Hacker News Reader

Comment by AndrewKemendo | Hacker News Reader

It is 1) an invasion of privacy

I'm not so sure here. This patent only applies to Wi-Fi connections onto the Amazon owned network. So the client device must first broadcast their SSID (public), request access to a private network, then request data through the Amazon router (Inspected/Firewalled by default). It's Amazon's prerogative to block ports or IPs at their discretion as every router or VPN does.

2) anti-competitive behavior

It's definitely anti-competitive in spirit if they reduce information access to competitors - whether it's legally anti-competitive is probably a gray area and my guess is that the patent filers have already taken that into account.

View on HN

Totally agreed with regard to 1). Coffee shops, schools, and airplanes all block certain websites. It may be unfortunate but it's clearly not illegal. It's their wifi and they can do with it what they please.

Now I can understand if it said anywhere that it would actual tamper with traffic then it could be illegal, but as it stands it just says it might block or redirect them. Sounds like a pretty standard firewall to me.

> Coffee shops, schools, and airplanes all block certain websites.

Do they do it to block bandwidth hogs like video streaming sites (and "think of the children!" content, in schools), or is that coffee shop blocking review sites, info about competitors, etc? I think that what they're blocking and why is more important than the fact that they're doing some blocking/redirecting in the first place.

If Comcast sells internet service to me, and then I in turn provide or give internet service to others, such as in my cafe or apartment building, would that be a backdoor to net neutrality?

As the owner of Mimi's Cafe, I don't see why I can't block you from looking at AT&T's plans, or impair your Netflix.

> " request access to a private network, then request data through the Amazon router (Inspected/Firewalled by default). It's Amazon's prerogative to block ports or IPs at their discretion as every router or VPN does."

So you're basically saying that if I'm using Starbucks' WiFi it's surely their prerogative to read my emails or whatnot ("inspect" my traffic)

Yes, it is.

This is why https is a thing.

Likely they block dns too. 99% of the world uses the default dns for a connection.

Reading email content is a different problem altogether technically and legally - so it's not a valid comparison. That's not what inspect means [1] packet attributes, ports for POST/GET, headers and routing are typically the data inspected. If Starbucks wanted to block or log how many people are hitting a GMail IP, however then yes that is their prerogative.

That said if you're doing email over bare HTTP then you're broadcasting that data publicly over RF anyway.

[1]http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/stateful-i...

"Well, of course we're not reading your emails. We're just inspecting the headers and blocking all emails from `@competitor.com`"

> It's definitely anti-competitive in spirit

Where do you draw the line with that? What if you were in a store, saw a product, and then asked the clerk 'can I use your phone I want to check the price at one of your competitors?'. Is that any different? Even if the phone line doesn't cost anything per call (it's a fixed cost let's say).

Competition, honest competition, doesn't require you to make it easy for customers to see if your pricing is fair or high or whatever. Mostly if stores don't enforce this (even with taking of pictures) it's because from a practical standpoint they can't enforce it or get employees to battle customers. Not because they don't have a right to do so.

If a customer, using their equipment and no store resources, is prevented from researching competitor's pricing - that seems like a fair line.

Is standing in a store's property considered using a store's resources?

Using that company's WiFi certainly is!

No. Considering it's open to the public.

There is no objective line here, it's really about how far a firm goes to actively prevent users from switching.

That seems to be the spirit of anti-trust law:

The categories of prohibited conduct are not closed, and are contested in theory. Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing.

So in this case it could be argued that they are "refusing to supply an essential facility." That essential facility being unrestricted access to the internet - but I think its too precedent laden to hold.

Free internet access is not an essential facility for shopping in a retail store.

Still, there's a difference between actively helping your customers check the competition and actively blocking them.

After all, perfect information is a condition of perfect competition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition)

Or, as a friend has put it:

"The one thing a capitalist fears more than anything else is a truly free market."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com