It doesn't matter if anyone thinks the law is wrong based solely on opinion, sorry. The law is based on reasonable concepts. The main one here is that if a person pays for a service, they alone are entitled to that service unless they give permission for it to be shared. So your default is 180 degrees off of what is reasonable.

Consider this scenario: Joe Blow gets broadband and a wifi router is included. He paid for installation and a service contract and just doesn't want to be bothered with security (or doesn't understand it) and unwittingly leaves his broadband open to the neighborhood. One by one his neighbors start jumping on his connection, paring his usable bandwidth down to the point that he might as well have dial-up. Being technically deficient, he just sees his internet performance decline.

Of course, Joe can look into the issue, gain an understanding of it, and either choose to accept being the local internet service (sub)provider or implement security that locks out his neighbors. But the point remains that his neighbors who pile on are reducing his service with no compensation to Joe and no civil request to take advantage of his service. THAT is the crux of the situation. Regardless of one's opinion here, the facts are what is paramount, and the facts are no one has the automatic right to do what's taking place in this everyday scenario.

The default behavior, which the law supports (and correctly so), is you do not infringe on anyone else in ANY manner without permission.

The excuses made to usurp bandwidth all fall flat when compared to other situations. Your neighbor also has an open electrical outlet outside his house-- can you just plug in and use it? No. What about his available water tap? His unused driveway space? Hey, he parked his car on the street-- can't my kids play on it?

No, no, no. And the same extends to his wifi service.

I am amazed that this fundamental legal concept (actually encoded in US constitutional law) is so misunderstood. That doesn't bode well for our society.