Frugal Ethics 101

[Scanner]

Here's an ethical dilemma for you - a little amusing side track to the serious discussions that go on.

As some of you know, I live in a McMansion - well, because of this, we are very close to our neighbors - I can just about reach out my side window and have them pass me a cup of sugar we are that close.

Well, the other day my son is playing his PSP2 and he's on the internet linked to a friend. We ask, "How did you do that?" (9 year old boys are usually in charge of technology in the home) and he says he doesn't know, the computer game just "found it."

Come to find out, he's accessing our neighbors wireless router.

My wife, always thinking says, "Hey, we could save $250/year and do away with our DSL" since our computers all have wireless cards. Sure enough, I open my laptop and I can get on.

So, is this ethical?

Are the extra "magnetic waves" of the wireless router "waste" that we have the right to capitalize on or are we "pirating" this somehow?

Just so you know, I can't breach his computer, would I ever know how, ever could, or ever would. I am not sure you can even do that unless I were to go out onto the web and then hack from the www. that way.
(again, I don't know how or would) - just want to take that fear out anyone's head.

So. . .what's the verdict?

Arrrr, I be a pirate or just a good, old fashioned cheapo like the rest of you around here?

[sweeps]

It's theft, plain and simple.

[tinapbeana]

theft. you would be using bandwidth that could and likely would reduce the neighbor's download/upload speed. since they pay for internet based on load speed, you would be taking something of monetary value (bandwidth) from them without their permission.

with that said, perhaps you and your neighbor would be willing to go in halves, that way it would be sharing not theft.

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by tinapbeana

with that said, perhaps you and your neighbor would be willing to go in halves, that way it would be sharing not theft.

Still theft. You're stealing from the internet provider (and ultimately the internet provider's customers). This is akin to buying a movie ticket and sharing a movie with your friend by letting him in the side door.

[tinapbeana]

Originally Posted by sweeps

Still theft. You're stealing from the internet provider (and ultimately the internet provider's customers). This is akin to buying a movie ticket and sharing a movie with your friend by letting him in the side door.

not true: i pay X amount to my internet provider and the guarantee me Y amount of bandwidth in return. whether that bandwidth is being used by 1 computer of 15 doesn't matter, i pay for the bandwidth. moreover, i pay the same amount of money for the bandwidth whether it's used or not. what i don't do, however, is pay for internet based on how many computers are accessing it.

it's not like cable TV service where all the services are running on the wire outside your house and you can steal it by inserting or removing the correct filter.

the difference comes from how the sevices are provided. my cable internet connection comes with a certain amount of download and upload speed capability. the 'pipe' is only so big. they know how big my pipe should be because when i connect my cable modem associates my account details with the IP address they assign me. if i am running a super computer in my house that is capable of much faster upload and download speeds, it doesn't matter one bit because my internet 'pipe' is still only so big. to get more speed, i have to pay the ISP more money.

willingly sharing your internet 'pipe' with one's neighbor is no different than having a desktop and a laptop in the same house using the same internet connection.

[sweeps]

My movie analogy is valid. By bringing someone else into the movie theater, you're not harming anyone else's ability to watch the movie, but the cost per ticket includes all the fixed costs that went into creating and showing that movie -- including wages and salaries. If a friend sneaks in, he's ultimately hurting those people that made the movie available for paid customers.

The cost is of the internet service has been calculated on a per-household basis. By letting another household use your pipe, you're circumventing that cost structure.

Also don't confuse max bandwidth with average bandwidth. It's true, you may be able to get a maximum 6mbps on your cable modem. But over a 24-hour period, you may only use 100kbps on average. By adding additional households to that pipe, you're effectively taking more bandwidth on average than 1 household would normally use. The internet provider is not equipped to provide all customers with maximum bandwidth at all times.

[Scanner]

So, if I am on his internet, I am affecting his performance?

If that's the case, then yes, I did not know that - that passes as unethical because I am harming someone with my actions.

However, if it doesn't affect his performance or is "negligible" , I don't think the cable TV analogy stands. To pirate cable TV, you have got to make a very defined amount of actions to steal it, not just "log on and search." Plus there are terms there - you get cable, you pay for it.

First of all, his "magnetic waves" are crossing into my "territory", uninvited. It's not like I am pulling up in his driveway with my laptop and getting on that way. The cable co. doesn't cross into my domain uninvited or unpaid for.

I think my statement that they are "waste" stands pretty good, unless somehow it affects his performance.

What if by virtue, I pick up satellite TV with my computer being beamed down from space? (assuming it was unscrambled)

Would that be piracy?

I would think I have the right to listen for anything out there, whether that's internet waves, unscrambled satellite TV or aliens trying to reach me from a distant galaxy.

[Scanner]

My movie analogy is valid. By bringing someone else into the movie theater, you're not harming anyone else's ability to watch the movie,

THe movie analogy isn't valid - the movie always has the potential to be sold-out, thereby affecting the theatres' ability to gain a profit and recover costs from the seat.

[Scanner]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/08/tech...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Happened to find an article.

[tinapbeana]

i still say the movie analogy is invalid.

if i buy a movie ticket, it is for one seat for one person to view one movie. not two people, not two seats, not one person in one seat for two movies, or any other permutations.

when i buy internet service, it is for a cetain amount of average usage (call it a volume of service) up to and including a different volume of maximum allowable usage. i do not however pay for internet for only one computer. at home i have anywhere from 2-3 computers on my network (yes, they're all inside my house) at any given time. if my total usage on my designated IP exceeds my allotment, whether it's from one computer or 15 on my network, i fully expect the cable company to raise a fuss.

if, however, i am within the guidelines of my my contractual allotment, they have no legal right to tell me how many computers can by on my personal network or where they must be located.

how is having my desktop downloading software in my office while i am 20 feet away wirelessly checking my email on my laptop any different from my desktop downloading software in my office while my neighbor 20 feet away wirelessly checks his email on his laptop? the bandwidth has been paid for, regardless of who is using it.

[Scanner]

Wow, I searched some articles and see I am not the first one to face this ethical dilemma, esp. people living in apts.

FIrst of all, I did know this - you can encrypt your connection or have an Open connection. I am encrypted at my work because I have patient data there. Encryption seems fairly easy and straightforward, a little more complicated than a password, but not quite rocket science.

So, it kinda begs - if the neighbors were that concerned about lower bandwidth, you would think they would simply encrypt their network. But. . .in ethics, you can't always assume - can I assume this extra bandwidth is waste?

Second of all, if you choose to leave your network "open", rather than encrypting it, is that a de facto invitation, kinda like having a concert in your backyard and having neighbors watch The Moody Blues perform? Probably not.

Third of all, I did not know this - WiFI can interfere with tranmissions in your house, so much so, you have a right to complain if your neighbor has a problem. So, is wireless internet kinda like "radio" in that I have a right to access it if I can receive it?

Some states say no but the Feds are more in the middle.

I think the best way is to ask for permission - is it okay I get on your wireless if I have my laptop in the house? But I'll keep the ISP connection anyway, I wouldn't feel comfortable using wireless for online purchases, which we probably make 10-20 per year with credit card numbers and such. I also access bank statements and so forth.

[sweeps]

If you want to use more than one of your own computers to download, that's fine. I don't see anywhere I disputed that. So going back to the real argument....

If you check your service agreement you are not allowed to share your internet service with your neighbors. So by sharing your internet service with your neighbor, it is stealing and it is unethical, if not illegal.

[sweeps]

Also, there seems to be confusion about the difference between variable and fixed costs. Sure, the variable costs in adding just 1 more user to the internet, or 1 more reader of a book, or 1 more user of a piece of a software, or 1 more viewer at a movie theatre is close to zero. But the REAL cost here is the fixed costs. The creators/publishers/distributors of the medium took on enormous risk and enormous cost to provide that medium to people. They only went through with it because they counted on getting enough paying users to make it worth their while.

[Scanner]

Sweeps,

I am sure his agreement stipulates he has the right to re-transmit the internet - or else, routers would be illegal like radar detectors in some states.

If he is transmitting, how can a company, Verizon or otherwise, impose a contractual obligation on the person on who can and who cannot receive it?

Answer: IMO, they can't.

It's an unreasonable clause and wouldn't hold up in court.

The only way possibly is that sometimes transmissions are declared the property of the entity broadcasting (the NFL) so a person re-broadcasting without permission can get in trouble.

But that's the transmissions themselves, not the medium (TV).

My neighbor cannot get in trouble if I receive his open transmissions and he is aware and consents to it.

If this is a problem then, they have to outlaw re-transmitting internet waves altogether and making wireless routers illegal.

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by Scanner

THe movie analogy isn't valid - the movie always has the potential to be sold-out, thereby affecting the theatres' ability to gain a profit and recover costs from the seat.

1. Bandwidth is limited, just like seats in a movie theater.

2. See my previous posting about variable vs. fixed costs. Variable costs include providing a comfortable seat for you and maybe running the AC a little longer to compensate for the extra body heat. However you are certainly affecting the theater and the production company's ability to profit by not paying for the movie.

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by Scanner

Sweeps,

I am sure his agreement stipulates he has the right to re-transmit the internet - or else, routers would be illegal like radar detectors in some states.

If he is transmitting, how can a company, Verizon or otherwise, impose a contractual obligation on the person on who can and who cannot receive it?

Answer: IMO, they can't.

It's an unreasonable clause and wouldn't hold up in court.

The only way possibly is that sometimes transmissions are declared the property of the entity broadcasting (the NFL) so a person re-broadcasting without permission can get in trouble.

But that's the transmissions themselves, not the medium (TV).

My neighbor cannot get in trouble if I receive his open transmissions and he is aware and consents to it.

If this is a problem then, they have to outlaw re-transmitting internet waves altogether and making wireless routers illegal.

Hey if you want to do it, do it. You're probably not going to get caught, neither you nor your neighbor will likely notice a difference in download speeds, and nobody's going to go to jail over it.

The question was it is unethical. The answer is yes. You are purposely cheating the internet provider out of subscriber fees. End of story.

[tinapbeana]

sweeps: i wasn't trying to jump on you so please don't take it that way. i think it's a difference in perspective, "if it's not explicityly prohibited, it's allowed" versus "if it's not explicity allowed, it's prohibited". kinda like the age old constitution debate, only a much lower level when it comes to something that is paid by volume, i personally do believe that if it's not prohibited, it's allowed. for instance, the phone company i worked for offered unlimited LD for a fixed rate. this was a cost effective plan because the average consumer used approximately 500 min per month. with that said, i've seen accounts that use 10,000 minutes per month. higher than the normal or expected usage, but not prohibited by the general service agreement.

scanner: it really may well depend on the terms and conditions of your neighbor's internet service provider. for instance, mine includes the following clause:

9. SECURITY

Customer is solely responsible for the security of any device connected to the Service, including any data stored on that device. Charter recommends that Customer take appropriate security precautions for any systems connected to the Service. Customer is responsible for securing any wireless (WiFi) networks connected to the Service. Any wireless network installed by Customer or a Charter representative that is unsecured or “open” and connected to the Charter network will be deemed to be operating as an ISP and subject to the prohibition on commercial use set forth in Section 1 above.

[sweeps]

No offense taken. Re: the unlimited long distance, if one household used 10,000 minutes a month, that's not unethical at all. Their plan allows that.

However, if that household let others avoid paying the phone company by sharing their unlimited minutes with the rest of the neighborhood, then again that is unethical.

[Scanner]

Sweeps,

You are getting too sensitive - you just haven't proved it's unethical as far as the ISP goes.

I haven't "cheated" anybody out of anything, other than the neighbor.

America is kind of weird place in that you think I have some ethical obligation to worry about the variable and fixed expenses of Verizon? Kinda like a weird version of Corporate Welfare?

I have no ethical obligation to Verizon.

What you are then suggesting is that it would be unethical for my development to form a community center with a TV and cable connection because it would harm Sony, Zeneith, and Comcast because everybody may throw their TV and cable connections out and all of us watch Jeapordy every night at 7:30.

Pooling resources, either formally or informally, is not illegal or unethical - in fact, it's smart business.

It's part of frugality.

My neighbor's welfare - yes. That is the ethical dilemma and the posters have satisfied me in that it may bring harm, however miniscule to him by affecting his internet performance he paid in good faith for.

I am not, however, worried about any ethical violation to Verizon.

BTW, this is interesting stuff - a little company years ago decided that businesses were being charged too much money for long distance. So, in an effort to "bypass" Bell (the Bells may be before your time - there used to be one phone co.) and compete, they put "microwave transmissions" on top of their high rises and bypassed Bell/AT&T for long distance.

Their long distance bills were 1/10th of what Bell/AT&T charged.

If AT&T had left well enough alone, nothing much probably would have happened other than a loss of a few million per year.

But they cried "foul and unethical."

So the judges examined AT&T's practice and found yes, indeed you were charging too much and they could see the business's point.

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.

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by Scanner

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.

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