Broadband Tech > Wireless Networking > theft!

theft!

not theft

reply to CadesDaddy

Re: theft!

Leebee
collaboration = theft - guilty party = owner of acct.
leaching = theft - guilty party = the leach

of course depends on TOS, if ISP dumb enough to allow it, so be it - I would be all for collaboration. If they don't allow it, then it's theft and no argument exists.

reply to CadesDaddy
I disagree somewhat - if you and a neighbour sit and watch cable PPV tv and you've collaborated to pay only once, is that theft? If you decide in winter months to live together to save heating costs, is that theft?

If the product in question was more competitively priced, would this situation exist? It strikes me as a benefit of the free market economy we all love. TOS certainly I assume would more likely forbid reselling of bandwidth, not neighbours sharing.

Certainly leeching (»dictionary.reference.com/search?q=leeching -vs- »dictionary.reference.com/search?q=leaching) is questionable; after all, is the leechee (if you can be called this) as responsible as the leecher for this? The whole licence-to-be-connected issue has been debated re. wireless/spyware/etc - should the victim be forced to be qualified before running wireless and connecting to the internet?

Blame, educations, standards are just some of the many elements of this discussion.

I have to say I agree. If you live together or watch a movie together, you are in the same unit. If you share broadband via wireless with your neighbor, you are stealing. Taking your notebook over to his place and hooking up is one thing. Being on it 24/7 is another.

reply to CadesDaddy
No, its not theft. If the ISP's want to keep this from happening, then offer the service cheaper or offer package plans. Simply put, its not theft.

reply to CadesDaddy
You're most likely a shill. Anyway, if I can develop my own infrastructure and avoid paying a technician, that's just too bad. Same as if I can fix my own pipes (and I can) and avoid paying a plumber. No theft involved.

It's not even theft if the ISP doesn't allow it; it's breach of contract at worst.

Anyway, if you believed that crap about your low pay having to do with stealing cable service, you're a sucker who deserved it. Lies. All lies. Cable theft is merely an irritant for the industry, not a major cost. Most of the money goes to your bosses and the politicians who granted them franchises.

reply to CadesDaddy
CadesDaddy = Ignorant and unable to understand. Apparently my reply went right over his head. My bottom line is I do not consider it theft since I am paying for the bandwidth and can do as I please with it. Not worth debating or even responding to a second time.

reply to CadesDaddy
It's not theft if the TOS allows it. It is theft if the TOS specifically identifies it as such. Simple as that.

My DSL ISP (sonic.net) allows (even promotes) wireless "hotspots" at the customer end.

Here's how it is not theft. You pay XX dollars for a pipe of bits. You can pull exactly a bits out of the pipe, and push b bits into it. The ISP does not know and should not give a rats' behind if a = a' + a'' and b = b' + b'' where a/b' are from you, and a/b'' are from someone you knowingly allow to use your pipe. You paid for the pipe, you can do whatever you want with it (as long as it is legal...) There is never any way to pull or push more bits, since the ISP controls that.

Here's how it is theft. If the ISP says you cannot share it, hey presto it's theft.

So, read your TOS, and if you want to do this kind of thing, find a broadband ISP that allows it.

reply to CadesDaddy
troll!

reply to DrToca
DtToca's resposne is ridiculous and more than a tad immature. Selling a product for a price you may or may not deem to be too expensive does not authorise you to then walk away with said product without paying for it.

That's like telling a grocer, for example, his apples are too expensive so you're just going to buy one box and then help yourself to a second because they're too expensive.

You're not applying logic to your argument. If something is too expensive, don't get it. It doesn't warrant theft.

As regards whether this is ACTUALLY theft or not, JohnInSJ has hit the nail right on the head. We all operate in a commerical context under (at least) the law of contract and consideration. When you purchase a service from a supplier you do so under a contract whose terms dictate what you can and cannot do with that service. Accordingly whether you can or cannot share bandwidth will be stated, and if not it can either be implied by other terms in the contract or asked explicitly of the partner to the contract.

None of us operate above the law.

reply to CadesDaddy
Probably it's the cable companies that have convinced you of this with their Terms of Service.

However some ISP's specifically allow and encourage WiFi sharing of a landline connection. I use SpeakEasy which even offers a plan called NetShare. Under it, they allow me to act as a sort of subcontractor, offering WiFi to the neighborhood. Those customers can get service for $20/month and get 3 mailboxes, dialup on the road and the other extras. SpeakEasy handles the billing and credit card hassles and those aspects, and I get half of it, $10/month deducted against my bill.

If you are just plain dissatisfied with your pay scale for what you consider you skillset, why are you taking this out on people engaging in legal and contractually-agreed activity? I suggest you find a new employer or a new line of work.

reply to CadesDaddy
No, it's not Theft! Theft involves loss of physical property. This is another version of the MPAA / RIAA, or the software industry, arguing about intellectual property.

This is cheapness (the person leaching his neighbor's service) vs greed (the cable company).

If the leach causes his neighbor's bandwidth cap to be exceeded, and the service gets limited, then it's bandwidth theft. Theft from his neighbor, because his neighbor loses a portion of service, service that he pays for.

Maybe the leach is being cheap. The leach simply gets bandwidth, he doesn't get service. If the service goes down, he can't call the cable company and ask that they send a repairman (sometime next week, can you be at home next Tuesday afternoon?).

Maybe the leach is tired of the bundling. In order to get cable broadband, you pay for cable TV. Maybe the leach is tired of paying extra money for TV channels that run endless commercials. Maybe the broadband is overpriced anyway.

Or maybe it's just greed. Greed by the cable company, who says that if there are 100 homes in a neighborhood, 100 of them should be paying for service. Service that they will advertise as "unlimited", then place caps on.

Greed similar in nature to Microsoft, who decides that if there are 100 million computers in the world, and Windows isn't running on all 100 million, they're losing money. So they sell limited service versions of their product to the computer manufacturers, who install OEM Windows.

Someone buys a new computer with OEM Windows, uses it for a while, and decides to build a new computer, and turn this one into a Linux, or other non-Windows, experimental computer. Then he learns that he can't use his current copy of Windows on a new computer; he has to buy a new, overpriced, copy of Windows for the new computer, because the OEM Windows is only valid on the old computer.

Or greed like the RIAA, who sells you an overpriced CD, which you can only play on a single CD player, you can't copy it to your computer because that would be "theft". No, that's greed.

The cable companies are operating under a monopoly ("francise"), issued by the local government. They give us deceptive advertising, overpriced product, and poor service. Then they are concerned because some folks might leach service from somebody.

Give us honest advertising, fair pricing, and decent service. Then whine about leaches.

reply to CadesDaddy
Fortunately I live out in the sticks and can't get DSL or Cable. I have had wireless from a professional WISP and love the service! My neighbors wanted to get off dial-up, but couldn't justify the cost of equipment for the service (light users). So, I offered to share my service and formed a deal with my WISP. I provide any technical support after the signal enters my antenna. I also have a email hosting account allowing 25 mailboxes per house. My neighbors have broadband, my WISP makes another 120% in sales, and I get a reduced rate.
They were able to see the logic behind the setup. I don't know why some companies are ignoring the obvious.
But, I also feel, if the TOS says it isn't allowed, then, I say you would violate your contract if you shared. I just happen to be lucky that I can't get DSL or Cable.
--
Im not an electrical engineer, but I play one on TV.

reply to CadesDaddy
CadesDaddy and anonymoususer are obviously shills. But what most people don't understand is that there is logic and there is the law, and the law does not necessarily follow logic. The cable companies have managed to get "theft of service" laws which have nothing to do with logic, but which protect their service from being tapped or shared. They have developed a paranoid culture and business practices in which the customer is always suspected of trying to cheat (never mind the commercials touting their customer service orientation).

NetEffects has it right. The problem with cable is that their business model is inflexible and counterproductive. In the DSL world, SpeakEasy actually offered to collect billing from the neighbors on behalf of the customers who want to share their connection with neighbors. Many SpeakEasy customers (myself included) signed up with that provider because of its no nonsense terms of service, and stick around because after reading the TOS from other providers (especially cable!) it would be like going back to the dark ages to sign up with them. I don't share my connection with my neigbors but I do occasionally play with little servers and as long as I manage them correctly SpeakEasy stays out of my hair. There is more to life than downlink speed. I don't need 3Mbps down--I need reliable service and reasonable TOS. And, BTW, no constant cost increases that largely outpace inflation. I am in a Comcast cable monopoly zone, and sometimes I muse about not being dependent on the phone company's circuits. But I'm not about to sign up with Comcast for Internet access. Bad policies, bad attitude, bad pricing. It's only because of trees blocking the southern sky that I have not ditched them for TV yet, but after their latest rate increase I am severely tempted to invest into a mast for a dish.

Allowing a person access to your wireless network for use of internet is theft of service. It is just like stealing cable. I don't know if it's illegal though, the law might have not catched up to this detail, but I'm sure that if it becomes a problem then cable companies will push congress to enstate a law.

A person accessing my wireless network for use of internet might be reasonably considered theft of service if I didn't allow it. If I do allow it, it's at most breach of contract with my ISP -- and in my ISPs case, it's not even that.

Yes, the cable companies have gotten laws passed which (in their opinion) make just about everything theft -- for instance if you call to disconnect cable, and they don't do so, they call that "passive theft". But those laws don't apply to Internet service, so things aren't quite as silly there.

reply to claudeo

reply to russotto