“Computer! Establish connection to unsecured network!”
“Are you quite certain…”
“God *damn *it, Siri, this is no time to be overcautious! My tweets are getting stale!”
Hmm.I’ll take your word for it. I thought it connected a few times automatically, but thinking back it is likely that I had previously permitted it.
So maybe I can get away with a few hours of public service?
I just wanted to address this little bit. Throttling cable or DSL accounts WAS IMPOSSIBLE for all practical purposes in the past. Newer equipment now has more mature Quality of Service (QOS) capabilities. Service providers had to upgrade their infrastructure for a variety of reasons (e.g. to support VoIP, to better isolate business from home subscribers, etc). This QOS service enables them to now claim data caps, track utilization on an end point basis (prior to that, an entire neighborhood would be just one big data blob) and implement point-specific throttling.
You’ll notice that the current data caps are extremely high right now. This limits the data collection on their part and lets them work out the kinks in automated response (data hogs know who they are and aren’t likely to squeal too loudly). Once the kinks are worked out (e.g. they’ve build up the server farm to support the data handling backend), then expect your bandwidth caps to be lowered and more aggressively enforced.
So, the lack of enforcement isn’t from some fear of class action law suits (after all, they alter your contract and by using the service you agree to the alteration), it’s because the technology hasn’t been there and hasn’t been quite mature enough to handle the volumes in the past.
I’ll just add that in Australia, most reasonably-priced plans all have data caps. You’re looking at anywhere from 5-500 GB per month, depending on how much you’re willing to spend.
It’s the only sensible approach for providers long-term.
The stupidity just gets deeper.
First, I was aping stupid libertarian arguments when I mentioned about someone’s wifi signal invading my home. Hilariously, many of you were dumb enough to think I meant it.
Second, I’ll be happy to post links to class action lawsuits against cable and internet providers. I really shouldn’t have to do that, though. Google works for everyone. These things end up in the news.
As far as data caps becoming more widely enforced, yeah right. If anything, data usage is becoming less expensive over time, not more so. As video quality gets more and more high-definition, we’ll see these issues continue to come up, but I doubt they’ll get any worse. Data transmission costs, video quality, and processor speeds are all increasing exponentially simultaneously. None of those is particularly lagging behind the others.
And none of you are actually addressing the ORIGINAL issue. The OP asked about the issues involved with light use of unprotected wifi in their home. Data caps and wifi laws have almost nothing to do with any of that.
But hey, internet assholery abounds, so feel free to argue points that don’t matter, just to pass the fucking time. I know you people will.
You shouldn’t take that idiot’s word for ANYTHING on this subject.
Pretty much all tablets and smartphones are shipped with the default setting to join unprotected networks AUTOMATICALLY. You have to change it manually if you don’t want it to do that.
Dumb shitheads here don’t know that, but hey, I don’t expect them to. If they had enough industry experience, the last thing they’d be doing is trolling around this thread, disagreeing with the most experienced person in the thread.
You’re convincing exactly zero people, dude. Why even keep arguing?
No, I never said there were no usage caps, I said that many providers don’t have them, and that enforcement is extremely rare.
And I didn’t say slowdowns or terminations or increased bills are common. I said that, in the rare cases of actual enforcement, slowdowns and terminations are the usual methods. THESE ARE RARE. Internet installers KNOW this. Why? Because customers think your job, in addition to running wire in their home and getting a good connection going, is also to listen to their complaints about YOUR company AND every other internet provider they’ve tried. Lots and lots of people complain about slow speeds or intermittent connections. Nobody ever complains about usage cap enforcement.
And what on earth are you talking about with the freeloader thing being off topic? That’s what the OP was about–the ins and outs of freeloading wifi.
I don’t even know what to say. Are you just not reading very thoroughly, or are you just bored and trolling?
If I’m measuring my knowledge of the subject by how many uninformed people disagree with me, I’m doing all right.
Whew. Thanks. I feel a little better now. I could swear my tablet had a signal somewhere where I’d never been before. Cancels Altzheimer Consult
Any tablet or other data-hog device that has the capability to use cell tower data automatically ships with this default setting. I imagine most devices that CAN’T use cell data still ship with this default. It’s common sense that this is so. People want to be connected to the internet, and the penalty for using free wifi is, for 99.9999% of users, totally nonexistent.
I don’t see why this is such a major big deal to fix. All the service providers around here require are another utility bill in your name and a lease to prove you aren’t the prior tenant signing up under a new name to stiff them on the bill again. You don’t need the cooperation of a third party, such as a landlord, to get service in your name. Go higher up the food chain to resolve this.
Actually, ignore al27052 and his “expert opinions”.
Here’s, according to Apple who happens to be a table manufacturer, how to connect to WiFi.
Your iPad does remember networks you’ve connected to before. If you don’t believe me, do the following:
To reset your network settings, tap Settings > General, then tap Reset > Reset Network Settings.
I just did that on my iPad and guess what, I had to choose a network.
Of course, al27052 is an expert on WiFi because he claims to have installed cable before. Or now. It’s hard to tell since he switches tenses.
And before he tries to claim something else, “most tablets” would be the iPad as it still has the Lion’s Share of 50% of the market.
He’s also an expert on all things including:
Acupuncture (a thread he abandoned instead of defending his position)
Or that he’s an expert in raw milk:
[QUOTE=al27052]
Yelling about germs in raw milk, an issue on which I’m well-versed
[/QUOTE]
He’s even got a habit of saying that another person is correct and then upon providing cites, he changes his mind. My favorite is when he said this:
[QUOTE=al27052]
But you don’t want those things. You want me to cite, and cite, and cite, and then you’ll just demand more and more cites, until I give up.** I play the game too, don’t worry.** But I’m not playing it with you, shitbrick.
[/QUOTE]
In other words, don’t trust his word even if Cecil Adams notorized his post.
It’s more like coming across a neighbors sprinkler, and standing on the sidewalk letting the water fall in your mouth. Would you consider that to be water theft?
The truth about the wifi is actually somewhere in-between. Yes, the iPhone or iPad will ask the FIRST time it detects a new network. HOWEVER, the reality is that many, many people have their networks set to “linksys” or some other default name. Usually these kind of networks are unprotected, and they make up the a large portion of the unprotected networks out there.
So in reality, once you’ve joined one unprotected network with a particular default name, your device will automatically join ANY unprotected network with the same name. Forever, unless you change the default setting.
In practice this means that, after you’ve joined a few networks with the most common default names, you are going to join many (if not most) of the unprotected networks automatically.
My apologies, I hadn’t checked the settings on my iPhone in a while.
I’m impressed/pleased that you find me important enough to research, stpauler.
Still, though, iPhone settings aside, you know you got beat pretty hard on the OP’s question. Usage caps are rarely enforced, and unprotected wifi use in your own home is never prosecuted. Your attack on me now is evidence that you are just a sore loser.
First you said that *most *providers don’t have them:
Then you switched to ‘nobody enforces bandwidth caps’:
Then you switched to ‘nobody is convicted of a crime for going over their bandwidth cap’:
Then you switched to ‘well, all that will happen is that you’ll be charged $100 and have your internet slowed down and possibly service terminated’:
You’ve weaseled way back from your original position of ‘it’s fine because there will never be consequences for the person paying the bill’. And when I pointed out that consequences include things like slowdown, termination, extra fees, threatening phone calls, etc, rather than just the convicted crimes that you were so bizarrely focused on, you tried to change the subject to ‘well, a freeloader should just be nice and not take too much’.
You are clearly not the multi-talented expert you think you are. I’m honestly not sure if you’re trolling or just dumb. It’s getting so hard to tell around here.
Actually a closer analogy to free-riding your neighbors wifi would be:
Your neighbor turns on water sprinklers at 3gpm (gallons per minute). That 3gpm is expected to be primarily used to water the lawn.
You connect to the sprinkler system and (through some as-yet to be developed technology) draw an ADDITIONAL 3gpm of water to your property.
So now the neighbor is putting out a total of 6gpm.
In towns where you pay water/sewage based on usage, the neighbor will be billed for the additional 3gpm that was sucked out of the sprinkler over to your property. In areas where property owners have wells, the well will be drawn down at twice the rate the neighbor expected. Some wells might go dry because they don’t replenish very quickly or because the area is in a dry spell and the water tables are lower.
Except in the current environment, the neighbor isn’t being charged for the additional usage. This may (and likely will) change in the future.
So, for most people, the analogy is that the neighbor is spraying 6gpm, and you, being down hill from him, are getting 3gpm flowing on to your yard. Occasionally, you notice your yard is getting dry so you (somehow) turn his sprinkler on when he is trying to take a shower (watch a streaming video) and he notices his water pressure is lower than normal.
No. This would only work as an analogy if your neighbor’s wifi is remotely booting your device and causing your device to surf the internet.
To test it, reverse the desirability. Your neighbor waters his lawn and because his water is free, he leaves it run until you have a lake in your front yard. The neighbor claims what are you upset about? I watered your lawn? As the mud in your yard reaches knee deep and mosquitoes are breeding like crazy, will you eventually claim that the neighbor is responsible for HIS WATER destroying your yard? If it is HIS WATER at that point, then why is it not HIS WATER when you intentionally take it through positive actions (e.g. tapping into the sprinkler or free-loading the wifi connection) that benefit you? When your landscaped yard has degenerated into a swamp, who will you go after to fix it? The rain gods, the water company, the neighbor who ran his sprinklers day and night or will you just go “Yeah! I always wanted a mosquito infested swamp!”
(As a similar analogy, if your neighbor installs an electric outlet outside on his porch which is only 5ft from your own house, is it okay to plug an extension cord into his outlet and run your TV from his electricity?)
Yes. This demonstrates one aspect of it.
You know, I’m an expert on this matter and I think the most appropriate analogy is if your neighbour had a series of tubes. Ten movies streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet? The other day an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o’clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?