CountDC
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 449
- Points
- 960
E.R. Campbell said:Sorry, I hate to keep at this, but ...
Regarding wireless routers: they use spectrum (at 2.4 and 5 GHz) that is licence exempt – the spectrum, and its use and its users are not protected by any ‘rights’ – no individual (save, perhaps the Queen) has ‘property’ that can be stolen or, even, trespassed upon.
The whole purpose of a growing trend to allocate spectrum on a licence exempt basis is to allow technology (which really means user demand), not government regulation to rule the spectrum - any technology, not just the ones mandated (picked) by bureaucrats.
Thus far the spectrum management debate has paralleled the debate over land rights. Exclusivity (a spectrum allocation term) = a right of use by a group; allotment (another specialized spectrum management term) = a zoning bylaw (this bit is ‘residential,’ that bit is ‘industrial’ and so on) and an assignment (yet another special term) or licence = lease. But “ownership” is always and without fail vested in the public at large. Radio users – the CBC, Bell, you with your wireless router – all use OUR spectrum – yours and mine. It belongs to us all because, by treaty the RF spectrum is part of each nation’s sovereign patrimony. So, despite lawyers, spectrum management is most closely related to the traditional problem on managing the “commons” and it is fraught with all the same difficulties. Historically we have understood that the best way to manage the “commons” - to avoid the economic, politial and social dilemma described by Hardin in The Tragedy of the Commons - is to reduce, if not eliminate, the role of governments and their agents. The 'people' tend to be best able to manage the commons, the Crown tends to be a poor manager of the 'common good.'
The problem is difficult: see e.g. McFadden n the ‘digital commons,’ but not impossible. One thing about which I am certain, however, is that the roles of lawyers and policemen will decline, precipitously as the digital radio ‘commons’ emerges.
IF this was a simple, clear-cut legal issue there would be easy answers, validated in courts; there are no easy, legally sufficient answers because the issue is not simple and clear-cut; I think issues that are neither simple nor clear-cut are called grey areas - at least they were when I went to school.
and ..... if I was not knowledgeable enough to secure it - where does this use of spectrum play into the stealing of bandwidth that is transmitted over a cable to my house for my usage? The fact that I have a wireless network set up inside my house for my family to use does not give you the right to use my bandwidth. The spectrum you can use all you want - there are 3 home networks currently using it in my range - but the bandwidth you cannot as that is mine.
As for court cases - if someone has left their service unsecure what is the chance they have the knowledge to even pickup that someone is piggy backing on them? Can't get charged if you don't get caught. Had a neighbour that was running an open one as they had no idea that someone outside the house could pick up the signal and piggy back.