trying to convince Comcast to get their shit right and install a video trap!

Yeah, I wouldn't care about that.

I live, you would just lough out loud, lean back and continue watching TV.

Here where I live I wouldn't even connect a TV unless I have paid for the service. I wouldn't know if they forgot to install a video trap.

it would take a judge exactly 1 minute to consider two facts - 1) you had a contract for that cable and 2) installing a video trap is not your job

Yeah well. But what if Comcast brings in "evidence" that they have installed a video trap? Maybe their guy documented installing one but forgot to actually do it. Or maybe he installed it on the wrong line. Now you are not laughing because on paper it seems like you have opened up the box and removed the video trap.

ToddWBurgess• 3 years ago

As an ex Excite@Home employee (anyone remember Excite??) I think its cool to see the old company pop up on HN in 2023

seabass-labrax2• 3 years ago

This was a fascinating read; good on the author for not losing her cool in that absurd two months. As a British citizen, though, there were a number of things that piqued my interest about the proceedings as described in Maryland and the USA in general.

- Why was the Maryland State Attorney so keen to continue with the prosecution, despite a hostile witness? In general, why do individuals and companies appear (to an outsider) to have so much influence in the USA to 'press charges'? From a theoretical perspective, it doesn't seem like there is any advantage to the criminal justice system in allowing people to persuade the prosecutors to open a case, since a large company like Comcast could churn out hundreds of vaguely plausible but socially inconsequential claims of fraud, when the prosecutors could surely find better things to spend their time on.

- Why is it possible to attempt to 'avoid being served' at all? I can't see anything wrong with receiving the notice by mail like any other correspondence. Are police officers in the USA really expected to just drive around as glorified (and armed, for that matter) postmen for the prosecutor's notices of petty criminal charges?

- Finally, and, for me, most importantly, how could the author have acquired a criminal record from a case that was dropped prior to a trial, let alone a conviction? It seems really dodgy that, in order to 'expunge' the record of a crime that the state doesn't necessarily think occurred, you have to agree to indemnify a third party from your claims of damages when that third party had no involvement originally except to initially report the 'crime', and even more so in this case, as the author opens by noting that there wasn't even a contractual relationship between them!

I'm under no pretence that my own country's judiciary is perfect, but it appears to me that the USA has a number of bizarre procedural bottlenecks that could be fixed with little more than a stroke of a pen. That begs the question: who stands to gain from this? Eagerly awaiting responses from knowledgable and/or wise Americans!

xoa• 3 years ago

- Why was the Maryland State Attorney so keen to continue with the prosecution, despite a hostile witness?

Speaking in generalities without knowing Maryland's state situation specifically, but whereas US Attorneys (federal) are executive positions (nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate), state level is (including Maryland) an elected position (you'll note the author mentioning voting for one of them). So politics ends up playing some role in that they want to get reelected, so be "tough" on certain causes of the day etc. Britain has plenty of history of that too fwiw. Prosecutorial discretion should play a role but it's not always pure. That said this was probably nothing special, merely in the same category as minor thefts, where if someone was guilty it'd be some sort of plea. Very bad to be caught in the grinder, but no sort of conspiracy. Someone complained of a small crime, state didn't do a good job with it.

In general, why do individuals and companies appear (to an outsider) to have so much influence in the USA to 'press charges'? From a theoretical perspective, it doesn't seem like there is any advantage to the criminal justice system in allowing people to persuade the prosecutors to open a case, since a large company like Comcast could churn out hundreds of vaguely plausible but socially inconsequential claims of fraud, when the prosecutors could surely find better things to spend their time on.

This is a weird statement. In the majority of cases who else would you generally expect to kick off a case but the victim of a crime? It's always up to the government whether to start (or stop) a prosecution, but we thankfully do not live in a panopticon and thus the biggest source of starting criminal trials is... people reporting crimes. Prosecutors do have limited time and resources, so what they choose to pursue is going to depend on a lot of calculations both sometimes unreasonable and often completely reasonable. Whether what they pick is the best use of their time or not is not a trivial question. And again, Maryland AG is an elected position, so if people were angry about them going after cable fraud at all they'd be free to campaign against them on that.

- Why is it possible to attempt to 'avoid being served' at all? I can't see anything wrong with receiving the notice by mail like any other correspondence.

Millions of people have no permanent address, or may only check their mail once in a long while. Mail sometimes goes missing (for weeks, months, or permanently). We're talking criminal prosecution here though even civil suits are no joke. It is an absolutely vital small bit of justice vs the opposing party (and particularly the vast powers of the state) to at the very minimum ensure people absolutely know they are being sued. And in turn have a chance to muster their defense, meet court deadlines and so on. There are reasonable safeguards if a court decides someone is purposefully evading, but there is a bar there.

Are police officers in the USA really expected to just drive around as glorified (and armed, for that matter) postmen for the prosecutor's notices of petty criminal charges?

Yes, and the government can suck it the hell up. There are also professional servers who can be hired. But reasonable efforts must be expended to ensure someone being prosecuted or sued has been given adequate notice of that fact. The flipside is abuse of default judgements, which is far, far worse.

- Finally, and, for me, most importantly, how could the author have acquired a criminal record from a case that was dropped prior to a trial, let alone a conviction?

They... couldn't? Author clearly is not a lawyer and was confused on something there. Maybe they're talking about some sort of credit report Comcast had filed as well. Or they just wanted the court records sealed (they mention getting spam mail pretty fast) or I don't know. But they weren't convicted of anything and thus had no "criminal record".

I'm under no pretence that my own country's judiciary is perfect, but it appears to me that the USA has a number of bizarre procedural bottlenecks that could be fixed with little more than a stroke of a pen.

I could pick a handful of cases from British history going back decades and draw broad conclusions about the entire country as well and it'd also be silly.

cowboysauce• 3 years ago

In general, why do individuals and companies appear (to an outsider) to have so much influence in the USA to 'press charges'?

They don't. Individuals and companies cannot bring charges against someone. They can report a crime (like Comcast did in this case) and then the government can determine if they want to prosecute. Someone saying they want to press charges is just signaling that they are willing to cooperate with the prosecution. Likewise saying that you wont press charges is just signalling that you won't cooperate with the persecution. In either case they don't actually have to listen to you.

since a large company like Comcast could churn out hundreds of vaguely plausible but socially inconsequential claims of fraud

Filing a false police report is a crime. If Comcast actually testified in court then it would be perjury. They'd also likely be subject to lawsuits from everyone they falsely accused once this was all discovered.

JCM9• 3 years ago

Interesting story that’s sadly too representative of the gross incompetence and negligence of some companies. In scenarios like this absolutely do sue them and then deny every settlement offer their corporate lawyers throw at you, continually demanding a jury trial. After a few failed attempts to get the case thrown out on technicalities they will start freaking out knowing they don’t stand a chance in front of a jury and will offer up very very generous settlements to compensate you for their incompetence.

cannabis_sam• 3 years ago

It’s insane to me that “cable theft” is even considered a criminal offense… it’s literally a civil dispute between a corporation and a person, about alleged misuse of service, with very little damage outside of theoretically “harming” the profits of the corporation, a notion that quite literally requires assuming an argument ad absurdum.

How stupid does a politician have to be to promote this as a criminal offense? It just denigrates criminal law.

Edit: my bad, it was promoted by Barry fucking Goldwater, a bona fide fascist. So not stupidity, just genuinely evil cruelty.

sinnet3000• 3 years ago

I hope he updates the page with:

05 September 2023: Hacker News Front Page

I doubt there's been a webpage that was slashdotted in 1999 and then became front page news of other website more than 20 years later.

thewileyone• 3 years ago

I had cable modem when DSL was being pushed by all the telcos. On my street, everyone switched over to DSL and I think I was the sole cable modem user and the access point was right in front of my house. I was getting regular speeds of 1Mbps cause no one else was using cable modem. This was glorious in 1999.

Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

Related Stories