Frugal Ethics 101

[tinapbeana]

Originally Posted by Scanner

So, they said, "Gee, your a monopoly" and broke them up.

The company was called MCI (Microwave Communications Incorporated) and it changed the face of telecommunications and probably laid down the foundation for the formation of the internet.

A company is not afforded the same ethical rights as an individual is. A corporation, although recognized as a seperate entity by the IRS, does not eat, breath, feel pain.

sorry for the OT, but here goes:

having worked for MCI, i can agree that they were adventurous and 'david vs goliath' in spirit. once upon a time.... then worldcom came in, enticed by the fact that MCI owns the backbone of UUNET (THE internet).

since then, SBC bought ameritech, pacbell, nevada bell, southwestern bell, southern new england telephone, and then AT&T (and promptly adopted their name). they've also just now bought bellsouth.

on the other hand, verizon (formerly nynex and bell atlantic) bought GTE and MCI as of january '06 (including all of our govenment contracts, and oh did i mention the internet backbone too?).

the layoffs began and never quite ended, and the country is left with 2 major phone carriers: AT&T and verizon (unless you count QWEST, and they're in enough financial trouble that you ought not bother). these 2 carriers now control the bulk of the nation's phone service (residential, commercial, and government), UUNET, and the majority of internet access. oh, and don't forget wireless, since AT&T and verizon are also cingular and verizon wireless... and verizon is stepping into the cable arena with FIOS.

my whole point here is that, sadly, the fight MCI gave AT&T for fair pricing and good services was valiant, but the change they effected has all but completely melted away, replaced by 2 giant conglomerates who between them control the vast majority of all communications in both the public and private sector. when you take into consideration the variety of media they're involved in, both AT&T and verizon probably control each control a larger market than the original AT&T ever did.

[Scanner]

Therefore stealing a candy bar from Walmart is not unethical. They won't notice it in their bottom line, right?

No, notice I didn't say that it's impossible to have an ethical violation against a company - I am just saying they are not the same as a person.

[sweeps]

You're right, tina, but this is a problem whenever infrastructure is involved. A true market just can't exist when you're talking about things with extremely high barriers to entry. Telecommunications, utilities, transportation, mail delivery, air travel, things like that.

The FCC tried to bring competition into the telecom industry by using things like unbundling and number portability, but honestly it's all a mess with numerous conflicts of interest.

So that leaves you stuck somewhere between a slow, cumbersome (yet reliable) government-run program and a completely chaotic true market system. SBC and Verizon have found the best way to succeed is to get bigger and bigger and put as much money in politicians' pockets as possible. Based on their latest earnings figures, it seems to be working.

[Scanner]

Tina,

Such is the nature of utlities - they get "broken up", then get bought out and head towards monopolies and get broken up again. It's the nature of the beast.

And maybe SBC or Verizon will have to be broken up again - it's the final consequence of capitalism unfortunately. Smart leaders will "divest" and sell off companies to other companies to avoid this, rather than get bigger and bigger.

It brings up a whole other ethical dilemma - if I own all the gas stations in the US (or other utililty), do I have the ethical right to charge what I want? I worked hard to bring it to you, I own the gas, and am selling it to you - I should be able to charge what I want, right? Even if it is $5.00 above cost per gallon?

Apparently not. . .or so says the FTC. . .they seem to agree that companies do not necessarily have the same rights as the welfare of the individual or even the welfare of the public at large. One may say that is a basic obligation of the gov't - to insure fair trade and that no monopolies exist and free competition reigns.

I guess we are way drifting off topic. . .still interesting though.

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by Scanner

It brings up a whole other ethical dilemma - if I own all the gas stations in the US (or other utililty), do I have the ethical right to charge what I want? I worked hard to bring it to you, I own the gas, and am selling it to you - I should be able to charge what I want, right? Even if it is $5.00 above cost per gallon?

Good question. This is one of those where you have competing ethical issues. Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Mr. Spock seems to think so.

[Broken Arrow]

On tech forums, this tends to get quite a lively discussion going.

Eh, I'm not going to weigh in my usual opinionated self on this one, mostly because most ground has already been covered.

However, for those who have a wireless router, and would like to prevent pirates from boarding, I highly recommend turning on encryption and changing the default password. (And preferably using more advanced encryption than WEP if it's available.)

Yarr!

[pearlieq]

It's always amazing to see the contortions we're willing to do to justify.

[disneysteve]

This whole situation could be eliminated if customers were required to secure their networks. At home, I can detect 5 or 6 wireless networks coming from my neighbors homes, but almost all of them are secured, so I couldn't steal their signal if I wanted to. Same at work. I just checked and right now I'm detecting 2 other networks. Both are secured.

If the ISPs are concerned about this, they should just require home networks to be secured.

[tinapbeana]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

This whole situation could be eliminated if customers were required to secure their networks. At home, I can detect 5 or 6 wireless networks coming from my neighbors homes, but almost all of them are secured, so I couldn't steal their signal if I wanted to. Same at work. I just checked and right now I'm detecting 2 other networks. Both are secured.

If the ISPs are concerned about this, they should just require home networks to be secured.

i agree that the network should be secured (everyone knows they track kiddie porn by IP address and someone on your wireless network has the same IP as you, right?). my ISP 'recommends it' and says any unsecured wireless network will be treated as an ISP and no longer treated as a residential service. the kicker? when they set up internet service in someone's home, their policy is to not handle or setup the wireless router in any way. they will only refer you to the manufacturer's website...

[GreyhoundLoner]

My Daddy used to say if you have to stop and thing about it, the answer is probably "don't do it".

[poundwise]

Without going into all that has been written --

Yes, it is unethical to steal bandwidth - and yes, that is what you ought to call it. It does reduce available bandwidth for the neighbor. When you are online listening to streaming audio, he/she will probably wonder why his/her download is taking so long, etc.

The ethical thing to do would be to tell the neighbor (if you know who it is) so that they can secure their network.

In the movie Cinderella Man, which is set in the Great Depression, the title character, James J. Braddock is trying to provide for his family during difficult times. His son, scared about the situation and afraid that he will be sent to live with relatives, takes a salami from a butcher shop. His dad makes him take it back and then has a 'man-to-man' talk with him. The memorable part is, "We don't steal. No matter what, we don't steal."

So you want to save money, good. So you want to be frugal, great. It just depends on what you're willing to do, ethically and morally, to accomplish that goal.

[crabbypatty]

I live by the "If you have to ask...." theory as well.

[kimiko]

It's unethical where your neighboor is concerned, as for the company, absolutely not.

The movie analogy isn't valid, the product you're buying is one seat at a movie. Taking two seats would be unethical. Now if you watch half a movie and then switch place with your friend so he can watch the second half, not a problem. It's still one seat paid for. As for ISP, you're buying up to a maximum amount of bandwidth, or hours for dial up. How you use that bandwidth or hours is entirely up to you. If you choose to share it with someone else and it's not explicitly prohibited by the provider, then there's nothing wrong with it. Like buying a manufactured product and lend it to your friend. Do you think it's unethical whenever you lend your phone to a friend or relative to make a call? If we're going considering ethic against companies for product paid for, then every single day all of us are making some very major unethical decisions.

[threebeansalad]

This logic isn't completely sound, but here's what I'm thinking:

If it truly were in violation, I feel like the telecom companies would make us aware it,. I feel like the practice is common (which doesn't make it right), but given the frequency, if it was WRONG, I just feel the telecom companies would be CERATIN to make sure we're all informed taht it's ethically wrong (like the way we all know it isn't OK to "share" cable TV with a neighbor or download music). I would have expected to seena little glossy insert in my monthly bill telling me to secure the connection and a message out the theives out there stealing my internet.


I guess my take is: talk to your neighbor, if they say it's OK, then go for it.

[JanH]

I haven't reread the whole thread, but I have a couple of questions. If the position was reversed, how would you feel? Would you secure your internet so that no one else could use it? What would you feel about the person using your internet? Also, I would wonder what your son is taking from this. Kids extrapolate all kinds of lessons from things--this I've experienced!
(This may already have been asked and answered, sorry for that. And sorry for sounding so cranky today.)