“cable service” through a “cable system,” within the meaning of §§ 522(5), (6) and (7). Therefore, if Noferi intercepted or received or assisted in intercepting or receiving any unauthorized communications over Cablev-ision’s cable system, he violated section 553(a)(1). Section 605(a) provides that “[n]o person not entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit .... ” There is a split in the circuits on the issue of whether cable television programming falls within the definition of “communication by radio.” Compare Int’l Cablevision, Inc. v. Sykes, 75 F.3d 123 (2d Cir.1996) with TER Cable Co. v. Cable City Corp., 267 F.3d 196 (3d Cir.2001)(<HOLDING>)(emphasis added); and U.S. v. Norris, 88 F.3d
holding that   605 encompasses the interception of satellite transmissions to the extent reception occurs prior to or not in connection with distribution of service over a cable system and no more holding that a denial of entitlement to service connection is a factual determination that we may not review holding over holding that the commercial use requirement of section 1125c is virtually synonymous with the in connection with the sale offering for sale distribution or advertising of goods and services requirement of the lanham act holding that in light of the evidence it strains credulity to believe that the two corporations have no corporate connection as defendants assert and thus service on one did not effect service on the other