7 ms·

It shouldn't matter that this is an obvious thing to do or easily circumvented (for the time being). It is 1) an invasion of privacy and 2) anti-competitive be

It shouldn't matter that this is an obvious thing to do or easily circumvented (for the time being). It is 1) an invasion of privacy and 2) anti-competitive behavior. Version 1 may be easily circumvented, but future versions could easily be tighter and more difficult to circumvent. For example, a contract with the mobile providers could make this something that no longer depends on in store WiFi usage. This is the sort of thing that should be stopped in its infancy.

ams6110 9y ago
In theory, I don't have a problem with a retailer offering free WiFi but limiting it either for QoS or to block certain sites or protocols. It's their bandwidth and they should be able to offer it to the public on whatever terms they want. As with anything, if you aren't paying for it then you are not the customer. Now, if they somehow convinced Verizon or ATT to interfere with the network access that I am paying for, that would be a problem and I'd stop doing business with both the carrier and the retailer.
- super-fake 9y ago
  That would show them!
- shadow_banned 9y ago
  That would show em!
  - paki123 9y ago
    If a lot of people did it, wouldn't it show em?
- devoply 9y ago
  > Now, if they somehow convinced Verizon or ATT to interfere with the network access that I am paying for, that would be a problem and I'd stop doing business with both the carrier and the retailer. Considering the plethora of choices, you would definitely win. /s Goes back to old George Carlin joke about belonging to a club and you not being in it.
  - tomjakubowski 9y ago
    Not to be confused with Groucho Marx's joke about belonging to clubs. :-) Carlin's bit, for reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU
    - losteverything 9y ago
      Omg. He sounds a little like trump and he also 'sounds' like trump. Great share
      - ccrush 9y ago
        Carlin hated government and both parties with a passion, but he leaned a bit liberal by his own admission. That said, he would be disappointed to hear he's being compared to Donald Trump. See his bits on the "business man" and "politicians" for reference.
- smoyer 9y ago
  One time at a trade-show/conference I set up a few APs that appeared to offer free wi-fi. It was a walled garden with a custom DNS set up so that any attempt to browse the Internet resulted in a beautiful web page extolling our start-up, products and proving directions to our booth. But I completely agree with you - if you're getting a free connection, look for the attached strings.
  - ralfd 9y ago
    Did it work?
    - smoyer 9y ago
      According to the logs there were about 1200 people who viewed our promotion - we had pretty good traffic to our booth but we had also generated some buzz before the conference started. Overall I'd have to guess it had a mixed effect - maybe half the people thought it was clever and half were irritated that they didn't really get free wi-fi.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
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.
- Woofles 9y ago
  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.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    > 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.
  - threatofrain 9y ago
    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.
- gist 9y ago
  > 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.
bo1024 9y ago
Implementing this in stores would be a huge ethical issue. Future versions could also be more malicious, such as modifying the price or even availability of the item on a competitor's website if possible. This is why we need to keep supporting both technical solutions such as VPNs and https, as well as political solutions like net neutrality.
- smt88 9y ago
  Neither HTTPS nor net neutrality would prevent this. VPNs are a whole can of worms for the average consumer. Also, it'd be legal to intercept or block traffic. It wouldn't be legal to change a competitor's website.
- jhall1468 9y ago
  > Implementing this in stores would be a huge ethical issue. Not really. It's only effective on their own wifi network. Disconnect and you're good to go. > Future versions could also be more malicious, such as modifying the price or even availability of the item on a competitor's website if possible. That would have serious legal implications, so I don't see it. > This is why we need to keep supporting both technical solutions such as VPNs and https, as well as political solutions like net neutrality. Or, you know, turn off the free wifi they are giving you?
  - sb8244 9y ago
    Can they build the store in such a way as to limit cell signal? For some reason, every Target that I go into has horrible cell connections (inability to use my browser) but always free wifi.
    - tclancy 9y ago
      As far as I know, that's illegal in the US to interfere with cell signals. A big box store like Target is a poor man's Faraday cage (he said, having 0 knowledge of physics) and offering free wifi is a small cost if it means people stay inside the store longer. Saying this isn't anti-competitive because customers can always ignore the free wifi misses the point: given the service issues in stores and the attractiveness of (usually) higher speed wifi, people are going to be drawn to it and no one is going to read the Terms & Conditions that say "Hey, we're going to try to prevent you from shopping for the lowest price!"
david-cako 9y ago
it's okay, the important thing is that people who do not understand anything about the internet are making legal decisions with respect to its openness and competitiveness.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
baddox 9y ago
> 2) anti-competitive behavior That's not much of an argument in the context of patents, because the sole purpose of patents is to prevent competition. All usage of enforceable patents is inherently anti-competitive behavior.
- smilekzs 9y ago
  I think he means the practice described in the patent is anti-competitive.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  My how far we've fallen. And to think that the original purpose of patents was to democratize technology by eventually making inventions free for public use.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  > because the sole purpose of patents is to prevent competition. No, the purpose of patents is to make trade secrets into public information so knowledge isn't lost; allowing inventors limited monopolies isn't the purpose, it's the cost, it's the carrot that achieved the goal of getting them to disclose their inventions to benefit all of mankind. You've confused the carrot for the destination.
2_listerine_pls 9y ago
> anti-competitive behavior. The problem I see is that they are fine doing it to others with their app, but not ok when it's done to them.
fantispug 9y ago
If used this could be seen as a precedent for letting internet carriers do this. Even if you're paying for the connection it's still their network. While this is already occurs for content that is considered illegal, broadening the content it can be applied to is dangerous. They may block or throttle their competitors, or send you promotions for their products (or do the same things of their associates). Many people won't know or be able to detect that this is happening.
ouid 9y ago
this isn't totally on topic, but today's acquisition of Whole Foods seems like anti-competitive behavior as well. There is a lot of precedent for the prevention of vertical mergers. Amazon doesn't seem to be too concerned with how anti-trust law might be interpreted. I think they'll just count on the impotent FTC not having the resources to bring a case against them.

ams6110 9y ago

In theory, I don't have a problem with a retailer offering free WiFi but limiting it either for QoS or to block certain sites or protocols. It's their bandwidth and they should be able to offer it to the public on whatever terms they want. As with anything, if you aren't paying for it then you are not the customer. Now, if they somehow convinced Verizon or ATT to interfere with the network access that I am paying for, that would be a problem and I'd stop doing business with both the carrier and the retailer.

super-fake 9y ago
That would show them!
shadow_banned 9y ago
That would show em!
- paki123 9y ago
  If a lot of people did it, wouldn't it show em?
devoply 9y ago
> Now, if they somehow convinced Verizon or ATT to interfere with the network access that I am paying for, that would be a problem and I'd stop doing business with both the carrier and the retailer. Considering the plethora of choices, you would definitely win. /s Goes back to old George Carlin joke about belonging to a club and you not being in it.
- tomjakubowski 9y ago
  Not to be confused with Groucho Marx's joke about belonging to clubs. :-) Carlin's bit, for reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU
  - losteverything 9y ago
    Omg. He sounds a little like trump and he also 'sounds' like trump. Great share
    - ccrush 9y ago
      Carlin hated government and both parties with a passion, but he leaned a bit liberal by his own admission. That said, he would be disappointed to hear he's being compared to Donald Trump. See his bits on the "business man" and "politicians" for reference.
smoyer 9y ago
One time at a trade-show/conference I set up a few APs that appeared to offer free wi-fi. It was a walled garden with a custom DNS set up so that any attempt to browse the Internet resulted in a beautiful web page extolling our start-up, products and proving directions to our booth. But I completely agree with you - if you're getting a free connection, look for the attached strings.
- ralfd 9y ago
  Did it work?
  - smoyer 9y ago
    According to the logs there were about 1200 people who viewed our promotion - we had pretty good traffic to our booth but we had also generated some buzz before the conference started. Overall I'd have to guess it had a mixed effect - maybe half the people thought it was clever and half were irritated that they didn't really get free wi-fi.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

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.

Woofles 9y ago
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.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  > 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.
- threatofrain 9y ago
  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.
gist 9y ago
> 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.

bo1024 9y ago

Implementing this in stores would be a huge ethical issue. Future versions could also be more malicious, such as modifying the price or even availability of the item on a competitor's website if possible. This is why we need to keep supporting both technical solutions such as VPNs and https, as well as political solutions like net neutrality.

smt88 9y ago
Neither HTTPS nor net neutrality would prevent this. VPNs are a whole can of worms for the average consumer. Also, it'd be legal to intercept or block traffic. It wouldn't be legal to change a competitor's website.
jhall1468 9y ago
> Implementing this in stores would be a huge ethical issue. Not really. It's only effective on their own wifi network. Disconnect and you're good to go. > Future versions could also be more malicious, such as modifying the price or even availability of the item on a competitor's website if possible. That would have serious legal implications, so I don't see it. > This is why we need to keep supporting both technical solutions such as VPNs and https, as well as political solutions like net neutrality. Or, you know, turn off the free wifi they are giving you?
- sb8244 9y ago
  Can they build the store in such a way as to limit cell signal? For some reason, every Target that I go into has horrible cell connections (inability to use my browser) but always free wifi.
  - tclancy 9y ago
    As far as I know, that's illegal in the US to interfere with cell signals. A big box store like Target is a poor man's Faraday cage (he said, having 0 knowledge of physics) and offering free wifi is a small cost if it means people stay inside the store longer. Saying this isn't anti-competitive because customers can always ignore the free wifi misses the point: given the service issues in stores and the attractiveness of (usually) higher speed wifi, people are going to be drawn to it and no one is going to read the Terms & Conditions that say "Hey, we're going to try to prevent you from shopping for the lowest price!"

david-cako 9y ago

it's okay, the important thing is that people who do not understand anything about the internet are making legal decisions with respect to its openness and competitiveness.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

baddox 9y ago

> 2) anti-competitive behavior That's not much of an argument in the context of patents, because the sole purpose of patents is to prevent competition. All usage of enforceable patents is inherently anti-competitive behavior.

smilekzs 9y ago
I think he means the practice described in the patent is anti-competitive.
Consultant32452 9y ago
My how far we've fallen. And to think that the original purpose of patents was to democratize technology by eventually making inventions free for public use.
gnaritas 9y ago
> because the sole purpose of patents is to prevent competition. No, the purpose of patents is to make trade secrets into public information so knowledge isn't lost; allowing inventors limited monopolies isn't the purpose, it's the cost, it's the carrot that achieved the goal of getting them to disclose their inventions to benefit all of mankind. You've confused the carrot for the destination.

2_listerine_pls 9y ago

> anti-competitive behavior. The problem I see is that they are fine doing it to others with their app, but not ok when it's done to them.

fantispug 9y ago

If used this could be seen as a precedent for letting internet carriers do this. Even if you're paying for the connection it's still their network. While this is already occurs for content that is considered illegal, broadening the content it can be applied to is dangerous. They may block or throttle their competitors, or send you promotions for their products (or do the same things of their associates). Many people won't know or be able to detect that this is happening.

ouid 9y ago

this isn't totally on topic, but today's acquisition of Whole Foods seems like anti-competitive behavior as well. There is a lot of precedent for the prevention of vertical mergers. Amazon doesn't seem to be too concerned with how anti-trust law might be interpreted. I think they'll just count on the impotent FTC not having the resources to bring a case against them.