I think you are missing the fundamental flaw in your argument.
FON's business model is the following:
They sell routers (at a completely unsubsidized price) to consumers. The consumer uses this as a router in their own home. If the consumer creates an account, and agrees to the terms and conditions, the router is configured automatically to have a private and public side. In return for sharing their home connection, the consumer is given access to the public side of other FON routers. Consumers who do not wish to share their home connection, or do not purchase a FON router, may still purchase usage rights to the FON public network for $3 per day.
Simply put, the FON business model is to sell routers. This is very different from the subsidization of a cell phone, for example, where the hardware is sold under cost in order to sell services. This is the reason FON does not force consumers to agree to terms of service upon purchase, only activation.
In addition, Comcast, Verizon, Rogers, and most other North American telecoms specifically prohibit such sharing of WiFi. In the United States it is, in fact, illegal to share Wifi without a license. In this case, I think you would agree that by FON selling routers to Americans, they are not encouraging illegal activity.
In short, if you paid for it, it belongs to you. If you disagree, we would all love to see a clear, concise, and cogent rebuttal, well thought out and in proper Queen's English. There is no greater pursuit than intelligent discourse, please do not waste the opportunity with thinly veiled threats and inconsistent accusations.
Cheers,
James