Open WiFi Networks- Tragedy of the Digital Commons?

A wireless router is just a box with antennas that allows you to surf the Internet on your laptop anywhere within about a 200-foot radius (about two-thirds of a football field). In a populated spot, like an apartment complex, quite a few neighbors fall within that 200 foot range; and if you're like a lot of people, you never bothered to password protect access to your router and the valuable Internet service it broadcasts.

So, what do you get when you mix an unsecured wireless router with a densely populated neighborhood of Internet users--an ample supply of digital "piggybackers" ready to access the Internet through your router free of charge. Is piggybacking theft? Not necessarily. Indeed, some people leave their routers unprotected intentionally--"sticking it to the man" by unleashing free Internet service for the masses. Problems arise, however, when too many neighbors piggyback at once, clogging up bandwidth and reducing your Internet connection speed to a trickle. An article in the New York Times shows that a bit of benign wireless free-loading can quickly turn into a miniature tragedy of the digital commons.

Hardly. While it may be a tragedy (or a benefit if you're the freeloader), in economic terms it is definitely not a public good, or even a common resource. WiFi service does not exist in nature, since it is a technology provided by individuals using private goods (wireless router hardware in conjunction with wired networks).

As you read the article, think about how you would classify Internet service through a wireless router. Is the service a private good, a natural monopoly, a public good, or a common resource? What's the difference between a password-protected router and an unsecured one?

An open wireless network, either intentional or unintentional, is a security risk first and foremost, but needs to be understood as a private good being used by a small portion of the contiguous public. Those outside of it's range are not able to use the service, so it's not entirely public.

Source: The New York Times, March 05, 2006