Cable TV subscription Part II

Honestly, these days, I just don't see the point in opening the door for someone who shows up unannounced. If I see the mail carrier on my doorbell camera, sure, I'll let them in. But for anyone else? They can leave a message on my phone or just drop whatever they have in the mailbox. I’ve gotten pretty good at just ignoring the doorbell...

Casey Palmer5 said:Honestly, these days, I just don't see the point in opening the door for someone who shows up unannounced. If I see the mail carrier on my doorbell camera, sure, I'll let them in. But for anyone else? They can leave a message on my phone or just drop whatever they have in the mailbox. I’ve gotten pretty good at just ignoring the doorbell...

amen....

If I didn't need this for work right now, I wouldn't even bother putting my last name next to the bell. It would just be something like—Apartment 16 😁 😁

Casey Palmer5 said:Honestly, these days, I just don't see the point in opening the door for someone who shows up unannounced. If I see the mail carrier on my doorbell camera, sure, I'll let them in. But for anyone else? They can leave a message on my phone or just drop whatever they have in the mailbox. I’ve gotten pretty good at just ignoring the doorbell...

Exactly. And how exactly is some little collector supposed to even get close enough to get a signature on the application?

rowdyhawk15 said:The notice about starting legal proceedings is just the usual bluff from PBS. That’s why they claim if you pay the fine, they’ll drop the "proceedings" and register you as a subscriber.
For them to actually win a case in court, they’d need to prove you actually own the receiver—something they can't do unless you decide to cooperate with them. Don't be naive.

Sure, let the smart ones deal with it. As for everyone else... they can go ahead and fight their own battles.

boldlynx23 said:Here’s some solid information for you:

PBS, being this state-run entity we fund through basically a stupidity tax, is working hand-in-hand with city utility collectors—who, in turn, feed them data on anyone dodging their bills. They’re running "raids" on apartment buildings in major cities now. A collector hands over a list of residents, and PBS agents go door-to-door checking names against their own subscriber database. That’s exactly how they caught up with me after I spent over 10 years dodging the bill by moving addresses. 😉

A good friend of mine who works for the city utility department let me in on it—they were ordered to start cooperating with PBS.

Basically, it isn't hard for them to hunt down people who aren't paying anymore, at least when it comes to urban apartment living.

So, the room you have to maneuver around paying your subscription is shrinking fast. Honestly, who actually wants to deal with the headache of courts, liens, appeals, lawyers, and notaries? I don't have the time or the energy to sit there proving to government bureaucrats that I'm "innocent" just because I'm technically breaking a state law. 😁

Sure, you can claim I'm making this up, calling it a conspiracy theory, or saying my buddy is lying—I don't care. I'm not defending PBS, and I'm certainly not thrilled about having to pay up after 10 years, but I really don't need any legal harassment from $333 or the mess of court dates. I just don't have the time for it.

Thanks for the advice, everyone.

What exactly are municipal collectors? 😕

No, and even if my last name is on the door, it doesn't mean I'm registered there. They can only wipe out someone using just a surname; thousands of people share the same one in the US. Besides, the actual property owner pays the bill at their own home address.

Casey Palmer5 said:Honestly, these days, I just don't see the point in opening the door for someone who shows up unannounced. If I see the mail carrier on my doorbell camera, sure, I'll let them in. But for anyone else? They can leave a message on my phone or just drop whatever they have in the mailbox. I’ve gotten pretty good at just ignoring the doorbell...

Casey Palmer5 said:If I didn't need this for work right now, I wouldn't even bother putting my last name next to the bell. It would just be something like—Apartment 16 😁 😁

Of course. 👍

By the way, some posts here should be framed on the first page. For instance, this one by rowyhawk15:

Notices regarding misdemeanor proceedings are just standard PBS bluffs. That's why they claim that if you pay the same amount, they'll drop the "proceedings" and register you as a subscriber.
To actually win a case in court, they have to prove you possess a receiver, which is impossible unless you cooperate with them. Use your head.

rowdyhawk15 The user states:
Something about this doesn't sit right with me. If nobody actually signed up for the cable service, how can they justify sending out notices regarding the commencement of misdemeanor proceedings? According to standard legal procedure, you should first receive a court ruling declaring you liable before any attempt at garnishment can even be considered. It’s a massive leap in logic. On what possible grounds are they even classifying you as a subscriber in the first place?

Look, to be perfectly honest, I don't see any reason to lie about this...
We received two of those yellow slips—the kind you get when there’s a certified package waiting at the post office—but naturally, they always arrived while my husband and I were stuck at work. Eventually, we managed to track down some information through a few channels to figure out what was actually going on. It turned out to be a blue envelope from a specific notary public, among other things. Since the only thing we could have possibly owed was a subscription fee (we are meticulous about our bills; if anything, we regret not being even more diligent back then), and considering several of our friends were receiving identical notices around that same time, we decided to play it safe and just leave them sitting there. Risk assessment, I suppose.
We have never received anything substantial from them—nothing but a relentless stream of collection notices. It starts with one, then another follows, and before you know it, they're just piling up.

It is quite telling that when we actually reached out to the staff in New York City, they managed to provide us with—quite frankly—the completely wrong brand of television set.

Look, our lawyer friends gave us some advice: just reach a settlement, pay what's owed, and call it a day. Honestly, given how we are, we simply don't have the stomach—nor the luxury of time—to be dragging ourselves through the court system over this. If we hadn't paid, he would have just filed a report against us, and that would have been that. Simple as that.

boldlynx23 As stated by:
What is the total figure for those foreclosures if it isn't classified? If you can't post it here, feel free to send me a private message.

It appears we are dealing with some sort of... situation. $1.25...which we are now paying for in installments. 😢

slycyclist342 said:Sunday, you should probably do some digging yourself.

First off, if I recall correctly, the statute of limitations is only one year—so you won't be able to come after me for any unpaid debts in two years.

It seems highly irregular to me that four different offices would all be initiating collections proceedings every six months.

I assume this was how the procedure went down (in response to rowdyhawk15's inquiries).

They sent a notarized affidavit—basically some unpaid invoice you supposedly owe—to a bailiff or an attorney, who then used that document as grounds to issue a notice regarding the initiation of a seizure.

I believe there is a deadline to file an appeal—eight days, if I recall correctly, though I can't say for certain.
If you file a formal complaint, they can't just hit your bank account directly; instead, they have to pass it off to the courts to initiate a lawsuit.

In court, the Public Broadcasting Service has to prove that you actually owe them anything at all, while you have to focus on proving exactly what you're already trying to establish.

Of course, if you end up losing the lawsuit, make sure to factor those legal fees into your calculations as well.

Believe me, things unfolded exactly the way I described them...
The real kicker for us was the sheer anxiety over the outcome—what happens if we actually lose this lawsuit?! Who on earth is going to foot the bill for all those sudden, unexpected expenses?
Look, we aren't exactly thrill-seekers; we're more the type to play it safe. Above all else, we have a healthy fear of federal agencies. We really have no desire to go toe-to-toe with the heavy hitters in Washington.😢

So, how exactly is he going to prove you actually own a TV?

Time for some theory-crafting.

Look, I haven't paid a dime in ten years. A few times, I’ve actually found business cards from some jerk at PBS stuffed in my door—they circle phone numbers and write "call urgently." Naturally, I never called.
There was even one time I didn't answer the door because I wasn't expecting anyone.
Well, my wife opened the door instead. She didn't say anything to him, but apparently, it was enough for his report. So now what? Sure, he didn't see my TV. Fine. He didn't see a radio. Fine. No phone. Fine. No computer. Fine. But he *did* see the newly installed PVC door and the renovated entryway. And he's going to assume what? That this poor guy doesn't own a TV, a radio, a phone, or a PC—and can barely scrape together enough for a decent car if he's spending it all on new doors. 😁

I eventually found out what went into that report. He wrote that he didn't see a TV and that access was denied because the lady slammed the door in his face and wouldn't come back. Which is true.

Okay, so PBS sent a warning. Let's say I ignore it. What then? Get a court summons and show up just to testify about what? To tell the judge the inspector didn't see a TV because I don't have one—just like I don't have a computer, a phone, a radio, or a car? And that I haven't paid the fee for over 10 years because I didn't realize it was required by law? And that I won't pay moving forward because they have no way of knowing I've been living in the dark for a decade, and I'm sure as hell not giving them that insight.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how is a court—which is basically just pulling money from the same pot and acting just as parasitic as PBS—supposed to rule in favor of me, the actual lawbreaker? From everything I've read, it's just one law canceling out another in this endless loop of bureaucracy. You spend years in courtrooms, filing motions and appeals, wasting massive amounts of time just over a measly $27 a month. I'm paying a premium for it now, which I hate, but the money just goes to a parasitic state that gives nothing back. When I actually need a medical checkup, I end up shelling out extra cash to private clinics anyway.

The point is—don't try to go toe-to-toe with a bull unless you've got horns just as big as theirs.

Good luck to all of you in your ongoing fight against these parasites. May they never catch you like they caught me, may you be able to kick them off your doorstep forever, and may the courts be more on your side than they are on theirs.

Your posts feel like you're just trying to scare everyone into paying the tax. What, are you some kind of PBS informant lurking on this forum or something!? 🤣

Sent from my Lumia 920 Windows Phone using Tapatalk

Where does 🤦 go right when you actually need them...

I mean, we don't have to be that naive, do we?

boldlynx23 said:Time for some theory-crafting.

Look, I haven't paid a dime in ten years. A few times, I’ve actually found business cards from some jerk at PBS stuffed in my door—they circle phone numbers and write "call urgently." Naturally, I never called.
There was even one time I didn't answer the door because I wasn't expecting anyone.
Well, my wife opened the door instead. She didn't say anything to him, but apparently, it was enough for his report. So now what? Sure, he didn't see my TV. Fine. He didn't see a radio. Fine. No phone. Fine. No computer. Fine. But he *did* see the newly installed PVC door and the renovated entryway. And he's going to assume what? That this poor guy doesn't own a TV, a radio, a phone, or a PC—and can barely scrape together enough for a decent car if he's spending it all on new doors. 😁

I eventually found out what went into that report. He wrote that he didn't see a TV and that access was denied because the lady slammed the door in his face and wouldn't come back. Which is true.

Okay, so PBS sent a warning. Let's say I ignore it. What then? Get a court summons and show up just to testify about what? To tell the judge the inspector didn't see a TV because I don't have one—just like I don't have a computer, a phone, a radio, or a car? And that I haven't paid the fee for over 10 years because I didn't realize it was required by law? And that I won't pay moving forward because they have no way of knowing I've been living in the dark for a decade, and I'm sure as hell not giving them that insight.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how is a court—which is basically just pulling money from the same pot and acting just as parasitic as PBS—supposed to rule in favor of me, the actual lawbreaker? From everything I've read, it's just one law canceling out another in this endless loop of bureaucracy. You spend years in courtrooms, filing motions and appeals, wasting massive amounts of time just over a measly $27 a month. I'm paying a premium for it now, which I hate, but the money just goes to a parasitic state that gives nothing back. When I actually need a medical checkup, I end up shelling out extra cash to private clinics anyway.

The point is—don't try to go toe-to-toe with a bull unless you've got horns just as big as theirs.

Good luck to all of you in your ongoing fight against these parasites. May they never catch you like they caught me, may you be able to kick them off your doorstep forever, and may the courts be more on your side than they are on theirs.

That is precisely my point.

Do people truly believe that justice and logic prevail in a courtroom? Meanwhile, enforcement actions are being launched without the debtor even being properly notified of the case details. For instance, my brother is facing a wage garnishment where neither the bank nor the financial institution handling the funds is even informed about who is seizing the money or why. While the garnishment was halted, a permanent note remains on his record, preventing him from securing a loan to finish renovating his apartment... and this whole mess hasn't been resolved for a year.

In a country that claims to be this organized, am I really expected to believe in logic?

It seems clear to me that we are partially right regarding how the PBS regulations are enforced. This principle—where they establish your obligation to pay by harassing you at your doorstep, threatening you, and intimidating you—is completely insane. But I truly don't believe that once the dice are cast, there is any real chance that the outcome will swing in our favor...

Still, nobody here has chimed in with the perspective of a legal professional who has experience dealing with these PBS shenanigans and knows the best way to handle these threatening notices when they start initiating misdemeanor proceedings.

Until then, I’m under the impression that my best course of action is to simply ignore the whole mess while simultaneously starting to pay the subscription myself—the sooner, the better, I suppose. If I can find the time today, I am actually planning to sit down and consult with an attorney to get some professional guidance on how to handle this properly.

mistybear10 said:Your posts feel like you're just trying to scare everyone into paying the tax. What, are you some kind of PBS informant lurking on this forum or something!? 🤣

Sent from my Lumia 920 Windows Phone using Tapatalk

dustymarlin10 said:Where does 🤦 go right when you actually need them...

I mean, we don't have to be that naive, do we?

I’m not trying to scare anyone or talk them into paying parasitic taxes. I’m just stating my own perspective—if that woman hadn't opened the door for that jerk, he wouldn't even be paying today.
Look, I said I don't have the time or energy to mess around with this anymore. Nowhere did I say everyone has to wave a white flag and just cave. On the contrary—I'm backing you guys up and saying it's pure idiocy to pay, so if you have the patience for the headache, go for it.

I don't get the accusations. If we're talking about informants, it's the ones claiming nobody should pay anything while ignoring fines—just so the total collection goes up and everyone gets a bigger cut than those ridiculous $27 subscriptions—that's where the real issue lies. 😁

I used my own example. You can ignore it. Or maybe we're only allowed to post about winning against the system here? No mention of someone getting screwed in court or having their wages garnished by the state? Fine.
Maybe my situation will actually be useful to someone.

If I'm registered at one address where someone else is already paying for a subscription, am I actually required to pay for a second one at my other location—the house I inherited? And since my grandmother lives in that house, does she need to cover the subscription fee just because the deed is in my name?

ruggedhawk5 said:I find myself unable to agree with that perspective, and frankly, I don't view it as particularly helpful advice. Why do I say that? Because paying the subscription fee is a legal obligation, and it is abundantly clear that anyone attempting to circumvent it is technically in the wrong.

The fallout from following that line of thinking could include $80 + $333 fines for failing to register a receiver, plus legal fees, general headaches, and endless runs to the courthouse.

The reality is that the courts aren't foolish; they find it far more lucrative to take the word of PBS over an individual's claim. Furthermore, there are countless ways for them to establish that you indeed possess a receiver...

What truly piques my interest in this whole saga is how a formal notice from PBS can be deemed invalid from the very outset. And why is their entire approach characterized by such aggressive, extortionate, and intimidating tactics?

From my vantage point, this notification regarding the commencement of misdemeanor proceedings isn't really a legal document at all; rather, it feels like a public confirmation of extortion, and I believe it's litigious enough to cause genuine mental distress.

Is there anyone here with legal expertise or significant experience who might be able to confirm or refute my thesis?

I’d really focus on the cost of the TV subscription itself. It’s easily three times higher than what you'd pay in other countries with a similar size and standard within the European Union. Honestly, it should probably be around $25.$10We’re paying the same amount now that Britons pay for their NPR.

Taking this advice could end up having some pretty serious consequences. $80 + $333 Fines for failing to report a recipient, plus court costs, headaches, and just being harassed through the legal system.

The point is, the courts aren't stupid; they find it much more profitable to just take PBS at their word than to listen to any one individual.

Courts tend to take the path of least resistance in these kinds of disputes. If you actually show up and demonstrate that you understand your legal rights and are willing to defend them, there's a good chance the ruling will go your way. But if you don't show up, or if you act like you have no idea what your rights even are, they'll likely just rule in favor of the collector.

Honestly, if you show them you actually know your rights, the inspector will probably just back off instead of filing a report. For instance, if you calmly ask for their credentials and explain that you'll be filing a formal complaint against them for XYZ...

From my own experience, I've spent some time giving legal advice to friends and family members during various disputes.

There are also countless ways to prove you actually own the receiver...

You think they're actually going to use that "TV receiver detector"?
😂

I’m honestly just trying to wrap my head around how PBS's official statement could be considered invalid from the get-go. I really want to understand why their whole approach is being labeled as greenwashing, extortionate, and straight-up intimidation.

They just take advantage of the situation because they can. They hide the times people actually stand up to them, mostly because they don't want word getting out and others following suit.

To me, this notice about starting a misdemeanor proceeding isn't even a legal document; it’s just public extortion. Honestly, I think it's litigious just because of the mental stress it causes.

Has anyone actually filed an official request with PBS to get the details on that inspector and the person in charge over at the subscription department? I'm wondering if anyone’s looking to file a lawsuit for false reporting based on those specific sections of the criminal code.
Really?
I mean, honestly, who's really to blame if you just let people treat you that way?

Does anyone with some actual experience or training mind weighing in to confirm or debunk my theory?

☕

What’s the best way to handle things when moving abroad? I’ve been paying my local taxes for years, but now Dad and I are relocating. How can I officially deregister everything so I don't have any lingering headaches down the road?

mistyrider1 said:

rowdyhawk15 The user states:
Something about this doesn't sit right with me. If nobody actually signed up for the cable service, how can they justify sending out notices regarding the commencement of misdemeanor proceedings? According to standard legal procedure, you should first receive a court ruling declaring you liable before any attempt at garnishment can even be considered. It’s a massive leap in logic. On what possible grounds are they even classifying you as a subscriber in the first place?

Look, to be perfectly honest, I don't see any reason to lie about this...
We received two of those yellow slips—the kind you get when there’s a certified package waiting at the post office—but naturally, they always arrived while my husband and I were stuck at work. Eventually, we managed to track down some information through a few channels to figure out what was actually going on. It turned out to be a blue envelope from a specific notary public, among other things. Since the only thing we could have possibly owed was a subscription fee (we are meticulous about our bills; if anything, we regret not being even more diligent back then), and considering several of our friends were receiving identical notices around that same time, we decided to play it safe and just leave them sitting there. Risk assessment, I suppose.
We have never received anything substantial from them—nothing but a relentless stream of collection notices. It starts with one, then another follows, and before you know it, they're just piling up.

It is quite telling that when we actually reached out to the staff in New York City, they managed to provide us with—quite frankly—the completely wrong brand of television set.

Look, our lawyer friends gave us some advice: just reach a settlement, pay what's owed, and call it a day. Honestly, given how we are, we simply don't have the stomach—nor the luxury of time—to be dragging ourselves through the court system over this. If we hadn't paid, he would have just filed a report against us, and that would have been that. Simple as that.

boldlynx23 As stated by:
What is the total figure for those foreclosures if it isn't classified? If you can't post it here, feel free to send me a private message.

It appears we are dealing with some sort of... situation. $1.25...which we are now paying for in installments. 😢

Believe me, things unfolded exactly the way I described them...
The real kicker for us was the sheer anxiety over the outcome—what happens if we actually lose this lawsuit?! Who on earth is going to foot the bill for all those sudden, unexpected expenses?
Look, we aren't exactly thrill-seekers; we're more the type to play it safe. Above all else, we have a healthy fear of federal agencies. We really have no desire to go toe-to-toe with the heavy hitters in Washington.😢

Did you actually pick up those notices to see what the deal was?

First off—read the enforcement laws. Look up the definition for something like an "authentic document." PBS has to prove there’s an actual bill or series of bills that went unpaid. For those bills to exist, you have to be registered as a subscriber. To get on their books, you’d have to do one of these things:
a) sign up yourself
b) let a collector into the house and sign the paperwork
c) let a collector in and refuse to sign (which just leads to a misdemeanor charge)

Bottom line: they clearly have an authentic document, otherwise this collection wouldn't even move forward (besides, you can always appeal a collection order). It sounds like someone filed a report on you—maybe your son?
Some collectors fake the registration—they make up a specific TV model and forge a subscriber's signature using basic scam tactics. If that happened, you could easily contest it in court. Otherwise, the collector is pocketing about $67 in commission for every new subscriber they land—that's where those $80 "penalties" come from.

Your lawyer friends gave you bad advice. Avoiding the court summons is probably what landed you in this ridiculous situation—though, again, why would you even receive a formal judgment if you weren't a customer? If you had just shown up to court and stated, "On this date, I didn't own a TV, and I have no idea how this collector decided I was a subscriber since he never even stepped foot inside," you'd be fine. Back it up with three witnesses and that's that. The burden of proof is on them to prove the receiver exists—but tell me, how can they prove anything if you aren't cooperating?

Honestly, your story doesn't hold much water. The truth is likely somewhere else.

boldlynx23 said:Time for some theory-crafting.

Look, I haven't paid a dime in ten years. A few times, I’ve actually found business cards from some jerk at PBS stuffed in my door—they circle phone numbers and write "call urgently." Naturally, I never called.
There was even one time I didn't answer the door because I wasn't expecting anyone.
Well, my wife opened the door instead. She didn't say anything to him, but apparently, it was enough for his report. So now what? Sure, he didn't see my TV. Fine. He didn't see a radio. Fine. No phone. Fine. No computer. Fine. But he *did* see the newly installed PVC door and the renovated entryway. And he's going to assume what? That this poor guy doesn't own a TV, a radio, a phone, or a PC—and can barely scrape together enough for a decent car if he's spending it all on new doors. 😁

I eventually found out what went into that report. He wrote that he didn't see a TV and that access was denied because the lady slammed the door in his face and wouldn't come back. Which is true.

Okay, so PBS sent a warning. Let's say I ignore it. What then? Get a court summons and show up just to testify about what? To tell the judge the inspector didn't see a TV because I don't have one—just like I don't have a computer, a phone, a radio, or a car? And that I haven't paid the fee for over 10 years because I didn't realize it was required by law? And that I won't pay moving forward because they have no way of knowing I've been living in the dark for a decade, and I'm sure as hell not giving them that insight.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but how is a court—which is basically just pulling money from the same pot and acting just as parasitic as PBS—supposed to rule in favor of me, the actual lawbreaker? From everything I've read, it's just one law canceling out another in this endless loop of bureaucracy. You spend years in courtrooms, filing motions and appeals, wasting massive amounts of time just over a measly $27 a month. I'm paying a premium for it now, which I hate, but the money just goes to a parasitic state that gives nothing back. When I actually need a medical checkup, I end up shelling out extra cash to private clinics anyway.

The point is—don't try to go toe-to-toe with a bull unless you've got horns just as big as theirs.

Good luck to all of you in your ongoing fight against these parasites. May they never catch you like they caught me, may you be able to kick them off your doorstep forever, and may the courts be more on your side than they are on theirs.

Once again, people are talking nonsense. If you receive a notice regarding a fine, the document will explicitly state that the inspector determined on a specific date that a subscription wasn't being paid for a receiver—be it a TV, a radio, or whatever. If the report states they didn't see a TV, you aren't getting a fine notice because there is no violation to report—no device was confirmed. In my estimation, 99% of the people here are just spinning fantasies, while maybe 1% have actually dealt with PBS.

I have a question here... a student moved away to another city and signed up for the license fee at a kiosk 😁

how does he go about canceling it now?

On the cancellation form, they list specific reasons:
not owning a TV, moving abroad, or entering a nursing home

he’s actually moving back in with his parents, who already pay the subscription, so legally he shouldn't have to pay extra since one household member covers it all.

It seems quite shortsighted to me that PBS didn't account for the possibility of two people paying separately only to eventually marry and share a household... how can he void one of those subscriptions under these circumstances? 🤣

So, I officially gave notice and should be out of there in a few days (mostly because the tenant passed away)... I’m just going to peel my name off the door and call it a day. It’s pretty much the same dance as last time. As for whoever moves in next, I’ll give them a heads-up on how things work around here, and if they actually pay their rent, then fine...

Like someone else mentioned earlier... just take down your full name. Maybe leave the last name if you must, but honestly, just don't open the door for anyone. I spent about $30 on a Ring camera and a little monitor for the apartment, so that's that. At the main house, the gate stays locked, and even if it wasn't, I consider any unannounced visit a total invasion of privacy—plus, I've got a dog to warn people off. He’s a complete sweetheart, really, but he’s a total beast when he needs to be...

driftingdrifter88 said:So, I officially gave notice and should be out of there in a few days (mostly because the tenant passed away)... I’m just going to peel my name off the door and call it a day. It’s pretty much the same dance as last time. As for whoever moves in next, I’ll give them a heads-up on how things work around here, and if they actually pay their rent, then fine...

Like someone else mentioned earlier... just take down your full name. Maybe leave the last name if you must, but honestly, just don't open the door for anyone. I spent about $30 on a Ring camera and a little monitor for the apartment, so that's that. At the main house, the gate stays locked, and even if it wasn't, I consider any unannounced visit a total invasion of privacy—plus, I've got a dog to warn people off. He’s a complete sweetheart, really, but he’s a total beast when he needs to be...

Just one stupid question... why don't they use a peephole? The inspectors always duck out of the frame, so you can't see them. 😁

Where did you pick up that camera? If you're actually happy with how it works despite the low price..
You can just DM me.
thx

I actually called PBS to get an answer to my question because I was genuinely curious about the process.

And some woman basically cut me off halfway through my explanation.😕😕😕

I call at 3:02 PM and she goes, "YOU CALLED OUTSIDE OF BUSINESS HOURS... WE CLOSE AT 3:00."🤣 🤣 🤣

Anyway...

Their official line is that if you're adding family members to the account, you have to file a deregistration for the receiver.

In my opinion, he still possesses the receiver, and he cannot legally swear under penalty of perjury that he doesn't, if he actually does... but then again, this is a household already paying the subscription fee.

She argues: but he is deregistering the receiver at that specific address (which isn't even what's stated in the declaration, but whatever...).

I wanted to ask: how is he supposed to grant the inspectors access to that address if he won't be living there anymore and we don't know who will be? And all I heard was a click... no more questions allowed after 3:00.🤣 🤣