How The Ohio Cable Modem Uncappers Fared

from the a-little-perspective-please dept

Dave writes in with a link following up on a story from last year about some Ohio residents who found themselves facing federal crimes prosecution for simply uncapping their cable modems. The details of the story were sickening. While you can understand why a cable company might get annoyed at someone for uncapping their cable modem to allow for faster speeds - at most you'd expect a warning letter or (worst case) cutting off the service. Instead, this cable company happened to "estimate" damages of over $11,000 a person (with no justification). It just so happens that was the level needed to get the FBI interested - so suddenly these folks who wanted a little more bandwidth found themselves facing federal charges. In a followup to the story, it was noted that the cable company was coming down particularly hard on a lawyer they didn't like due to some of his actions as a local prosecutor. So now, a year later, Broadband Reports has written up a followup to look at what happened to all of the accused uncappers. Most of them settled, paying thousands of dollars in fines and agreeing to community service. Some cases were dropped outright. The lawyer, though, went to court - and won. It turned out that the terms of service from the cable company didn't actually say you couldn't uncap your modem. No matter what the result, it's still disturbing to see the FBI getting involved with some people who just wanted faster internet connections.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Ed Halley, 26 Sep 2003 @ 10:11am

    No Subject Given

    This is where you wish you could retroactively point out a Class for class action-- why were all of these cases were judged and decided so inconsistently? Solely on the ability of the defendant to defend. Those convicted or who settled should (but likely won't) look to appeal.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      anon, 26 Sep 2003 @ 5:25pm

      Re: No Subject Given

      "Those convicted or who settled should (but likely won't) look to appeal"

      I am sure the Settledment deal had it a clause thay would not let them sue the cable company ever again, even if the CEO came over and f'ed them in the ass, as they do every time they send you your cable bill

      link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.