laws
> If everyone shared their broadband connection with 3 or 4 neighbors, then the
> cable or DSL companies would be forced to raise rates.
stated as fact, but probably the opposite of the truth. nobody knows that for a fact. here's a fact: the FCC has predicted that many broadband providers will be dropping their rates during the next year. add in the _fact_ that wireless MANs and RANs (metro area networks and rural area networks) are coming onto the scene.... the company i work for sells a 1.5 Mbps wireless line-of-sight connection and it costs $10/month less than DSL... guess which one i use?
what is the basis for that argument, anyway? bandwidth? remember Juno from the early-mid 90s? they used to offer free internet connectivity... they found that less than 5% of their users were consuming 90% of the total bandwidth on their network. certainly, more people are online now, and they're online more frequently and for longer periods of time, but it's not like the average family is downloading Linux ISOs every night... i would suspect that the low-bandwidth users, in paying upwards of $50/month in some geographic regions, do more than their part to subsidize the bandwidth costs for the people who ARE actually downloading Linux ISOs every night. believe me: if it wasn't working out for the providers, and they didn't have a business model that takes these things into consideration, virtually nobody would have a broadband account right now.
as for the legality of sharing a connection, i used to live in the Northeast, where Verizon is a popular DSL provider. when i was setting up my account, the big ol' telco rep told me i couldn't run a network in my own home, i'd have to pay them $20/month for each additional user. that is akin to someone at Cox/RoadRunner/etc telling me that i have to pay a per-seat license if more than one person is going to watch cable TV at the same time. forget it. so i sat up a network for the 4 other apartments in my house, and Verizon never knew the difference. i used a ton of bandwidth and never heard from them, not once. they will gladly take your money if you're gullible enough to give it.
besides, if you live in Manhattan in an apartment building and have an Apple Base Station or any other wireless gear, do you think the NYPD are going to be running around with those Kensington Wi-Finders in hand, looking for bandwidth leaks? i doubt it. now, that's not the "it's only wrong if you get caught" ideology, it's more of the "i can't believe they passed such a silly corporate-bank-account-protecting law and i don't care if i'm breaking it or not" ideology.
for what it's worth, i do agree (sort of) that it's stealing, but only in the way that starting a pirate radio station is stealing. it's just the first post and some of the knee-jerk responses that irked me - as if malicious retribution against this kid was deserved, necessary, and even appropriate. considering what you get, internet connectivity is actually dirt cheap. just think back 10 years ago when most people didn't even know what a modem was, or had ever touched a computer. now people are whining because they can't download a full-length DVD-quality movie in five minutes... i can't see any reason why you wouldn't want to share such innovation with others...