Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:19:41 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080619/0934321457.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080619/0934321457.shtml question of whether or not piggybacking on an open WiFi network was a crime. Since then, we've seen plenty of people arrested, and wide ranging discussions on the ethics of WiFi piggybacking -- with various ethicists noting that simply using an open WiFi network doesn't seem unethical, assuming you don't significantly slow down the connection by uploading or downloading large files. However, we still see people falsely referring to it as "theft".

The latest comes in a short column for Time Magazine, where the author admits that he was a WiFi "thief" for many years in his old apartment. In the article, he claims that it is against the law, noting one of the stories of someone being arrested, while quoting Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47 of the United States Code, which deals with anybody who "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access." Well, that sounds good, but there's a big problem with it. If the owner of the WiFi access point left it open, then they have, by default, authorized access to that device. So it can't possibly be a violation of that law.

Of course, there will be those who say that the owners didn't intend for the network to be open -- but that's really besides the point here. The only information a user has is does the network say: "you're welcome here" or not. If it's open, it sends out an invite that specifically says: this network is open, come use it. That's authorization, and using such a network is not "theft" in any sense.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> is-it-really-a-crime? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080619/0934321457 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 07:27:00 PDT Timothy Lee http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080320/172759602.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080320/172759602.shtml "steal" a neighbor's open wireless connection (found via Slashdot). The legislator claims that his goal in passing this legislation is to "clarify intentional theft vs. accidental use." Amazingly, someone in the Maryland government actually has some common sense. The state's public defender's office filed a statement making the same point that we've been making for years: "A more effective way to prevent unauthorized access would be for owners' (sic) to secure their wireless networks with assistance where necessary from Internet service providers or Vendors." Aside from the typo, we couldn't have put it better ourselves. They also point out that it won't always be easy to know if a particular user's usage of a wireless network is "intentional" or not because many non-technical users have no idea which network their computers are contacting. And, of course, some people leave their WiFi connections open on purpose. It seems better to err on the side of caution and not threaten people with multi-year jail terms for something that's basically harmless. The police certainly have more important things to be worrying about.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> we're-shocked http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080320/172759602 Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:32:00 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/194749.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070911/194749.shtml piggybacking on WiFi has real costs and that metered broadband would solve many of the problems by convincing access point owners to secure their broadband. This seemed like an odd argument -- adding a significant cost as a method of signaling that there was, in a few very specific circumstances, a tiny little marginal cost associated with some WiFi piggybacking. The second thing thing that's given new life to the metered broadband argument is the sudden reappearance of stories about Comcast's unpublished usage caps. This is an old, old story that's been talked about for many years, but pops up every now and again. Basically, Comcast (and some other ISPs) will cut off certain customers who are using too much bandwidth. The real problem, honestly, isn't that Comcast is cutting off these users, but that they're not at all transparent about it. The services are promoted as "unlimited" and then the usage caps are kept a secret... until you've been kicked off.

Anyway, with the latest barrage of stories about these usage caps, it's common for those supporting ISPs to blame the concept of flat-rate pricing, because it only opens up an opportunity for people to abuse the system. That, inevitably, leads to a discussion about bringing back metered broadband offerings (which are found around the world, but rarely in the US). This is a bad idea for a variety of reasons. First of all, most of these problems would go away if the ISPs in question were more open about their caps. However, much more importantly, if you want to encourage innovation online, it's important to leave flat-rate pricing in place. The second you set up metered broadband, it adds significant transaction costs for both the ISPs and anyone trying to do anything or try anything online. For ISPs, they now have to put in place significantly more tracking equipment and then need to manage the various different levels of service, differential billing and more customer service costs in dealing with customer confusion (or anger if a bill seems too high).

However, the bigger problem is the transaction costs it introduces for users. Suddenly, internet surfers really need to see any particular website or service as being worthwhile. Just the act of making them debate whether or not it's worthwhile to pay up to do something represents a mental transaction cost that will slow down adoption of new services. Furthermore, as bandwidth has increased, many of the newer innovative services have come about to make use of that bandwidth -- which only drives further investment in more bandwidth, driving more innovative uses. It's a virtuous circle. Yet, by metering broadband connections, slowing down adoption of these new services, you slow down the innovation and hold people back from trying out or even creating new, innovative and useful services that would require more bandwidth. It's a recipe for slowing innovation online.

While an executive for the CTIA says that flat-rate pricing only made sense when the internet was first getting off the ground, that represents a false belief that innovation on the internet has slowed down and the internet is now somehow "mature." Instead, internet innovation has been increasing as new apps and services are built on top of older apps and services, leading to greater and greater innovation. If the CTIA exec gets his way and convinces providers to move more to metered bandwidth, then his belief that the internet has plateaued may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it'll undoubtedly slow the pace of innovation online. Imagine, for example, that metered bandwidth was common when YouTube first hit the scene? It would absolutely have slowed adoption, because video uses quite a bit of bandwidth and people would have been a lot less likely to test it out. In fact, the same could be said for any kind of non-text multimedia. Podcasts? Why waste that bandwidth? Streaming radio? iTunes would also be more expensive, as every download doesn't just cost $0.99, but your metered bandwidth charge. If you look at history of innovative services, you'll see they tend to move more and more towards flat rate offerings, as it encourages usage and encourages innovation. Phone service and mobile phone service have both trended in exactly this direction -- and in both cases it's because it's opened up a much larger overall market, even if it means less per customer. So, why are we suddenly trying to go the other way with broadband?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> how-to-slow-internet-innovation http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070911/194749