Ars Technica: Free Wi-Fi Spawns Cafe Backlash

[Raphael Salgado]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060710-7226.html' target='_blank'>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...60710-7226.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Cafe owners have found that WiFi brings customers, but also a host of problems. Some people purchase nothing at all, some buy the cheapest item on the menu, and most stay for hours at a time, tying up tables that are especially needed during the lunch rush. Others park outside and surf the Net from the comfort of their vehicles—for months on end. Coffee shop owners are now fighting back."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/2003/salgado-20060712-panera.gif" /><br /><br />I had a good chuckle when I first received the article, as I'm equally guilty of hanging out at my local Panera much longer than I should, all because of the free Wi-Fi. However, due to my extremely guilty conscience I likely inherited as a side-effect of my conversion to Judaism, I did make sure that I bought something at least once every half hour I continued to lounge there. Now that more cafes are becoming hotspots and more devices are being integrated with Wi-Fi, the issue of cafe owners is not getting customers to come, but getting them to leave! :wink: Have you noticed the trend in your area? Are you part of that "cybersquatter" crowd? Have you come in as a legitimate customer, only to be annoyed by others that do just that? Your thoughts, please.

[Damion Chaplin]

I'm not a 'cyber-squatter', but I frequently go into coffee shops and see numerous people using their laptops with no coffee or anything else on the table. Do they have no internet connection at home? Are they fighting with their spouses and would rather be anywhere else but at home?

I'm a huge proponent of free wifi, and think that pay models like at Starbucks are a dying breed. Unfortunately, these squatters are likely to get coffee shop owners thinking free wifi isn't the greatest idea.

[ucfgrad93]

I have surfed a few times in Panera. When I moved, it took a couple of weeks to get internet access at my new home so I'd head over to Panera and spend 30 minutes surfing the web. However, I would also buy a sandwich and drink when I did it.

My local Panera cuts off the wifi during the lunch rush. I can't say that I blame them. If people using a free service and not buying anything are keeping paying customers from using the table, its a no-brainer to turn off the wifi.

[spacerace]

I find this sad. Likewise I am a massive supporter of free WiFi. Living in the u.k. there are virtually no free WiFi hotspots, everything is based on a subscription model, so vacationing in San Francisco was a fantastic experience.

However I think cafe owners have to move on. Free WiFi is successful (maybe too successful) and has got customers in the door, now they need to adapt to prevent this problem from growing. Rather than switching WiFi off I'd much rather see cafe owners invest in a router/system that can generate codes valid for say 30 minutes that can be given out with each purchase at the till.

[darkdestroyer]

:devilboy: I guess you could call me part of this crew. Although I do differ by purchasing a new drink the minute mine runs out. Looking through my past week bills I must have spent nearly 100$ buying drinks at the local Starbucks alone! Thank goodness they don't charge for bathroom usage :lol:

[Phillip Dyson]

However I think cafe owners have to move on. Free WiFi is successful (maybe too successful) and has got customers in the door, now they need to adapt to prevent this problem from growing. Rather than switching WiFi off I'd much rather see cafe owners invest in a router/system that can generate codes valid for say 30 minutes that can be given out with each purchase at the till.

Didn't McDonalds pilot something like that a few years ago? Super size a meal and get 20 minutes of internet access?

[Eriq Cook]

The worst I do is sit down and work for 20 minutes, THEN buy something (I start feeling guilty). Most of the time I'll stay for 2 hours at most.

Can't say I agree with buying something every 30 minutes. My body can only handle so cofee &amp; stuff before I blow up the bathroom.

[FallN]

I rarely use wifi at cafes but when I do I buy more than my fair share.

I can definitely see why some cafe owners might be pissed. Some ppl are just squatters. Cheap b@stards. I'd cover all the electrical outlets di those squatting tards run out of juice and have to leave. Cutting off wifi when the squatters get out of control is another great way to get rid of the parasites.

[JesterMania]

I always get my major internet activities done at home. When I leave the house, I leave it for a purpose and surfing in a coffee shop is never part of that purpose. Afterall, when I'm away from home I get a small screen, no keyboard/mouse, I can't download/stream anything properly, etc. Therefore, my usage of free Wi-Fi in coffee shops have been limited to quick e-mail checking. As one of the posters said above, it'd be great if they give out temporary codes upon purchase. They can set a purchase price range and associate that with the number of minutes available. That way, people purchasing the cheapest items will get the least amount of time on Wi-Fi. It's only fair to the coffee shop owners as devilish as this may sound. :devilboy: I can see some major profit for those people who come up with such types of software for coffee shops.

[Phoenix]

I love free WiFi - paying for it is foolish to me because those services offer incredibly limited coverage and so they seem highly impractical and a waste of money unless you frequent your local Starbucks and Borders a LOT.

I think what matters most, is simply that cafes and the like need to communicate with and educate their customers about making purchases in exchange for taking up space and utilizing free WiFi. I mean, no restaurant would just allow you to come in and sit at one of their tables and stare out the window or read a book or have a conversation with a friend, and basically take up space without buying something. They'd kick you out. Why would dealing with this be any different or anymore difficult just because free WiFi was involved? It wouldn't. It doesn't take much to guilt someone into making a purchase in exchange for space, product and service, and convenience, or to kick someone out. After awhile of this, these people would get the message and go somewhere else or begin making purchases. Any establishment would have the last say in terms of this and could call the authorities if it became necessary to enforce their rights, which would get the message across to everyone else. Of course, that would be extreme, but it's happened before.

If I'm at a cafe or similar establishment that offers free WiFi, I will definitely buy something. It's nothing short of odd social behavior for anyone to go to a place like that and sit there for hours taking advantage of their free WiFi while not buying anything. It's not anyone's personal living room, it's a business.

Now, although I will make purchases, I won't make purchases according to steady and continual time increments. When I go to a place like a cafe, I go there to relax, and so I won't burden myself like that. But if I'm there for a lengthy time, I will make more than one purchase, and perhaps multiple ones. I just play it by ear. It depends on how expensive the place is, how big the place is, and how long I'm there.

Where I would make an exception to this rule, is if someone was outside in their car and not taking up space inside the cafe. But this too, has its limits. As long as they aren't taking up customer parking in a very limited parking lot (a large parking lot is a different story), or parked right out in the very front of the establishment, or "wearing out their welcome" by sitting there everyday or much of the week for hours on end as though they were stalking someone, then I see no problem in utilizing the free WiFi even without purchase. I would also make this exception for someone inside a hotel lobby or airport. There may be a few other exceptions, but I'll leave that for another time.

And once again, there are limits. Sitting outside a cafe in a car, or sitting inside a hotel lobby or airport without buying anything, everyday or for many days for hours on end is just inappropriate. Everything with moderation.

And of course, it's never appropriate to sit in a parked car directly in front of someone's house without their permission and utilize their WiFi. Nope. That's not just weird. That's creepy. I've seen that happen before with someone I knew who had their network unsecured at the time, and as soon as they went outside to investigate the person who'd been sitting directly in front of their house at night surfing the net, the person sped off. That behavior is nothing short of seriously disturbing and is most often indistinguishable from stalking which is pro forma behavior for pedophiles, rapists, and other criminals. That might sound amusing to some, but it shouldn't be. People have been arrested before for their free, extended WiFi visitations. And the inability for people to tell the difference between a stalker and someone browsing the net from inside their car is subsequently the reason free-WiFi-wielding businesses also have a problem with people who park outside their establishments for extended periods. You just can't tell for absolute certainty what someone is up to inside their car, which is the main point. It's bad enough when people do that with a business, but it becomes even more personal in a residential neighborhood, and people who do that should be, at the very least, heavily fined, and at most, arrested, depending. And I'd say to anyone engaging in this behavior, if you need an internet connection that bad on your laptop when you're out and about, then for crying out loud, go to a cafe where they offer it and have yourself a latte or buy a wireless PC Card and service.

[Silver5]

I can't stand sitting in coffee shops trying to use my laptop. It seems like each and every person that passes by has their eyes glued to whatever I'm writing and I hate having someone read over my shoulder.

In addition, these folks have the power cables strewn across the cafe floor so I have to pretend I'm back in football practice running the tires to try and avoid a thousand dollar "I'm sorry buddy," and I shouldn't have to do that.

[spacerace]

Now, although I will make purchases, I won't make purchases according to steady and continual time increments. When I go to a place like a cafe, I go there to relax, and so I won't burden myself like that. But if I'm there for a lengthy time, I will make more than one purchase, and perhaps multiple ones. I just play it by ear. It depends on how expensive the place is, how big the place is, and how long I'm there.

No I agree, ideally you don't want to force people to make regular staged payments for use, but for every person like you that repeat buys when their coffee or whatever has run out there are obviously people who just sit there.

Free WiFi is designed as an enticement to come in and purchase, and it has mostly been self regulating, the people glued to tables for 1hr+ were in the minority. But if that trend continues to grow then cafe owners need to have a mechanism to protect themselves, whether it be signs requesting people not to stay for long periods after their purchased item is finished, or an actual time limited usage model.

[Ilium Software]

I'd be very interested to hear more about the specific cafes that think this is a problem. I'd be willing to bet that cafes that think this is a problem have no hard evidence to base their opinions on. Just a couple of managers who are SURE that the cybersquatters are hurting business. (And reading the Boston Globe article that does seem to be the case.)

In fact, the presence of cyber-squatters in a cafe is a good thing by any known market research. When people get something free (Internet in this case) they have a psychological compulsion to return the favor by buying something. There are entire studies on this. So basically, when Joe Cybersquatter wants coffee he will have a subconscious loyalty to the cafe that gave him free Internet. And research has shown that coffee shops live and die by their 'local customers', the regulars who come every day.

Now if you're trying to run a restaurant why do you have Wi-Fi? Especially McDonalds...they used to play fast music in the stores specifically to move people through faster. Why stall them there with free wi-fi? In cases like that I think it's the same thing we saw when video rentals started. EVERYONE had video rentals, from gas stations to grocery stores. Now everyone thinks they need free wi-fi.

Until I hear otherwise, I'm sticking with my belief that there is no hard evidence that cyber-squatters hurt business. Just a bunch of crabby managers/owners who are positive that free wi-fi is bringing them down.

Marc Tassin
Ilium Software
--------------------
[email protected]
+1 (734) 973-9388
---------------------
http://www.iliumsoft.com

And be sure check out our new blog! http://blog.iliumsoft.com/

[gt24]

Wifi is a niceity for me, something that I like but I won't just camp out somewhere browsing the internet unless I really have to. I doubt that camping wifi users are really harming businesses and at worse I like the purchasing an item for a code idea although I fear it would be abused (with extremely limiting times). However, I have some major questions for these wifi scared locations...

A) You don't like customers staying for hours and hours browsing on the internet yet outlets are provided... Why not disable those outlets and see how long somebody's battery life is WITH wifi on.

B) I take notice in the mood of a location. I have seen anywhere from a location not caring if you bought items or not (they welcome the public) to as far as them not only sorta demanding that you buy something but also restricting any outside food and drink from being brought into their establishment (which usually means that me and my friends don't go there anymore, we go where we can get into without a hassle). Businesses are hassling people about their free wireless internet... I saw a location with the NTN Trivia game drop said game because they didn't want people glued to the Television sets... they wanted sales and those people to leave after 20 minutes... lovely.

However, I have a solution. When you visit a location it should inform you that you have an hour or two of internet a day. Your MAC address has been recorded and will be used to enforce this limit (other things can be used too I suppose). This is an hour of total usage and not just an hour from when you hit their service. This hour can be bypassed (and this should be an option) if you visit a casheer and buy an additional hour for a low fee (should be a low fee). Thus, people can still "squat", but it isn't worth very much to do so considering the cost of gas and alike.

However, I'm sure there will always be somebody complaining about wireless killing their business. For those lovely locations they should simply ditch their wireless letting everybody know why they are doing so and watch what happens to their business. They offered free wireless after all, so they can certainly take it away.

[peterawest]

Since I’m sitting in Panera Bread eating my lunch as I read this post, I couldn’t help but laugh.

As I look around, there are only two other people in here who are using computers. So, it doesn’t look like much of a problem here today.

In my area many other restaurants are offering free WiFi. In my work I come in contact with the managers of the local Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants. One day as I arrived I noticed that there were two people sitting in their cars outside of the BWW apparently accessing their free WiFi from the parking lot. When I mentioned it to the manager, he was actually pleased. His attitude was that it was fine, since it made the parking lot look fuller, which only made the restaurant look more popular. He wasn’t upset at all.

As for me personally, about once or twice a week I’ll come in and use the free WiFi at Panera Bread, but it’s always when I’m stopping for lunch. So, I’m always a paying customer. No one seems to mind.

[pmgibson]

In addition, these folks have the power cables strewn across the cafe floor so I have to pretend I'm back in football practice running the tires to try and avoid a thousand dollar "I'm sorry buddy," and I shouldn't have to do that.


Actually, I'd think that the folks with their power cables strewn everywhere would want to avoid the multi-million dollar "I'm so sorry your were injured" mistake. You are not liable for the power cord placed in your path in a public place -- the power cord owner is. Granted, I'd watch where I stepped because my ultimate desired would be to not be injured, but if I tripped over someone's powercord strung where it shouldn't have been, their computer damage is their problem.

[pmgibson]

I take notice in the mood of a location. I have seen anywhere from a location not caring if you bought items or not (they welcome the public) to as far as them not only sorta demanding that you buy something but also restricting any outside food and drink from being brought into their establishment (which usually means that me and my friends don't go there anymore, we go where we can get into without a hassle). Businesses are hassling people about their free wireless internet... I saw a location with the NTN Trivia game drop said game because they didn't want people glued to the Television sets... they wanted sales and those people to leave after 20 minutes... lovely.

I have to disagree with the tone of this paragraph. These cafe's ARE businesses after all. They're not libraries or parks or other public places that have traditionally been free to use without profit intent. Their intent is to make a profit. Free wifi is intended to lure customers who will buy their product, not people who want to bring their own product and not make a purchase.

It would be interesting though, as another posted mentioned, to see some objective stats on the problem as opposed to more subjective feelings by cafe managers and employees, to see if their truly is a problem.

[isajoo]

there has to be a software that monitors the activity of every mac address and persons logging in onto the network...so they can simply run the software and it should automatically log off any users after a certain amount of time and also could permenently block a mac address from logging on if they notice excessive use.

NO?

opps forgot about mac cloning, but i guess u would have to be a techy to do that...

dam it, something has to be out there.

ohhh....control the bandwidth to only work with emails not webpages.

[Ilium Software]

there has to be a software that monitors the activity of every mac address and persons logging in onto the network...so they can simply run the software and it should automatically log off any users after a certain amount of time and also could permenently block a mac address from logging on if they notice excessive use.

If I were running a cafe I would avoid doing this at all costs. When you do something like this you simply make your customer angry. So sure, you opened up that table but there is a good chance that customer will never return. What is more, they'll probably tell their friends not to go there and some will listen.

So which is a better choice for the business owner? Having a customer say:

"Wow. Those guys are jerks. They cut me off half-way through my email."

OR

"Wow. That place is popular. The tables are always full."

Given the choice of these two potential "bad customer experiences" I'll choose the second one.

Marc Tassin
Ilium Software
--------------------
[email protected]
+1 (734) 973-9388
---------------------
http://www.iliumsoft.com

And be sure check out our new blog! http://blog.iliumsoft.com/

[Jacob]

If I were running a cafe I would avoid doing this at all costs. When you do something like this you simply make your customer angry. So sure, you opened up that table but there is a good chance that customer will never return. What is more, they'll probably tell their friends not to go there and some will listen.

Is this really a condition under which you would NEVER return to the cafe?

As long as the policy is clearly demonstrated it's a fine policy. It offers people free wifi and it forces some turnover.

Frankly, I have gone to cafes with free wifi and gotten pissed off because there are no free tables and I avoid it because it is popular with people who just loaf and don't get the heck out. That cafe does lose business because of it. Sure, they're still in business..but they could be doing better.

I'd say turn on the limit on certain days/hours according to your own business.

Does at all costs to you include at the cost of your business?

[spacerace]

I agree. The only people who are going to be "pi$$ed off" are the loafers who are trying to sit there for hours on end without purchasing anything after maybe an initial coffee....

Anyone who uses the service for a normal period of time - say 30 minutes - will understand this. And even then, they won't be kicked off if they go back and purchase something else - which is the whole point.

[Ilium Software]

Is this really a condition under which you would NEVER return to the cafe?

Not me personally, no. But there are plenty of people who would never return or at least have a bad experience and choose not to return if given another option. If shop A gives me unlimited free and shop B cuts me off at an hour, I'll buy my coffee from shop A, even on the days I don't need wi-fi.

As long as the policy is clearly demonstrated it's a fine policy. It offers people free wifi and it forces some turnover. Does at all costs to you include at the cost of your business?

And my argument is that there just isn't any hard evidence that it has a detrimental impact, and in fact it may actually benefit the company. At this point all we have is anecdotal evidence based on the opinions of the people interviewed in the article. That isn't enough to base a policy on and frankly is a bad business practice.

[TCHeideman]

I have used Panera's WI-FI on numerous occassions but I, like many others, have spent money there also. I was impressed with Panera as I asked a worker one time if there was a problem with me staying for several hours. I was told that I was very welcome to stay as long as I wanted and that Panera does not limit it's customers to any length of stay while using their wi-fi. I was very impressed and plan on frequenting their establishments whenever possible.

[duraace]

As a software developer, I came up with a solution to the problem, using a card reader into a PC, which was connected to the cafe router. Simple. A one time card initialization contains the users MAC address, and stays with the user, reminding them of the cafe where they can use their PC (loyalty card). When they purchase something, they present the card to the cashier, who inserts and removes the card from the reader. The application then instructs the router to allow this MAC address free access the net for a limited period of time (30 minutes?). No login, etc. the wireless device (PC) is allowed to connect to the network. When the time is up, it disconnects, automatically. Extremely easy program to use. It recognizes blank cards and prompts for the MAC adddress to store. The card is kept by the user and tied to a purchase. Nothing to key in after that. Just insert and remove the card. You think I could interest a cafe in this? Guess again. I eventually resorted to trying to give it away to someone to trial. I couldn't get anyone to take it for free. I have no sympathy for cafe owners who complain about users freeloading on their networks.

[davea0511]

Easy. Just change the SSID every day and advertize that all they have to do is ask an employee for the SSID. This will get rid of all the people not going into the shop.

Sure there will still be some that are rude enough to ask for the SSID and not buy anything, or stay for far too long, but those numbers will be few compared to the traffic it will bring in.

It's always fair game for the employees to frequently ask such clientele "what can I get for you?" Which is a nice thing to ask, and the customer certainly gets the message, especially the second time around.

The problem is that most employees haven't been trained on how to turn such a situation into a sales opportunity. They see it as a problem instead, and therein list the real problem.

[anthonymaw]

Simple solution: they can just change the WEP key every hour and give out the key with a purchase! I recall that (a now defunct) company called Cirond Systems sold program that could auto update WEP keys on a number of different models of access points on a regularly scheduled basis. Internet cafes that leave their access points open are just asking for trouble since people across the street or upstairs in their own building could exploit it which is probably a violation of thier ISP agreements too.

[duraace]

Both these solutions fail to cut people off after a time period. My solution (free for the asking) is the still the best and the easiest to use. No talking, just swipe a card and that's it.

[k1darkknight]

Like a couple other readers on here, most of my internet usage takes place at home. However, I do find it occasionally convenient to pull into a parking lot near one of these locations to check my online bank statement or the price of something that a store 10 miles away sells (so I know if it'll be worth the gas to drive there). Usually, though, I'm only online at a free wi-fi hotspot location for, on average, maybe 10 minutes...15 at the most. Honestly, I couldn't bear surfing the web on anything smaller than one of those mini-laptops / subnotebooks with what, a 6" screen or so? My vision is still near 20/20, though staring at a small Pocket PC screen for any longer than 10-15 minutes certainly wouldn't help matters any...lol.

[Steve Jordan]

To me, what's funny about this is the fact that Borders and Starbucks didn't complain when people sat at their provided tables for hours, reading a book or newspaper.

This is beginning to remind me of the cellphone arguments... people start to complain about a new activity, often one they do not participate in, so it is quickly called "rude," "antisocial," "burdening," "dangerous," etc. Suddenly it's a horrible threat to society, and USA Today (or Ars Technica) is writing an article about it...

Stores, like a lot of other entities, often have to adjust policy to cope with the habits of its customers. If this problem causes Panera Bread to remove outlets, charge for squatting time, limit usage, etc, that's cool. Customers will deal, or they'll go somewhere else.

The new trend towards citywide free WiFi may solve this problem. If you can get online everywhere, it stands to reason that people of a like mind will start to occupy common areas, and you'll see the casual online users over here, the serious business online users over there, the PPC people hanging in the park ;) , the cellphone people in the theatre lobby, the child porn surfers camped out next to the nudie bar, and everyone else hiding in the basement of the library, where it's safe...

[anthonymaw]

Actually if you think about it, when some coffee bars have charge $2 for a cup of coffee or $5 for a latte, you're already paying for a FULL day of wi-fi access whether you use it or not !

[Phoenix]

(Not that you will, but just in case, please don't take what I'm debating here as a personal attack. Just me thinking things through...)

To me, what's funny about this is the fact that Borders and Starbucks didn't complain when people sat at their provided tables for hours, reading a book or newspaper.

But I see that as different. First of all, with Borders, you'd expect some people to sit and read books even for extended periods since that's the primary product that Borders sells to begin with and most everybody who goes in there is browsing their products. Plus, it takes longer to browse books than most other things, and it takes even further time to sit down and sift through them. So sitting to do just that, even for an extended period, could be excused at a bookstore even if it means you decide you don't want to buy anything afterall. So why would Borders complain? But that's completely different than going into a cafe and sitting down and doing the same thing or taking advantage of their free Wifi without buying one of their products.

With Starbucks, and I know there are exceptions, I can't say that I've noticed a common occurrence of people in there just sitting and reading for long stretches without buying anything. Maybe customer behavior is different depending on the region. But I'd contend that if you just wanted to read a book or newspaper, couldn't you just as easily go to a park, or into a Borders or some other bookstore? Out of all the places someone could go just to read, why would they choose a noisy Starbucks just to sit in there for hours and not buy anything? I mean, if you're not going to eat or drink, what would make a Starbucks environment so special? Rather, people go in there to eat and drink along with whatever other activity they're participating in, be it reading, studying, working on the computer, etc. And this would seem even more so, since Starbucks (and Borders for that matter) doesn't offer free Wifi to begin with. I'd be curious to know whether Starbucks has ever been able to analyze their customer behavior in this way and what their findings are.

So I can't see how your example above can be compared to the bahavior of those who take advantage of the cafes, or to the cafes that offer Wifi access for free. But I can certainly see why some cafes would be miffed about the issue of people who clearly take advantage of what they're offering with no purchase in return.


This is beginning to remind me of the cellphone arguments... people start to complain about a new activity, often one they do not participate in, so it is quickly called "rude," "antisocial," "burdening," "dangerous," etc. Suddenly it's a horrible threat to society, and USA Today (or Ars Technica) is writing an article about it...

Speaking for myself, I do participate by frequenting cafes and utilizing their free net access, but I also make purchases. But I don't think people call this behavior we're discussing rude, etc., for no good reason. We know that cafes are in the business of selling food and drink and that they exist to make money. Would anyone go into a cafe and expect to get food and drink for nothing in return? Then why should anyone expecting a cafe to give them free Wifi for nothing in return, be any less ridiculous? Even financial issues aside, to go inside a cafe, take up table space and not buy anything but sit and take advantage of their free Wifi for however long, is rude. Or how about, "inconsiderate"? It's not the same as going inside a retail store, browsing their products for a short while, deciding you don't want anything, and then leaving. That's business. But when a person sits down and makes themselves comfortable in a cafe, turns on their computer, and then proceeds to sit there and surf the net as though they're in the comfort of their own home, without buying anything, whether they mean to or not that person is communicating to the cafe, "Yeah, I'm taking advantage of you. So what?" And that's hardly what anyone could call good social behavior. So in that regard, it would be antisocial and yes, could burden the cafe financially as well, depending on its size, how many people were taking advantage of them in this way, and for how long. So... rude? Antisocial? Burdening? Yes, yes, and possibly. I understand that you're touching on the idea that we all shouldn't blow things out of proportion, but do you really think people will go so far as to begin dubbing this "dangerous" and "a threat to society"?


Stores, like a lot of other entities, often have to adjust policy to cope with the habits of its customers. If this problem causes Panera Bread to remove outlets, charge for squatting time, limit usage, etc, that's cool. Customers will deal, or they'll go somewhere else.

The new trend towards citywide free WiFi may solve this problem. If you can get online everywhere, it stands to reason that people of a like mind will start to occupy common areas, and you'll see the casual online users over here, the serious business online users over there, the PPC people hanging in the park ;) , the cellphone people in the theatre lobby, the child porn surfers camped out next to the nudie bar, and everyone else hiding in the basement of the library, where it's safe...

I'll certainly be in the park from time to time. :)

Rhetorically speaking, is Wifi-squatting a huge, widespread problem? I don't know. Probably not, if I had to venture a guess. But this isn't the first time this issue has been brought up and it has been a problem for some small retail businesses who offer up the free service as an added convenience, and those occurences aren't based on trivial anecdotes. But I also agree with a previous poster that as a general rule, policies shouldn't be based on anything other than hard evidence. If you're business is perfectly fine, why throw a wrench in the gears?

No cafe offering free Wifi would have reason to kick anyone out or limit their stay as long as their stay doesn't impact the cafe's bottom line. And that's what much of this ultimately boils down to. If it does, you're correct in suggesting that they, like any other business, will adjust their policies. But then again, maybe it's about more than just that. Rude or inconsiderate behavior doesn't always cost a business money, but it does grate on a business-person's nerves. In the same way I wouldn't want a friend to come to my house and go immediately to the bathroom just to take a crap and then leave without "spending" some time visiting.

Of course, some things we know and some we can theorize, but it makes me wonder exactly what all the components are in regard to this behavior that affect one cafe more than another.

And I agree with you - widespread WiMax coverage I would think would certainly eliminate (or come close to eliminating) this issue.

[Ilium Software]

But I see that as different. First of all, with Borders, you'd expect some people to sit and read books even for extended periods since that's the primary product that Borders sells to begin with and most everybody who goes in there is browsing their products.

Actually, the Borders system of inviting customers to hang around and read the books was revolutionary when it was introduced. Everyone was sure that it would be a huge failure. "Why buy the book when you can read it at Borders for free?" went the argument. People were sure that it would result in lost profits for Borders.

Now, the sit and read format for bookstores has become the expected norm.

With Starbucks, and I know there are exceptions, I can't say that I've noticed a common occurrence of people in there just sitting and reading for long stretches without buying anything. Maybe customer behavior is different depending on the region.

Living in Ann Arbor where there is a coffee shop every 10 feet, I can attest to the fact that yes, many MANY people sit and read for hours. Some TA's from the University even hold their one-on-one sessions at the coffee shops spending hours sitting there and meeting with students.

Again, with no hard evidence I think it is a mistake to take the reactionary approach of cutting users off. It would be like Ilium Software cancelling a product before we got any sales figures in, or discontinuing it on hear-say rather than the hard facts.

Marc Tassin
Ilium Software
--------------------
[email protected]
+1 (734) 973-9388
---------------------
http://www.iliumsoft.com

And be sure check out our new blog! http://blog.iliumsoft.com/

[Phoenix]

...Living in Ann Arbor where there is a coffee shop every 10 feet, I can attest to the fact that yes, many MANY people sit and read for hours. Some TA's from the University even hold their one-on-one sessions at the coffee shops spending hours sitting there and meeting with students...

But what I was getting at is that sitting and reading for hours in a Starbucks without buying a single thing would be odd, especially if suggesting that many people are exhibiting that tendency. I find it hard to believe that so many people would spend hours in a Starbucks without eating and drinking. Not many people are going to sit for hours in a cafe and never consume a thing - you're going to get hungry and thirsty, especially being in a place (and even more so in a group) where others right next to you are doing just that.

So my question to you is, aren't these people buying anything to eat or drink? If they are (and naturally I'd have to lean toward believing they are), then it goes along with what I was saying in my previous post.

[wshwe]

The Borders and Starbucks I've been to charge for T-Mobile Wifi. The coffee shop I frequent offers free Wifi. The owner prohibits bringing outside food and beverages and requires people to purchase something. He doesn't seem to mind people staying there for a couple hours.

[Steve Jordan]

Ultimately, people can discuss, debate and complain, but the businesses will try a few different methods to achieve their desired goal (profit without extensive loss), and we'll all see what works out.