@PnL. See, you made my point for me. You said “Providing free wireless access would not be sticking it to the internet company, you would be reducing the bandwidth available to yourself and thus hurting yourself.” Exactly. By providing free wireless access you would, in essence, be depriving the internet/phone/cable companies a paying subscriber. That a consequence might be reduced bandwidth for yourself and/or security vulnerability is precisely why lots of people protect their network. The selfish motive here is to protect your (paid for) bandwidth (substitute the word wireless internet and it is the same thing I said). In the absence of your (hypothetically free) network, a person will have to pay for their own bandwidth or find a “free WiFi hotspot”.
With respect to the second point, people freely download music/movies because (as you said), they think it is a victimless activity. “My buddy uploaded his DVD of movie X, so he wants me to have it. No harm, no foul.” It still is stealing from the artists, even if your buddy doesn’t think so.
My point is simple. How can someone be opposed to dilution of paid for bandwidth (i.e. stealing from the internet companies) while at the same time be in favor of stealing from musicians and actors?