Does anybody else allow their neighbours to use their wifi?

Jacks_xxx

iwb100 wrote: »

Firstly I'll point out I wasn't getting "cross" and wasn't disagreeing with you but the person who said "not having the internet is a form of deprivation". When millions of people around the world don't have access to clean water or a reliable food supply, thats deprivation, something they NEED to live. NOT having home broadband. Which is a service you are entitled to, IF you can afford to pay it.

What you are offering to do for your neighbours is very noble and as its your decision (whilst I'd advise against it and think you're bonkers for doing it) I would applaud.

I have never ever ever seen a school that requires their kids to have home broadband and I'm friends with 3 teachers all at different schools in different parts of the country. In fact they mainly complain that too many of their kids have too much internet access and it stops them thinking for themselves. If I had children and they required broadband at home and I couldn't afford it, I'd speak to the school and ensure they made suitable arrangements. I can't honestly imagine any school that wouldn't.

I agree life is easier if you have access at home, of course it is. But like I say, I managed without it and millions of other people do as well.

To say its akin to "deprivation" is really quite crass and insulting IMO!

You're by no means the first person to call me bonkers. (In this thread or in real life! :rotfl:)

You are quite right, less than half of the Uk has internet access.

I'm sorry you feel it is crass and insulting to speak of deprivation in regard to internet access though.

Why do you think that is? Do you feel so strongly when people talk about sleep deprivation or when sociologists talk about maternal deprivation and attachment theory?

What I'm asking is, why can the word "deprivation" only apply to food and water, when people use the word in so many other contexts?

The reason I'm replying again is that I agree with LadyGooGoo and I think I said so somewhere earlier in the thread.

At my daughter's school none of the children have free school meals - not because they are not eligible for them - but because of the stigma attached. Similarly, if they don't have the internet at home they'd rather struggle silently alone than mention it.

The child I'm trying to help has parents who managed perfectly well without the internet and don't see why he needs it either.

The children who study at our house on our laptops have no internet access at home by and large, some of them just have a home environment not conducive to studying, or several siblings at home so too much demand on one computer.

The school is oblivious, and no doubt assumes that if people had a problem they'd say something. Unfortunately that's just not true. It even penalised children for not keeping up with their studying during the snow closures "because it was all there on the internet".

And these kids are just in my daughter's year, in my daughter's school. I believe there must be thousands in the same position nationwide.

I believe their education is being compromised, that they are not getting an equal start in life, and it's unfair and unequal that they have to struggle so hard.

This all started because my daughter discovered that her phone could connect to our WiFi in our neighbours house and left it there so the young man in question could do his GCSE coursework on it.

On a mobile phone!

How annoying, difficult and bad for his eyes is that?

But he was prepared to do it in order to be like everybody else.

I'm sorry, I'm going on a bit. (a lot!) I just feel strongly about this.

Jacks_xxx

macman wrote: »

'Noticing' isn't the point. I'm just pointing out that you are clearly in breach of your T&C's, and accordingly your ISP can and will terminate your service if they became aware of what you are doing. You must have the service registered at one address, not two, so the service is limited to that property.

Thanks for posting.

I guess those of us who are doing it are prepared to risk termination of our service.

I pay for it. Isn't it at all up to me who uses it?

What about workplaces? Do they have to have an individual WiFi for each user? Even if they work across the courtyard at what is postally at least a different address?

alanwsg

Is it "clearly in breach of your T&C's"?

I'm with PlusNet and, having looked through them, it's not clear to me!
The only things I can see relating to it are..

"You may only use the service for your own personal use and enjoyment"

"The services and equipment we provide to you under these terms must not be used for business purposes"

Complying with the first would seem to exclude members of my own family from using the service.

Jacks_xxx

alanwsg wrote: »

Is it "clearly in breach of your T&C's"?

I'm with PlusNet and, having looked through them, it's not clear to me!
The only things I can see relating to it are..

"You may only use the service for your own personal use and enjoyment"

"The services and equipment we provide to you under these terms must not be used for business purposes"

Complying with the first would seem to exclude members of my own family from using the service.

Thanks ever so much for posting that. Mine says something similar. I get enjoyment out of helping people and I use the service I pay for to do that.

In the case of LadyGooGoo and her neighbour they are the bill payers and registered users and presumably they do only use it for personal use and enjoyment... so are they in the wrong?

macman

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

Thanks for posting.

I guess those of us who are doing it are prepared to risk termination of our service.

I pay for it. Isn't it at all up to me who uses it?

What about workplaces? Do they have to have an individual WiFi for each user? Even if they work across the courtyard at what is postally at least a different address?

Workplaces have business contracts, not residential, these are entirely different.
You can let the world and his wife use it for all I care. I'm simply pointing out that it will be a breach of the T&C's.

Jacks_xxx

macman wrote: »

Workplaces have business contracts, not residential, these are entirely different.
You can let the world and his wife use it for all I care. I'm simply pointing out that it will be a breach of the T&C's.

I'm not absolutely sure that I am in breach at this point, but if I need to change my contract then I will. Thank you for posting.

nutsohazelnuts

In the 1970s and 1980s it was quite normal for people to have their telephone on a "party line" shared with a neighbour. It helped people to afford it, and to become accustomed to the new technology and find it useful. I suspect that sharing an internet connection would work in much the same way.

I any case I suspect there's no stopping the redoubtable Ms Jacks xxx when she gets her momentum going.

brewerdave

nutsohazelnuts wrote: »

In the 1970s and 1980s it was quite normal for people to have their telephone on a "party line" shared with a neighbour. It helped people to afford it, and to become accustomed to the new technology and find it useful. I suspect that sharing an internet connection would work in much the same way.

I any case I suspect there's no stopping the redoubtable Ms Jacks xxx when she gets her momentum going.

I think that most people secretly admire her viewpoint ...but we (or certainly I) are just trying to point out the very real risks of her approach to allowing her connection to be shared in a potentially uncontrolled manner.:)

macman

nutsohazelnuts wrote: »

In the 1970s and 1980s it was quite normal for people to have their telephone on a "party line" shared with a neighbour. It helped people to afford it, and to become accustomed to the new technology and find it useful. I suspect that sharing an internet connection would work in much the same way.

I any case I suspect there's no stopping the redoubtable Ms Jacks xxx when she gets her momentum going.

I remember that-my parents had a party line for years. But each household still paid the line rental separately-there's not really any comparison.

Jacks_xxx

macman wrote: »

I remember that-my parents had a party line for years. But each household still paid the line rental separately-there's not really any comparison.

Perhaps the service providers are missing a trick here? Perhaps pensioners would be more likely to get online if they were sharing the cost with Betty who they've lived next door to for 30 years in a model they remember from the early days of British Telecom?

They might also remember how many of the older generation said they didn't see a need for a telephone in the house and that it would never catch on.