Ethical dilemmas in wireless internet access and installation practices

Ethics and Social Responsibility

Ethics of Wireless Access

Selling broadband Internet access that includes wireless access is an area of services marketing that is troubling. The lack of quality control standards and the potential for those installing the services to potentially defraud customers by either not delivering the levels of broadband speeds paid or. The potential also for installers who are often paid below industry average and don't care if neighbors steal or use broadband access configure wireless networks in peoples' apartments and homes so anyone can use the signal. This is not only unethical to the customer paying for the service; it is unethical to their companies who subsidize thousands of free-loading Internet users as a result.

Introduction

The dilemma of enforcing wireless access to those that only have paid for it as a service is one of the most difficult ethical and legal dilemmas in the it industry today. From the relatively simple means of using IP address scanners to the more sophisticated approaches to amplifying free signals, accessing the Internet without paying for it has become one of the most debated topics today. This ethical dilemma is broader than just the information technologies (it) industry. It is now so pervasive that its practice is commonplace in apartments and neighborhoods where the homes are relatively close together and in business districts where the businesses are clustered together. Nations including the United States have laws that specifically prohibit the stealing of Internet access, and there have already been cases of prosecution of individuals intentionally using someone else's Internet access.

Often the ethical dilemma is that the technician knowingly installing an unsecured connection because it is more efficient and takes less time, and in some cases, is seen as retribution to their companies for what they perceive as a lower than industry wage. In general the technicians, even on service calls, appear to be rushed and overbooked for their appointments from personal observation. In addition to the ethics of the Internet provider over-scheduling their technicians also need to be considered in any ethical analysis of this situation. Clearly if ethical use of WiFi networks is to be achieved, more thorough training and evaluation of installers is needed.

Assumptions Regarding Wireless Access

In defining this ethical dilemma, the basis of the technologies used for delivering WiFi also has to be taken into account. The basics of how residences are wired for Internet access begin for many with either cable modem or Digital subscriber Line (DSL) access. The cable modem approach delivers the greatest levels of bandwidth, often with Internet speed approaching T1 lines, which are the commercial grade Internet connections organizations use. In suburban and less densely populated areas, a cable modem connection, which costs less that $50 per month, often can have the performance of a TR1 line costing $1,000 per month or more for an organization or company. DSL access speeds are just slightly higher than dial-up and as a result often do not have the performance necessary for supporting multiple WiFi users. In these installations of DSL in high density urban locations including apartment buildings, the speed degradation is noticeable and immediate when someone else is also using the WiFi signal. Conversely the speed of a cable modem-based WiFi connection is at times so fast there is no noticeable speed degradation as a result. Those that contend that using a neighbor's WiFi signal when their neighbor is connected via cable modem seek rationalization for taking excess bandwidth, and is also the argument those people use who freely share their paid-for access (Dalton, 2008). The actual WiFi Access Point or transmitter in a persons' apartment or home can vary in broadcasting strength, with the most fundamental ones only capable of producing a strong enough signal for 50 feet. In suburban areas were the homes are typically 1,800 feet or greater, there is also the tendency to get a WiFi Access Point capable of propagating signals well over 100 feet or more. Making the signals strong enough to be read anywhere in the home also makes them quickly accessible by neighboring homes as well and bandwidth is taken often. It is commonplace to find more powerful Access Points in apartments of professionals in the it industry as they plan on using their WiFi enabled devices throughout their entire living area, not just in a single room. The WiFi signal strength is proportional to the standards supported by the Access Points as well. The proliferation of WiFi Access Points has also driven down the cost of electronics as well, with one of the most powerful standards, 802.11g being commonplace.

The right combination of factors is emerging for Internet WiFi access to be used by anyone living near an Access Point that has not been configured for secure operation. The use of encryption technologies including Service Set Identifiers (SSID)s to customize security of a given wireless network so that only WiFi-enabled devices including PDAs, laptops or desktop computers with wireless cards installed in them can view the wireless network is crucial for securing a wireless network. The defining of a unique SSID takes intensive coordination between the initial installation of the wireless Access Point and the correct wireless configuration on each device that will be able to use the network. Only by taking the necessary steps to create a security-enabled Access Point using unique SSIDs and also having the specific authentication code on the devices to connect to the Access Point, can security be assured.

Summary

The troubling aspect of the ethics of WiFi is that many cable companies, by not using better selection screening for installers, a lax approach to ethical training, and a lack of commitment to teach customers how to secure their WiFi networks, actually promote bandwidth stealing. The ethical dilemma of the installers in continually providing service despite knowing the signals can be freely used by anyone is part of the problem, yet more troubling than this is the chance dishonest neighbors can access the person's PCs who is paying for the service. This service breach is far more serious than the bandwidth being used by those that don't pay for it.