Q:Several people I know have purchased a vSeeBox. While the box seems to be a good purchase, I am curious to learn how the box can air programs that are from pay channels without paying or stations outside of the Pittsburgh viewing market. The people made a one-time payment for the box, which allows them to cancel their subscription with their cable provider.
I appreciate any insight you may have.
— Dave, Washington, Pa.
Rob: File this one under, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.”
The vSeeBox (similar devices are marketed as SuperBox) promises that “users are provided with a pre-installed media box that features live channels more for streaming, without a monthly or yearly subscription package.”
That gets us to the murky gray area of these devices: It’s legal to own one, but it is illegal to stream for free copyrighted programming that is part of a subscription that has a fee (e.g. any cable network or streaming service).
Another sign of how sketchy this whole thing is: One website, vseeboxtv.com, sells boxes for $359-$389 each and says, “Just purchase the vSeeBox and enjoy all the contents. No subscription required. No hidden fees or installation appointments or equipment rentals. Get unlimited access to 2,000 National, Local, News and Top-rated US channels, with Canadian and Latino Channels. Get unlimited access to full seasons of tv series, current episodes, hit movies, kids shows, and more. Thousands of events from NFL, MLB, NBA, NFL, together with regional sports channels, even with pay-per-view UFC, racing events, and more. All included.”
On its face, that makes no sense: A “pay-per-view” program can’t be included because it is, by definition, an added charge administered per program.
But that same website also notes, “If you are accessing digital channels without paying for the same, you will have to confront the legal department since streaming anything without having a subscription is a crime.”
It appears the box can be used to subscribe to streaming services legitimately or used to access apps that offer pirated streams, particularly “Heat apps.”
On Reddit forums, some praise the vSeeBox, while others caution about malware and scams.
“My mom got herself into this stuff. … They work for a little while then asked for more money, then steal card information and get into every account you could have put onto the thing,” wrote one Reddit user.
TheDailyDot.com noted, “It is difficult to find reliable sources about how the vSeeBox functions since a lot of its features people boast about (like streaming live cable without paying for it) are illegal.”
Q: I just read that the CBS fall schedule will include the new “NCIS: New York.” “NCIS: Sydney” will be pushed back to mid-season as a result. That begs the question, how is “NCIS: Sydney” doing in the ratings compared to “NCIS” and “NCIS: Origins”? Does it cost more to produce than “NCIS” and “NCIS: Origins”?
— Jeff, Baldwin
Rob: I don’t have access to financials for any prime-time series, but given that “NCIS: Sydney” is a foreign production, odds are it costs significantly less to produce than American-made “NCIS” and “NCIS: Origins.” Foreign shows typically have lower budgets and that’s likely what saves “Sydney” despite its lower ratings.
Season-to-date, “Sydney” is the lowest rated of the three “NCIS” series, drawing an average of 2.7 million linear viewers (and a .15 demo rating), while “Origins” draws 3.8 million viewers on average (and a .23 demo rating). Original “NCIS” remains the most popular of the “NCIS”-verse shows with an average 5.3 million linear viewers (and a.35 demo rating).
Q: We have a few shows we watch on cable regularly, and when we miss an episode, we’ve been able to use Verizon on demand to catch up. Recently, there have been some problems with this. Our primary experiences with “Ghosts” and “Matlock,” with episodes not showing up on the list or being marked as a pay-per-view episode. We’re behind on both shows because we haven’t been able to catch up with episodes we missed.
I assume that this is happening in other places on Verizon FiOS. What’s up?
— Chuck via email
Rob: This is a mistake Verizon has made before, where it attempts to charge for series that should be free via on demand in the first week after their linear debut.
Other readers also contacted me, so it was clearly not isolated to Chuck. I brought the matter to Verizon’s attention and their spokeswoman refused to provide an explanatory response. My best guess is it was a coding error. Per Chuck, “They said that this was a programming glitch. The implication was that they were doing normal system work and this error crept in.”
The issue for viewers is when mistakes like this happen, if it takes the cable provider too long to fix the error, then the shows are no longer free and do become on-demand titles with a fee.