Time Warner Cracking Down On Free WiFi Access Points

from the what-isn't-stealing-these-days? dept

Mon, Jul 1st 2002 1:52am — Mike Masnick

This isn't particularly surprising, but Time Warner Cable in NYC has decided to send out threatening letters to NYC residents (NYTimes article, registration etc) who they believe are offering up WiFi access to their cable service. They're (of course) afraid that if someone boosts the signal enough, then suddenly all those potentially paying customers will be getting something (gasp!) for nothing. Interestingly, they sent the note to someone who claims he's never set up a wireless network and doesn't have any wireless equipment himself. Nice of them to do their homework before threatening legal action. Politech also has some details about the letters (for those of you who'd like to avoid the NYTimes registration). They have an email from someone who received the letter, someone defending the letter, and finally the text of the letter itself. The NYTimes points out, by the way, that some smaller ISPs are touting their service as being open WiFi "friendly", in the hopes that it will encourage people to sign up with them. Once again, when a big company tries to prevent giving customers what they want, a small competitor will step in and provide it. Now the big companies will (1) lose their original customers and (2) still not get access to all the people who would have been using the shared access.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

5 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

werty, 1 Jul 2002 @ 9:12am

Everyone wants something for nothing
Can you blame TWC for protecting its market? The user license agreement states that one modem is good for one connection only (or some such; I don't have it in front of me). They never anticipated freeloaders would piggyback on one magnanimous subscriber's open port, nor should they.

I'm surprised the same WiFi proponents aren't mad at Starbucks for charging for Internet access. The average Internet yap likes to ignore the fact that companies need to make money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 1 Jul 2002 @ 9:24am
  
  Re: Everyone wants something for nothing
  Yeah, I'm not saying I blame TWC for trying to protect their market. I'm just saying that it's interesting that (1) they obviously didn't do much research in choosing who to threaten and (2) that other companies are coming along and catering to the folks who do want to offer open WiFi access. In that case, TWC loses more business by trying to "protect" it's market... so it doesn't seem like that smart of a strategy.
  
  Anyway, I never ignore the fact that companies need to make money. However, I disagree with the assertion that many people are making these days that companies have a fundamental right to their flawed business model. Plenty of companies go out of business every year, and it's mostly because they simply can't give customers what they want. Complaining that customers won't pay you for what they don't want doesn't seem like a really visionary business strategy.
  
  As for your Starbucks example, I don't see why you think that's true. I don't think anyone has an issue with anyone doing what the company wants, in terms of charging. It's just when they prevent the users from doing what the user wants, that they get upset.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2002 @ 10:33am
    
    Typical GREED
    Typical GREED on the part of AOL-TW to try to squeeze as much revenue as possible out of their subscribers. This just makes me want to set up more access points and pirate more software, movies, and music.
    
    FU AOL-TW!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
werty, 2 Jul 2002 @ 6:56am

No Subject Given
Let's not forget the safety aspect behind TWC's decision, as seen here:

http://news.com.com/2009-1033-940460.html

Just because the user wants to do something doesn't mean he should be able to. Do you split your wires to get free cable access on four TVs for the price of one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 2 Jul 2002 @ 8:46am
  
  Re: No Subject Given
  Just because the user wants to do something doesn't mean he should be able to.
  
  Good businesses figure out how to give a customer what he or she wants. Bad businesses figure out that a customer has figured out how to get what he or she wants and tries to prevent that from happening.
  
  You're right. It doesn't mean he should be able to, but if he wants to do so, then that's a business opportunity for someone... and as is pointed out in the article, there are clearly others willing to provide the service.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]