DISQUS

David McElroy · 2 years ago

If you don't want people to share your WiFi connection, don't leave it open. How difficult is that simple rule? If you are opening your connection in such a way that it is free and clear to anybody from outside your property, I can't see how anybody can be faulted for using the signal. If these so-called poachers had to encroach on your private property to use the signal, it would be different, but if you're putting a signal out there onto public air waves that's open for the world to use, it's fair for the taking, IMO. Laws that try to criminalize this make no more sense than laws that might try to criminalize using light that falls from a floodlight on private property.

Michael Masnick · 2 years ago

Adam, it seems that your scenario in which there's harm done to the business models of the carriers is highly speculative. There are very, very few cases where people are setting up neighborhood collectives and ditching their own providers. In fact, there are some serious costs to doing so. What if the network goes down or the router needs to be reset and the person who owns the router isn't home?

Besides the crux of your argument that this sort of thing would harm the business models of broadband providers doesn't ring true either. You could just as easily say that Verizon is harming the business model of Cox in your neighborhood... since without Verizon, Cox would have probably twice the users.

If people *choose* not to buy service from a provider, that's a marketing problem for the provider. It is not a "harm" that needs to be protected.

So, no, I still don't see where there's harm. I only see marketing challenges for the providers -- which is quite a different thing. You would never suggest that Verizon be blocked because it harms Cox, right? So why are you suggesting that people sharing WiFi harms Cox? It's effectively the same exact thing.

Lewis Baumstark · 2 years ago

I find it difficult to believe piggybacking is theft-of-service, provided the paying customer is ok with the piggybacking. It may be (and probably is) a breach-of-contract with the ISP, but not theft in any reasonable sense of the word.

Adam Thierer · 2 years ago

Mike... You correctly note that "There are very, very few cases where people are setting up neighborhood collectives and ditching their own providers." That's true, and I'm not sure there ever will be formal collective approaches for some of the reasons you mention. However, we won’t know for a few years until next-gen wireless networking technologies are more widely distributed in homes. Mass wi-fi sharing is simply not feasible with today’s 802 B & G standard equipment and their limit signal range.

Regardless, the point of my essay was that (a) if the technology is up to speed (or range) and (b) enough people decide to share instead of buy, then I do think there is a harm worth considering. Now, it could be the case that this is just a new type of “marketing challenges for the providers” that they will respond to using new business models and pricing plans, which is why I spent time talking about metered billing above. I really do think that's the sensible solution. (To be clear, what I think would be most efficient is what economists call a "Ramsey two-part tariff" that would involve a flat fee for service up to a certain level and then a per-unit / metered fee over a certain level:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_part_tariff)

Regardless, I still feel there may be cases of unauthorized use that, on occasion, require a legal remedy. Let me ask you how you feel about a classic example of harmful network sharing that already has been litigated.

In the field of cable television, many consumers use splitters to redirect cable lines all around their house. No problem there, of course, because it's personal use and you paid for the line into the home. But there have been cases involving homeowners splitting their cable and then sharing it with many homes in the vicinity or with an entire apartment complex, for example. The rise of digital signals and digital set-top boxes has alleviated this problem to some extent. In the old analog days, however, it was more difficult to combat such signal theft and that sometimes meant that the cable provider had to take legal action against the person splitting and sharing the signal with others since it was a clear violation of contract / terms of service.

Would it be your position that there was no harm in that case or, if there was, that the industry just needed to "find a better business model"? Stated differently, is there EVER a time when you feel that a service provider should be able to enforce the terms of service / contract against someone? Because it strikes me that this closely parallels the situation that may develop in the world of wireless networking in coming years. The vast majority of cases will not need to be litigated, but some might.

Tom · 2 years ago

In the field of cable television, many consumers use splitters to redirect cable lines all around their house. No problem there, of course, because it's personal use and you paid for the line into the home.

I'm pretty sure that some cable companies try to charge for each termination (even for analog). It's pretty dumb, but there it is.

You correctly note that "There are very, very few cases where people are setting up neighborhood collectives and ditching their own providers." That's true, and I'm not sure there ever will be formal collective approaches for some of the reasons you mention. However, we won’t know for a few years until next-gen wireless networking technologies are more widely distributed in homes. Mass wi-fi sharing is simply not feasible with today’s 802 B & G standard equipment and their limit signal range.

It's true that this hasn't really taken off yet, but it's completely feasible. Spend enough time on Slashdot and you'll hear plenty of folks talking about how they got their neighbors together and purchased T1 service. It does require some technical know-how, but a $50 router loaded with open-source firmware can operate as a top-notch wifi repeater. I set one up this weekend, in fact -- it works great for spreading my girlfriend's neighbor's otherwise-hard-to-get signal throughout her apartment. She'll be giving the neighbor ten bucks or so a month, and he doesn't need to do anything besides share his WEP key -- not even allow the router to be placed in his house. $50-100 per household is not a very big infrastructure investment for setting up a connection sharing arrangement. If only one router is required, it'll actually end up being cheaper than the hardware required by an individual hookup.

Of course the other reason you haven't heard about these assuredly-extant arrangements -- besides the technical knowledge currently required -- is the previously mentioned fact that sharing a connection violates most ISPs terms of service. But I don't think this is very compelling: SpeakEasy, a DSL reseller with a heavy focus on customer service, specifically allows and even encourages this sort of arrangement. Users pay a slight premium for SpeakEasy service ($5 or $10/month), but it seems to be a sustainable business model.

Unfortunately, getting SpeakEasy installed tends to be a huge PITA due to their reliance on ILECs for part of the installation process.

I say it so often that I hesitate to repeat it, but I think the answer is metered bandwidth. Until users have an obvious incentive to examine whether they want to share their connections or not, they won't think about this seriously (and until the miniscule cost of piggybacking is made obvious, the courts will treat it much *too* seriously).

Aside from that, routers that ship with encryption enabled would help (the unit's serial number makes a handy default key). It also wouldn't kill router manufacturers to spend a little more time on their firmware in general. There's no reason why I shouldn't be able to get an email whenever a new MAC address shows up on my network, with links allowing me to allow or deny access.

Jerry Brito · 2 years ago

Coase Theorem, Adam. What's the least costly way of dealing with harm to the consumer? Expecting people to lock down their networks or arresting people for piggybacking? What's the least costly way of dealing with harm to the network provider? A term in their contract with their customer requiring network lock or arresting people?

Adam Thierer · 2 years ago

Jerry, I thought I made it perfectly clear above that "I don't think jail time is appropriate" for this problem and that using consumer education, innovative billing menthods, new business models was preferable. But, as you suggest, contractual enforcement may come into play as well. How would you suggest that the terms of service be enforced? I don't think people should be arrested, but I don't have any problem with some of them being sued for egregiously violating the terms of service.

Adam Thierer · 2 years ago

I want to second two things that Tom said above in his comment. Obviously, I wholeheartedly agree with his argument that "the answer is metered bandwidth. Until users have an obvious incentive to examine whether they want to share their connections or not, they won't think about this seriously." That is exactly right.

Second, I agree "routers that ship with encryption enabled would help.." and that "It also wouldn't kill router manufacturers to spend a little more time on their firmware in general." Even though many of us here now how to configure our networks and devices, this stuff can be quite challenging for many consumers. They could use some help and things like this--plus some help from their broadband providers--would go a long way toward solving this problem. Hell, sometimes even I get lost in world of wi-fi acronym hell (MACs, SSIDs, DHCP, WPA, WEP, etc).

eric · 2 years ago

When Jesus and his disciples were walking through a field on the Sabbath day, they were hungry and they took a little of the grain from the plants to eat. Interestingly, the Pharisees did not accuse them of theft, but of working on the Sabbath.

It is a principle of Old Testament law (and judging by Christ's actions, He had not problem with it) that incidental taking of a small amount of your neighbor's abundantly available "stuff" (we're not talking about inside another person's dwelling here) is a principle of good neighborliness and a liberal (in the best sense of that word) society. If the discliples had harvested a bushel or two, that would be wrong.

I conclude that allowing passersby or even neighbors to make light use of your WiFi connection is the Christian thing to do.

Tom · 2 years ago

While I'm thinking of it, let me plug the La Fonera project, which supplies cheap routers to users that are preconfigured for sharing -- you can set bandwidth caps, whitelist certain sites, or even charge for sharing your connection. The routers provide two SSIDs -- one for public use and another unthrottled, unencrypted one for your own use. I've got one running and have been pleased with it (although admittedly it doesn't serve my primary SSID, so I wouldn't notice right away if it went down).

Laurel Lee · 2 years ago

Maybe the wifi piggybacking problem works out like this.

The trespasser is not the person who accesses wifi while off the property of the subscriber. The trespasser is the subscriber who buys more service than his property can contain. Like most wrongdoers, he thinks a good offense is the best defense.

The offensive defense serves the interest of wifi providers because it saves them the overhead of tailor-making their product to the dimensions of the property of each subscriber.

The closest parallel in legal precedents occurred when citizen band radios became popular and there was an upsurge in ham radio operators. Transmissions from one property interfered with television reception at neighboring properties. Legal experts did not blame the victim that time around. They acknowledged who really trespassed on whom and protected the reception rights of neighbors.

Another analogy is the person who throws money out the window of a speeding car. Come on. The person who picks up the money has committed no wrong. The tosser deliberately or carelessly contributed a part of his wealth to the public domain. The public scarfed up what it could.

gtzlkjrn bxwpmtr · 2 years ago

tanbw hskfvj lesndx qogsewhdk xkqpcmyal qrwidbgx nzuqjv

trademark registration · 2 years ago

If you live in New York, you know this is a very common practice, since everyone in the apartment building is so close together. I don't think it's a big deal, personally.