Here’s an article about how AT&T has started enforcing their bandwidth caps. One roach across the kitchen counter doesn’t show all of those that live behind the walls either.
Why are you focusing on convictions? You asked about people who have had their bandwidth cap ‘enforced’. That would usually involve some warnings from the company and then being dropped as a customer (the warning phone call has happened to me, and other people I know). Thus the major risk of having freeloaders on your wireless is that you might lose service as a consequence of going over bandwidth, not that you might be charged with a crime. Now you only want to know about the people who were convicted? Sure, that’s the worst case scenario, but being hassled by the company because of your moochy neighbour is annoying too.
All right, so historically they haven’t enforced their caps. I’m sure al recognizes the fact that a company can change their policies for future violations.
So, going back closer to the OP’s original statements. Say, your neighbor has an unprotected wifi and a contract with one of these places that lets the service run over limits and just starts charging you extra. The neighbor only emails, so has never had an over limit charge.
You move in, see the ‘free service’ hook up and start watching netflix day and night in between gaming. Suddenly, the neighbor’s $39.95 bill jumps to $800. It takes them two months to track down the user (so you’re racked up $1600 on the neighbor’s bill - local authorities left the wifi open so they could get your device identification and document usage patterns).
So, should you be criminally charged for theft of services? There was no password, right? Should you be charged under the Federal Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 for unauthorized access?
Should you have to pay the attorney fees if the neighbor has to sue you in court to force you to pay her bill? What if you’re broke and can’t pay the bill and now she no longer has communications with her kitty-cat club, her only connection to the outside world, because they’ve terminated her service for non-payment.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Comparing stealing cable to using someone’s open Wifi is just ridiculous. One is easily catchable and provable, because it requires a physical connection. The other is neither easily catchable or provable, although it can be done.
Comparing cell network data to hardwired data is even more ridiculous. The iPhone crashed AT&T’s network 5 years ago when it came out, and now ALL the major providers struggle to keep up with smartphone data usage. In fact, this is one of the main reasons we’re even having this discussion. Smartphones and tablets automatically use unprotected wifi unless you set them not to. This is because the manufacturers are in league with the cell providers. The cell networks are strained already. Take away the automatic usage of unprotected wifi, and it would be way worse in urban areas, where the problem is worst anyway.
Did you notice the contract mentioned termination of service, but specifically didn’t mention extra charges? So I was right about that, and you are wrong, by the very link that you posted. They would get sued. Dude, TV and internet providers are CONSTANTLY getting sued, every time they raise their prices. I know this because I’ve seen every TV and internet provider I’ve worked for get sued multiple times, every time their packages increase in price. AT&T got sued over data plan pricing, Dish got sued over their main packages going up in price, etc. etc..
To be honest, the lawsuits are a given. They just happen no matter what. The only issue is how big the settlement ends up being.
Don’t tell me to ‘never say never’. Dude, I work in this industry. I can provide links for everything I claim. Por favor.
The onus is on the freeloader to not overdo it with the data usage. I personally password protect every network I maintain, no matter what. I even setup my parents with a password on their wifi, which is pointless, considering that they live over 100 yards from their nearest neighbor, and all their neighbors are old country folk, who can barely even surf the net, if they get online at all.
We’re not talking about the wifi owner’s position, though. We’re talking about the freeloader’s job, which is to use without overusing.
This won’t happen on a hard-wired connection. The ISP would warn the customer before they’d jack up their bill, and any increase would probably only be 50 or 100 bucks at most. Even that’s hypothetical. Slowdowns are more likely, or just termination.
On a wireless 3G/4G connection, this could happen. Sprint’s 4G service, a.k.a. WiMax, is totally unlimited, so this wouldn’t happen with them. Verizon and the others don’t offer unlimited cell data plans anymore to new customers, so this could theoretically happen to one of their customers.
It would be a rare situation, though.
That’s outside this discussion, though, because we are talking about the freeloader’s responsibility, not the Wifi owner’s responsibility.
Apparently I can:
Thanks for the “inside industry” knowledge.
Hell, just execute 'em. Kill the Wifi thieves!
No, can’t claim that one.
Slowdowns and terminations on hard-wired connections are very, very rare. They tend to produce class-action lawsuits, which are expensive, and PR nightmares, which are ALSO expensive.
Pissing off customers is rarely a good idea. It costs money, big money.
Look, your knowledge of this is all secondhand at best. Why not just let the whole thing go? Are you really this invested in a subject that you have no real-world experience with? If so, why?
So you proved my claim in a really extraordinarily dumb way. And my “secondhand knowledge” has been backed up by proof whereas your claims that you “work in the industry” suddenly hold water? Keep diggin’ bud.
Actually, the theft often goes unnoticed. Once noticed, the device is easily identifiable and, if active, easily locatable. The place where damaged plaintiffs loose their case (either civil or criminal) is because they fail to document it sufficiently to prevail in court. Just because the people involved fail to do it from in-experience, doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible or even that it’s particularly hard to prove.
Your statement was that cable and DSL won’t enforce contracts for fear of loosing customers. My statement was that there are only limited options, if both enforce it, where will customers go? To slower, more expensive cell based services?
Dude - just because a device is configured to hop onto an open link, does not make the unauthorized use of a private wifi link legal. What, r u like 15 or something? I bet you run windows loaded off the CD with all the default configurations too.
My original statement was that they could “kill (or bill) the subscriber for an open connection” - So, no I was not wrong. They can terminate the service at any time without notice. They would not loose a law suit. I’ll give you that they can’t just bill for an open wifi connection, but they can AND DO bill for bandwidth overages.
Post [del]three[/del] two law suits brought against service providers for termination of subscriber services as a result of subscriber contract violations. (Ideally, at least one where the subscriber actually won their case).
What? Talk about moving the goalposts. You were insistent that there was no such thing as a bandwidth cap and no consequences for exceeding bandwidth, and now you suddenly switch to saying that slowdowns, termination of service, and increased bills are common. But now you want to change the argument to ‘the freeloader should be polite and not take too much’. That’s almost entirely off topic.
Also, I’d like some kind of cite for this fascinating piece of insider information from someone oh-so-involved in the trade:
In the absence of strong “wireless signal home invasion” laws, conscientious homeowners and renters are advised to wear protective headgear at all times. Reynold’s Wrap Heavy Duty, not that cheap store brand shit.
Apparently a carry-over from the breaking and entry laws where if the perp is polite and doesn’t take much, he gets off without a conviction.
But, be sure that you contract with an industry insider for proper installation and fit. Otherwise, you’re just inviting me to blast you with my radio waves.
Plenty of interesting posts here. Just none from the aggressively stupid al27052, who seems to adopt the teenager-style attitude that if you can get away with something and nobody really notices, that’s all the justification you need.
Your iPad won’t automatically connect to an access point unless it has been connected before. If it detects an unknown WiFi signal it will ask to join, but it won’t connect unless you tell it to.