How is this supposed to work as an objection? You don’t have permission to use the airport WiFi without flying. You do have permission to use the Eola Park wifi without looking at swans. What is your point supposed to be?
-FrL-
What you are failing to understand here is that the airport is providing the service, so the airport gets to set any terms of use it wants. You are not entitled to get internet access for free.
BTW, although a bit expensive ($60/month) I’ve often found that my portable Verizon access is faster than the local wi-fi setup. If I’m in a cafe or wherever, I often use my Verizon instead of their system, even though it’s free.
Starbucks does not offer free wi-fi. Given the scarcity of independent cafes, it actually would not be very easy to find a place where you could just park and steal bandwidth.
One more question. In hotels with free WiFi, there is still the access page giving restrictions, even though you do not need to enter any id to get past it. Does the airport WiFi have such a page, giving terms of access? If it does, and if it says it is for ticketed passengers only, then there is really no leg to stand on.
I agree with jtgain, but further think that what the OP is merely skirting around is not that he is complaining about being kicked out for using the wifi, but that he thinks that because the wifi service is there, and obstensibly paid for with public money, that he has the right to sit in the terminal without a ticket so that he can use said wifi.
And the argument makes no sense. Libraries are paid for with public money, and as such I can go into a library to peruse the books and periodicals. I can’t come in just because my a/c isn’t working, it’s hot outside, and want to take a nap in a corner.