that possession alone is not a violation of 47 U.S.C. §§ 553(a)(1) and 605(a). Rather, Noferi contends that “a violation occurs only when a person intercepts or receives or assists in intercepting, not when a person purchases or possesses.” Mem. of Law in Supp. of Summ. J. [Doc. # 34] at 3. Section 553(a)(1) provides that “[n]o person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communication services offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.” Section 522 of Title 47 defines specific terms used within section 553(a)(1). It is undisputed that Noferi is a “person” as defined by section 522(15) and that Cablevision is a “cable operator” that , 469 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). In Sykes, the Second Circuit has held that
holding that cable television programming transmitted over a cable network is not a radio communication as defined in  153b and thus its unlawful interception must be prosecuted under  553a and not  605 holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance holding that state of new jersey is not a person under  1983 and thus not amendable to suit under that statute holding that the conduct complained of must be an unlawful employment practice under title vii holding that when a term is defined in the statute it need not be further alleged in the indictment