Jump to content

Brazil Fines Man $1,800 for Sharing Wi-Fi


Recommended Posts


National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL) fines Internet user $ 3,000 BRL ($1,797 USD) for sharing Internet connection with three other low-income neighbors. NTA says the open Wi-Fi connection made him an ISP and he lacked the proper permits.

Brazil's National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL) apparently has too much free time on its hands. Rather than focus on the larger picture of telephone and ISP pricing, access, and competition issues it's concerned that an individual from a low-income neighborhood is sharing his Wi-Fi connection with others.

ANATEL reportedly fined a man $3,000 BRL ($1,797 USD) for sharing Internet access with three neighbors. The three split the bill to save costs because otherwise they claim they wouldn't be able to afford it.

"It happens that, somehow, the fact became known to the tax ANATEL, that in a 'visit' to the residence of the owner of the phone line, seized computer, modem and router installed there, tilling the assessment and applying a fine of R $ 3 thousand, under the accusation that it was providing services provider to access the Internet without proper authorization from the Agency," writes 180 Degrees.

So would this make sharing a Wi-Fi connection among roommates illegal as well? According to ANATEL, the answer is "no."

ANATEL Agency Manager Carlos Braga Bezerra says the law restricts wireless services to a single building or immovable property. Its permission is needed anytime sometime wishes to broadcast a signal beyond that since it then qualifies them as an ISP.

He also says that it's important to prevent people from creating a Wi-Fi profiting scheme.

"Hardly a citizen will buy Internet service, for example, and share with their neighbors for free," he says. "The collection of a monthly service is characterized by illegal exploitation. Also, if this neighbor who provides the service decides to shut down the the internet, or if there is a problem on the line, who those others who use the service would appeal?"

Either way it has to be pretty frustrating for Brazilian consumers knowing that ANATEL is likely wasting resources to target a guy splitting his Internet bill with three neighbors.

view.gif View: Original Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8
  • Views 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply








So if I want to send a letter and a friend has to send one as well, to the same location and we put our letters in the same envelope, splitting the costs of the stamp, does that make me the postal service? (That'd be cool! :P)

*This is a slippery slope, your honor.*

(It does make me cheap, but that's a whole other avenue to explore :rolleyes: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, that lately law makers and similar simply going berserk in area as where need for they input has been exaggerated... and hello!- money to be made too :angry:

Clueless Judges making decisions based on no knowledge of IT or progress or history as how it did come to this day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

I happily share my connection with my elederly neighbour, does this mean i'm breaking the law too? :huh:

I'm paying for the service - so why shouldn't i let others use it too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew it... All this time Lite's been an ISP! (I think he even has access to the core of the Internet :P You know, that places which combines all computers with each other? :P)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupid... I hope he disconnects his service... Stupidity seems to be running crazy lately.. Almost as though they are trying to piss off the people as much as possible... Stupid... I have to be careful because I am starting to get burnt-out on saying and doing things about it.... This is the place where I start to not care...but I can't let that happen... Really.. should setup two trucks... going opposite directions.. and pull these peoples heads out their asses...

Back in the day people used to share telephone services... while one may pay... It seems anything you try to do to survive.. someone is going to come down on you and make sure you do not...

I don't ever see the economy growing from this mentality.. I see a stalemate of bad decisions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Common sense > rules. Any day. (Common sense of uncommon people, that is, not those people you find in most governments.)

Once rules != (not equal) common sense, rules have to change.

Rules were founded on common sense some time ago, if for some reason they no longer match common sense, they have to be changed. This is what a government (and other regulators, in some countries) is for. Sadly 'modern' governments are no longer founded on the economical principle; governments used to appear when people united in order to get an economic advantage over other people, nowadays governments think they should regulate as much as possible. Due to the nature of the world (with its many aspects; nobody will be able to understand everything in it) and our (mostly) democratic systems they even end up taking sad decisions and take disproportionate amounts of time to do so.

Why do you think there has never been a successful democratic company? Democracy FAILs. *Someone gets the hint and makes a 'FAIL Compilation 2012' video which just says 'democracy'.*

Innocent bystander says: 'What does this have to do with the subject again?' Me: 'WHAT?' Innocent bystander: 'Never mind'.

So, what to do? Democratic reforms. People need to realize that they are not capable of managing a country, so why in the world would they know who should manage the country? The first step is to make sure that the people who vote actually know what they are voting for.

(Sorry Americans, this won't work in your country because of your two-party system (which is basically pretty sad, I'm sorry).) So, how do we make sure that the people who vote actually know what they are voting for? Well, when you vote for party #1 you get 1 (2? 3?) question(s) about party #1's policies, if answered incorrectly the vote will only count for 1/5th (so 5 'non-votes' make one vote. Being lenient here, my initial suggestion was to drop it all together, but let's take into consideration that someone might actually press the wrong button on accident, so let's say that happens once every five times ;)).

Innocent bystander #2 says: 'What are the questions, who make the questions??? Are you crazy, it's impossible!' Me: 'WHAT? Anything's possible (full stop), THIS.. IS.. Europe! (semi-funny comment, not related to the point that in fact anything is possible, most of the time :P (contradiction, I know)' Innocent bystander #2: 'Never mind'.

Ok, so here's the deal: I make the question(s) (well, there's actually just one); 'Is this policy in line with the party you voted for (*repeat party name, for the forgetful)?' <State policy here.>. 'But, but, but, then who makes policy? Do you?' Nope, of course I don't, that be madness (and this is not Sparta :rolleyes:) (ok, you gotta give it to me now, it's funny this time :P). Ok, so who does make it? The parties themselves do, that's all they're supposed to do in a democracy in election time anyway; make policies. So what we do is the party is allowed to supply a shortened version of one of their first three party policies (over here they're ordered in order of importance, to that particular party) and that one will be in the question. (Now obviously this will only weed out a very small percentage of the votes, but it's a start. In addition to that it will also 'scare' people a little into thinking they actually need to know something about politics before they should vote (go figure!).)

Yeah, I know, it does seem like a lot of trouble, but hey, you wanted democracy, you want it to work, that's what you get. (And by the way, it's really not that much trouble :P)

But why, why does someone else have to know something about politics before he/she gets to vote? Well because where their freedom starts, mine ends. By casting their vote they impose a limit on my freedom and if that vote is not a well-considered vote it might cast unneeded restrictions on both our lives, imposing limits on our freedom that shouldn't be there. So with the freedom to vote comes the responsibility of voting (and yes, I do realize this is a slippery slope and if this principle would be used again and again you would end up with an aristocracy, which would turn into a oligarchy or even a dictatorship, but it does need to be implemented up to a reasonable extent). With great power (the freedom to vote and thereby, eventually, casting limitations on the freedom of a whole society) comes great responsibility (using your freaking brain and reading about what you're voting for).

*End rant about the sad condition of most Western democracies*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

brazil does have some stupid laws and rulings compare to what we all are use to all over the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...