I don't see how Starbucks could shut down the hypothetical geek legally -- the two nodes could co-exist in the same building on different frequencies so it's not like he's stopping customers using the expensive starbucks node.

Starbucks do have an advantage -- they can advertise their services to their customers but I suspect the average wifi consumer will learn to scan for different networks and choose the cheapest one.

→ Posted by: Darren at March 13, 2003 12:15 PM

I agree. What's is the crime and where's the offence?

It might not be a geek in the upstairs flat, of course. It could be the place across the road - which might be a lone geek shut in his garrett or, perhaps, more likely some big company that hasn't (or doesn't) secure its WAPs. As more and more people start using wifi, there could be any number of WAPs covering that lucky coffee drinker.

Are Starbucks (or whoever) going to try and face them all down? "This is my shop, and I don't want you're filthy radio waves in here?" just isn't enforcable in law.

→ Posted by: Jez Higgins at March 13, 2003 12:28 PM

This shortly isn't going to be a hypothetical situation for me (and others i presume). I've been running xmthmkt.net for a year now. I imagine nothing much will happen, however I'd like to bet I'll have a better signal strength (thanks to the meter tall 10db antenna in my living room window) so auto connecti clients are liekly to jump straight on mine.

Another problem could turn out to be abuse: If someone unleashes a virus via my node do i get in toruble? If someone surfs or serves some child porn from my node (unlikely in starbucks, true) do i get in trouble? If I transparently monitor traffic do i get in trouble?

Could turn out that these issues may close open privately owned networks anyway, with fear of legal nastiness doing starbucks lawyers job for them.

→ Posted by: paulpod at March 13, 2003 1:12 PM

I wouldn't be so sure that Starbucks can be relied upon to operate so fairly - or that the courts would necessarily support the independent trader in these matters. I've been talking to Matt Webb about this stuff, and he says that he thinks I'm too late - that this kind of thing has already taken place. I'm doing some research online to see if that's true, but at the moment all I can find is this geek.com article in which it is claimed that Starbucks have damaged the connectivity of a local free wifi network by pushing their own network in the same part of the spectrum... I'll post more if I find out anything else...

→ Posted by: Tom Coates at March 13, 2003 1:33 PM

Starbucks or MacDonalds or anyone else may not be relied upto to act fairly or reasonably, but that's not what you asked. In the article geek.com article you cite it's the free provider who are taking Starbucks to court, not the other way around. Regardless of the outcome, I don't see that case would have any bearing in the country, though.

Is your question another manifestation of the Property or Commons question?

→ Posted by: Jez Higgins at March 13, 2003 2:58 PM

I've been wondering about this recently, as well... I think this is likely to be an issue here in the UK sooner than in the US, after the T-mobile pricing structure is publicised (£47/month for unlimited access! More than twice what I pay for home ADSL...) in the next few days.

Also, T-mobile has been very careful not to test market the service anywhere near university housing here in Oxford, which means essentially that it's not being tested here at all.

Will there also be conflicts with the new pub-connectivity/ McDonald's (!) connectivity?

→ Posted by: AR at March 13, 2003 8:26 PM

I'd never considered this (primarily because i don't use wifi) but i presume each wireless node would (could) fall under the same guidelines that ISP's have to follow. i say this because essentially both allow access to the internet so they fall under the same catagory.

i don't think Starbucks could legally challenge another ISP (operator) on the basis of electomagnetic radiation. possibly electomagnetic interference but that would only apply if the geek node happened to operate on the same frequencies. Starbucks would surely have to prove that their system is being degraded by the interference for this to work.

i think it would be easier for Starbucks to install EMC shielding in the ceiling of the coffeshop thereby disabling access to the geek wifi node from within the shop. of course that may be considered anti-competitive and we all know where that kind of thing leads to.

does anyone else keep writing Startbucks? just me eh?

→ Posted by: pete at March 14, 2003 1:57 PM

good day sir,
i want to no something relating to the electromagnetic bearing on the given points
1.what is the concept of electro magnetic bearing.
2.what is new in electromagnetic bearing v\s
normal ball &roller type bearing
3.its construction
we five friends of mechanical engg. want to make the project on electro magnetic bearing.so kindly arrange the above information of electromagnetic bearing.
thanking you.
i am waiting urs quick reply

raghvendra singh
mechanical final yr

→ Posted by: raghvendra singh at September 6, 2005 10:51 AM