CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Society › Law › Cable TV subscription Part II

Cable TV subscription Part II

Started by Paul Johnson · · 👁 13 views · 256 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Paul JohnsonAndrew Cooper82Benjamin Richardson9Michelle Alvarez8Brian Edwards6Anthony Harris2mistybear10urbantinker24rowdyhawk15Zachary Jones43Robin Fisher53Jessica Barnes952Mark Booth7vividranger8Lisa Gonzalez97ironviper9Brian Clark4Michael Morgan5Larry Howard4Jamie PriceSamuel Millerslycyclist342graniteotter6hollowmason64 …
Elizabeth Price2 Elizabeth Price2 Active Member
66 messages
joined Feb 2006
#121 ·
So, here’s what our mod has to say about the whole situation:

link to the post.

Man, seriously—I absolutely love these kinds of answers and this way of interpreting the law... it feels like in this country, nothing is ever crystal clear or written down in black and white; it’s basically just whatever judge feels like pulling out of thin air that day. Since our legal system doesn't even really recognize the idea of "precedent"—you know, where one ruling sets the standard for an identical case (though I'm sure some lawyers will try to argue otherwise!)—it means two different judges could theoretically look at the exact same thing and hand down completely opposite rulings. Just wild. 🤮
Michelle Alvarez8 Michelle Alvarez8 Regular
299 messages
joined Nov 2015
#122 ·
It keeps telling me I can't even get onto the site when I click it—super annoying, right? 🤔
Elizabeth Price2 Elizabeth Price2 Active Member
66 messages
joined Feb 2006
#123 ·
I have no clue why it's acting up for you—it’s working just fine on my end! Anyway, this guy (total rookie, right?) wrote this:

"In any case, you have to let the person know the conversation is being recorded, and then the court will decide on a case-by-case basis whether they'll actually admit the recording as evidence."
ruggedhawk5 ruggedhawk5 Newcomer
7 messages
joined Jan 2016
#124 ·
Elizabeth Price2 said:Yeah, this whole situation is totally screwing me over too. Like, if this ever actually hits a courtroom, can't they just point to my service provider records as proof that I own a PC? Since a computer is legally treated the same as a TV nowadays, wouldn't being a customer of Comcast or AT&T basically hand them the evidence on a silver platter?

On the flip side though—where are they even getting this data from? I mean, if they're grabbing it without permission, isn't that straight-up illegal? And if the info was obtained illegally, wouldn't that make it useless as evidence in court? 😵

It honestly baffles me how lawyers stay dead silent about this stuff—it's like they've all taken a vow of silence or something. Even the consumer advocacy groups and journalists! It's weird because they'll give out free advice for every other minor issue under the sun, but when it comes to this, crickets.

Personally, I think my best bet is to just pull out my phone and record the collector if/when they show up at my door. I'd give them a heads-up right away, like, "Hey, just so you know, I'm recording this." Then I'd state the date, my address, ask for their name, and find out exactly what they want. If they still won't back off and start asking if I have a receiver, I'll just say no. If they try to push their way in to check, I'll shut that down fast. Then I'll hit them with the question: "Did you actually witness the possession of a receiver?" (per the law, obviously). They'll have to say "no," because anything else would be lying straight to my face while a camera is rolling. With that "no" on tape, they've got absolutely nothing to work with in court.

Anyway, that's basically how I'm seeing this whole mess play out.

I actually tried calling NBC to clear things up. I told them, "Look, I have one of your notices in my mailbox, and I have absolutely no idea what this is about. Could you please explain?"

"We don't know anything about that; please call the mobile number listed on the notice," they replied.

So, basically, an official document from NBC is meant to be discussed face-to-face with whoever happens to answer the phone number printed on the paper.

Alright, so I might ignore the notice, but I am genuinely concerned about the potential fallout of initiating a misdemeanor proceeding:

Essentially, it's me versus 120 lawyers who are under contract with NBC and operating within the framework of the Law passed by the Country... Hmm, interesting...

My argument: the inspector couldn't verify the existence of a receiver.
The Prosecutor's argument: "I can do whatever I want, so prepare to get hammered!"

I worry that if this reaches a courtroom, the debate won't even be about whether I allowed the inspector into my home, but rather about the simple facts: that I pay for high-speed internet and digital cable, that I live in a major metropolitan area with perfect signal strength, and that I have a utility meter and live in a standard apartment building.
nimblelynx7 nimblelynx7 Regular
336 messages
joined Jul 2016
#125 ·
The fee covers the device capable of receiving audio-visual signals; it isn't a flat tax on existence.
The mere fact that you have digital cable doesn't give them any legal ground to come after you. Any such complaint should be dismissed immediately on sight.

Exactly like you said, the inspector didn't actually confirm an RTV receiver is in the residence, so the argument ends right there.
Michelle Alvarez8 Michelle Alvarez8 Regular
299 messages
joined Nov 2015
#126 ·
ruggedhawk5 said:I actually tried calling NBC to clear things up. I told them, "Look, I have one of your notices in my mailbox, and I have absolutely no idea what this is about. Could you please explain?"

"We don't know anything about that; please call the mobile number listed on the notice," they replied.

So, basically, an official document from NBC is meant to be discussed face-to-face with whoever happens to answer the phone number printed on the paper.

Alright, so I might ignore the notice, but I am genuinely concerned about the potential fallout of initiating a misdemeanor proceeding:

Essentially, it's me versus 120 lawyers who are under contract with NBC and operating within the framework of the Law passed by the Country... Hmm, interesting...

My argument: the inspector couldn't verify the existence of a receiver.
The Prosecutor's argument: "I can do whatever I want, so prepare to get hammered!"

I worry that if this reaches a courtroom, the debate won't even be about whether I allowed the inspector into my home, but rather about the simple facts: that I pay for high-speed internet and digital cable, that I live in a major metropolitan area with perfect signal strength, and that I have a utility meter and live in a standard apartment building.

Just report them for attempted extortion. 😁
rowdyhawk15 rowdyhawk15 Member
13 messages
joined Nov 2015
#127 ·
ruggedhawk5 said:I actually tried calling NBC to clear things up. I told them, "Look, I have one of your notices in my mailbox, and I have absolutely no idea what this is about. Could you please explain?"

"We don't know anything about that; please call the mobile number listed on the notice," they replied.

So, basically, an official document from NBC is meant to be discussed face-to-face with whoever happens to answer the phone number printed on the paper.

Alright, so I might ignore the notice, but I am genuinely concerned about the potential fallout of initiating a misdemeanor proceeding:

Essentially, it's me versus 120 lawyers who are under contract with NBC and operating within the framework of the Law passed by the Country... Hmm, interesting...

My argument: the inspector couldn't verify the existence of a receiver.
The Prosecutor's argument: "I can do whatever I want, so prepare to get hammered!"

I worry that if this reaches a courtroom, the debate won't even be about whether I allowed the inspector into my home, but rather about the simple facts: that I pay for high-speed internet and digital cable, that I live in a major metropolitan area with perfect signal strength, and that I have a utility meter and live in a standard apartment building.

Courts rule based on evidence. If this actually makes it to a courtroom, the burden is on you to defend yourself by claiming you didn't have a receiver—whether that's the truth or just a convenient lie depends on your conscience. It’s on them to prove otherwise. That’s the catch: they can't prove anything if they weren't granted access. The issue is that the citation will state they identified a receiver on a specific date. If you didn't let them into your home, your word is all they have to work with. You just say, "I didn't have one on that day," and that's it. They're stuck.

People lose in court because they confess. People win because the other side lacks proof. Now, it just comes down to whether you'll cave or if they'll fail to produce any actual evidence.

It’s a proven pattern.
Bradley Scott2 Bradley Scott2 Member
32 messages
joined Jul 2014
#128 ·
ruggedhawk5 said:I actually tried calling NBC to clear things up. I told them, "Look, I have one of your notices in my mailbox, and I have absolutely no idea what this is about. Could you please explain?"

"We don't know anything about that; please call the mobile number listed on the notice," they replied.

So, basically, an official document from NBC is meant to be discussed face-to-face with whoever happens to answer the phone number printed on the paper.

Alright, so I might ignore the notice, but I am genuinely concerned about the potential fallout of initiating a misdemeanor proceeding:

Essentially, it's me versus 120 lawyers who are under contract with NBC and operating within the framework of the Law passed by the Country... Hmm, interesting...

My argument: the inspector couldn't verify the existence of a receiver.
The Prosecutor's argument: "I can do whatever I want, so prepare to get hammered!"

I worry that if this reaches a courtroom, the debate won't even be about whether I allowed the inspector into my home, but rather about the simple facts: that I pay for high-speed internet and digital cable, that I live in a major metropolitan area with perfect signal strength, and that I have a utility meter and live in a standard apartment building.

You call the number and say:
- Just so you know, I am recording this call so it can be used as evidence in court. Now, what exactly did you want to talk about?
😁
Alexander Hernandez6 Alexander Hernandez6 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Feb 2014
#129 ·
Hi there,

I’ve been scrolling through the last five pages of this thread, and I still can't seem to find an answer to my question—so please forgive me if someone has already covered this!

Enid,

My dad was thinking about canceling his grandmother's cable subscription since she doesn't really watch TV anymore, but he’d still love for us to have a working set there whenever we come to visit. Since he's already paying for a full subscription at our house, how does one go about canceling just her specific service (while keeping the actual TV set there, even if we aren't paying for the channels) based on the fact that he's already paying for one plan elsewhere?

I tried hunting for some answers on the PBS website, but I couldn't quite track down what I needed.

Thanks so much!
Casey Palmer5 Casey Palmer5 Regular
470 messages
joined Jan 2016
#130 ·
Elizabeth Price2 said:So, we’re talking about an apartment building here. Honestly, my only real option seems to be slapping one of those "this door is being recorded" stickers right on my front door, which feels—I don't know—kind of silly? Like, if the footage actually catches me verbally telling someone, "Hey, just so you know, you're being recorded," isn't that basically the same thing as the sticker?

I've walked through some office buildings where people have these little cameras tucked away near their desks or medical suites, but there isn't a single "Video Surveillance in Progress" sign anywhere to be found. Is that just a psychological tactic? Like, "let's just spook any potential burglars even if we aren't technically following the legal fine print"? 🙂

Long story short: do I actually need to get someone's formal consent if I'm filming them in the hallway of the building or right outside my own door, or is it enough to just give them a quick verbal heads-up that they're being filmed?

The hallway itself is common area, and when a collector or delivery person walks in, they're essentially stepping onto private property. In my mind, by entering that space, they're implicitly agreeing to the owner's terms...
Casey Palmer5 Casey Palmer5 Regular
470 messages
joined Jan 2016
#131 ·
Alexander Hernandez6 said:Hi there,

I’ve been scrolling through the last five pages of this thread, and I still can't seem to find an answer to my question—so please forgive me if someone has already covered this!

Enid,

My dad was thinking about canceling his grandmother's cable subscription since she doesn't really watch TV anymore, but he’d still love for us to have a working set there whenever we come to visit. Since he's already paying for a full subscription at our house, how does one go about canceling just her specific service (while keeping the actual TV set there, even if we aren't paying for the channels) based on the fact that he's already paying for one plan elsewhere?

I tried hunting for some answers on the PBS website, but I couldn't quite track down what I needed.

Thanks so much!

You can't really do it that way because you aren't considered one single household. You could try telling them the TV is broken, but if they show up at Grandma's and she can't handle the situation—you might end up with a collection notice. Those agencies love targeting seniors and pushing paperwork on them to sign...
restlessseal58 restlessseal58 Member
18 messages
joined Feb 2014
#132 ·
Here’s the situation from today. So, I’m a renter—I don't even have a TV or a radio. This guy shows up at my door, I open it politely, and he immediately starts lecturing me about how I need to sign some paperwork because everyone is required to pay a mandatory fee for PBS. He claimed it's a universal requirement, and then suggested if I just sign this, I could settle the few months I supposedly owe them (which is nonsense, since there isn't a single receiver registered in this apartment since I moved in). Obviously, I didn't sign a thing. He then had the nerve to tell me that fine, we'll just see him in court or deal with collections and seizures. Is this some kind of new scam they're running? 😁
Michelle Alvarez8 Michelle Alvarez8 Regular
299 messages
joined Nov 2015
#133 ·
Just your typical intimidation tactics. 🤮 I mean, if you didn't give them any info, they've got nothing on you, right? 🤷
restlessseal58 restlessseal58 Member
18 messages
joined Feb 2014
#134 ·
Of course I didn't. She can try selling that nonsense to someone else. 😁
If he had walked into the apartment and seen the TV on or something, fine, but starting out of nowhere to claim that EVERYONE has to pay an NBC subscription fee is just ridiculous. Sometimes I actually regret not having a doorbell camera so I could record this absurdity.
slymason51 slymason51 Newcomer
7 messages
joined Feb 2014
#135 ·
I guess I should share my own nightmare experience too... back on February 7th, 2014... this inspector rolls into our neighborhood and starts handing out fines to neighbors, which they just sign away $160... then he runs into my husband out on the street (he apparently knows his name... probably from the neighbors... since the house we live in is technically in his father's name)... he warns him that if he doesn't pay up, he’ll be filing a report with the court... and then just leaves his cell number. He didn't leave any official paperwork or even show an ID (which, according to the rules, he's required to do >)... and he didn't see a TV or a radio or anything. Honestly, we've had enough, and I suspect someone actually reported us, because how else would he know my husband's name? So, we decided to take matters into our own hands and file a report OURSELVES online... and that's where the mess really started. In the report, we stated that we just got a used TV to use starting January 15th, 2014, and until then, we haven't owned any kind of receiver, and that we're legally required to report it within 30 days... February 8th, 2014... then on the 10th, we get an email saying the inspector is coming back to file a report for a TV. I sent a text to his cell saying we already filed ourselves starting Jan 15th, but he just says it's invalid because we have to pay the fine... February 22nd, 2014, the same inspector shows up again. I sit him down right in front of the house and tell my daughter to call her dad, and he tells me he saw him nearby and that he was the one who sent him (he even knows my name)... I ask him why our self-report isn't valid when I already did it online along with my grandfather... he claims we were caught committing a violation—that we have to pay the penalty $160... I told him, what violation? We reported it within the 30-day window allowed by law, so how did you even determine this? Do you think we have a radio in the car? We don't even have a car; it's a used one with three different owners... A computer? We don't have one, sir, nothing at all except this TV from Jan 15th... and we reported it within the 30 days. I asked if he was going to put the fee under my name, and I reminded him my husband already registered the TV using his Social Security number (even though on paper he doesn't even have one)... he just says he's taking this to court. I told him, go right ahead, my husband is unemployed and will gladly respond to a summons, but we aren't in any violation here—you are. This feels like straight-up extortion. Now we're just waiting to see what happens next. Does anyone have any advice... or should we just wait for the legal firm to start their process?
mistybear10 mistybear10 Member
13 messages
joined Nov 2015
#136 ·
I really tried my best to actually make sense of this! 😬

Sent from iPhone using Twitter
Sam Ramos85 Sam Ramos85 Active Member
55 messages
joined Oct 2012
#137 ·
If you handle everything through the website, there’s absolutely no reason for some collector to show up at your doorstep...

What is wrong with you people? Seriously, everyone here seems so incredibly gullible, almost like you're living under a North Korean regime where you just sign whatever garbage gets shoved in your face... I mean, honestly.

When one of those rude collection agents showed up at my house, I told him straight up that if he didn't get off my porch immediately, I was calling 911. On top of that, I sent a formal complaint to Chase Bank stating I'd be filing a lawsuit for harassment.
Chloe Chavez Chloe Chavez Newcomer
2 messages
joined Feb 2014
#138 ·
My own experience:
I officially canceled following all the "rules": got a notarized statement and sent it off via certified mail.

They didn't bother me until I registered someone else's residency at my address with the Department of Homeland Security. That person doesn't actually live with me; it was just some bureaucratic nonsense that has nothing to do with this situation... IMPORTANT: Nobody except me, the person I registered, and the DHS agent knows that anyone else is even listed at my address!!!!

About ten days after that filing with the DHS, two agents from PBS show up at my door. They claim that because xy (the person I registered) is listed at my address, neither they nor anyone else in the apartment is paying their TV license fee.

I just shut the door. End of story.


The only way those people (PBS) could possibly know the name of the person I registered—or that I'd even added someone to my household—is if they got that info directly from the Department of Homeland Security.

I'm thinking about starting a non-profit just so I can launch a petition to scrap the mandatory TV fee and stop the government from funding PBS through the US budget... anything to avoid being forced to pay. 😁
Elizabeth Price2 Elizabeth Price2 Active Member
66 messages
joined Feb 2006
#139 ·
Honestly, you shouldn't have just slammed the door in their faces right away! You should've stood your ground first—told them straight up that they had no legal right to access that data and demanded their info so you could actually file a lawsuit in court. I'm dying to know if they would've kept breathing down your neck after that.

Oh, and by the way—I finally took my last name off my apartment door today and swapped it out for "Hanžeković" 🤣
wiredstag6 wiredstag6 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Feb 2014
#140 ·
Hey everyone.

So, here’s the deal. A few years back, my parents actually had a TV set registered with the AFL-CIO, but they eventually filed the paperwork to deregister it—using their own forms, though they never got any confirmation back. Fast forward to around October, and they show up at our place just to nag my mom about it. She calmly explained that we don't even own a receiver, but sure enough, about two weeks later, a bill from $80 lands on the doorstep. Since we didn't have any paper trail proving we’d cancelled the registration earlier, we just bit the bullet and paid those $80 to make it go away, and then immediately filed the cancellation again at the end of October.
Now, we were expecting the bills for the next six months to arrive, and since we thought the cancellation was handled, we figured that was the end of it. But then, out of nowhere, we get this notice for unpaid fees from the first two months (November and December). It isn't some scary legal summons before a lawsuit or anything; it's more of a "hey, pay these two installments plus some late interest" kind of vibe.

What’s the move here? Honestly, I think our first mistake was even paying that initial $80, but at least now I finally have a return receipt as proof that we officially notified the authorities that we don't have a receiver. Should I try calling them or sending a formal letter to get an explanation?

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads