The wifi leaving the house is immaterial to the fundamental concept here. If you really want to understand the issue, you need to disabuse yourself of such simplistic notions. See the other examples I provided, all relevant in the current context. Another poster's comment about the provision and access being a TWO-way street is especially important here (Liam1, are you reading? or just intent on spewing more sarcasm?).

Raw opinions do NOT matter, especially in the formation or reformation of law. What matters are fact, precedent and INFORMED opinion. I am not meaning to insult you, but your opinion is apparently arrived at without full understanding of the core legal concepts in consideration. Even a poll is moot-- we shouldn't govern by polls. While the people have a right (and even a duty) to express their raw opinion, business and government have the right and obligation to explain the rationale behind legal decisions and thus hopefully cultivate INFORMED opinions. This is especially important when infringement is concerned.

Just keep this old canard from Justice Holmes in mind and you're 99% safe: "your right to swing your fists stops at the other fellow's nose." If you think about it, you'll see how that maxim applies to not just this wifi argument but almost every civil law (and many criminal ones) in existence.

Oh, and this appears to be overlooked as well by some: wifi blows right through most walls. The majority of existing homes canNOT contain it without extensive and expensive modification... rendering any arguments along those lines pointless.