Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Comcast Sued Again over P2P Throttling

Posted by Soulskill on Fri Feb 22, 2008 03:26 AM
from the facing-a-torrent-of-legal-actions dept.
Government The Courts The Internet News
Dr. Eggman writes "Ars Technica brings us news of a disgruntled Washington D.C. Comcast customer who has filed a lawsuit against Comcast over claims of false advertising. The complaint seeks punitive damages, class-action status, and attorneys' fees. The customer claims Comcast advertised 'unfettered access to all the content, services, and applications that the Internet has to offer.' We discussed a similar lawsuit brought against Comcast by a Californian customer back in November, as well as the FCC investigation into Comcast's practices. While Comcast confirmed reception of the new lawsuit, they declined to comment on it directly. Spokesman Charlie Douglas was quoted saying, 'To be clear, Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Comcast Sued Over P2P Blocking 268 comments
CRISTAROL writes "Comcast has been sued by a California resident for blocking BitTorrent and other traffic. 'John Hart describes himself as a Comcast customer who has seen performance hits when using "Blocked Applications" targeted by Comcast's traffic management application, Sandvine. In his complaint, Hart says that Comcast severely limits "the speed of certain internet applications such as peer-to-peer file sharing and lotus notes [sic]." Comcast accomplishes this by "transmitting unauthorized hidden messages" to the PCs of those using the applications.' The lawsuit comes on the heels of an FCC complaint over the same issue."
[+] Politics: FCC To investigate Comcast Bittorrent Meddling 196 comments
An anonymous reader writes "FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said Tuesday that the commission will investigate complaints that Comcast actively interferes with Internet traffic as its subscribers try to share files online. A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars asked the agency in November to stop Comcast from discriminating against certain types of data and to fine Comcast $195,000 for every affected subscriber. While known for months in tech circles, the issue wasn't given broad attention until an Associated Press report last year, in which reporters tested and verified the data blocking."
Submission: Comcast Sued over P2P Throttling, Again by Dr. Eggman (932300)
[+] Comcast Pays Out $16M In P2P Throttling Suit 176 comments
eldavojohn writes "Comcast has settled out of court to the tune of $16 million in one of several ongoing P2P throttling class action lawsuits. You may be eligible for up to $16 restitution if 'you live in the United States or its Territories, have a current or former Comcast High-Speed Internet account, and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008; and/or Lotus Notes to send emails any time from March 26, 2007 to October 3, 2007.' $16 million seems low. And it's too bad this was an out-of-court settlement instead of a solid precedent-setting decision for your right to use P2P applications. The settlement will probably not affect the slews of other Comcast P2P throttling suits, and it's unclear whether it will placate the FCC."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Comcast Sued Again over P2P Throttling 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • But... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday February 22 2008, @03:40AM (#22512552) Journal

    Spokesman Charlie Douglas was quoted saying, 'To be clear, Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise.'
    But that's not what they're being accused of.
    Their spokesman gets an A for confusing the issue.

    • Re:But... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by snl2587 (1177409) on Friday February 22 2008, @03:47AM (#22512580)

      Which is great, at least for Comcast.

      Their greatest strategy is to keep confusing the issue and trying to keep from clarifying differences because otherwise they have no case. Remember that there are still people who think that the internet is "a series of tubes" or the like, and it doesn't take much to get a judge to rule in their favor simply because he fails to understand the difference between "blocking" and "throttling", at least in internet terms.

      • Clearly, their attorneys have opted for the Chewbacca defense [wikipedia.org].
      • it doesn't take much to get a judge to rule in their favor simply because he fails to understand the difference between "blocking" and "throttling"

        See people, this is why we need car analogies !

        • it doesn't take much to get a judge to rule in their favor simply because he fails to understand the difference between "blocking" and "throttling"

          See people, this is why we need car analogies !
          Well, yeroner, comcast didn't put the intertruck up on blocks, but it did disconnect the throttle.
      • It IS a series of tubes. If you're trying to explain how the network of interconnected nodes that we call the internet works - a series of tubes is a great straight-forward analogy that damn near everyone can understand. It's an analogy I used to use to explain concepts to grandfathers before that poor sod said it in front of a camera, and it remains true. Other points aside - the series of tubes mocking should stop. -GiH
        • If 'unfettered access' is a literal quote from their advertising, I think you could make a strong case that even throttling violates their commitment. After all, real fetters [merriam-webster.com] don't immobilize you, they just slow you down...
  • ...they just throttle them into oblivion.

    • Re:No, they don't block them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NickFortune (613926) on Friday February 22 2008, @06:36AM (#22513188) Homepage

      Exactly.

      This is why any net neutrality proposal that allows traffic shaping is utterly worthless. Because an ISP can then take any protocol they like and throttle it back to one byte every ten centuries, and then say "...but we're allowed to do traffic shaping, your honour"

      • Isn't the answer to define block on a data particle level?

        "Did X action related to this policy block one or more bits of data? Yes or No."

        Take it out of the adjective "State of zero data throughput".

        • "Did X action related to this policy block one or more bits of data? Yes or No."

          mmm... but I don't think it works like that.

          This is where I wish I had a deeper understanding of networking protocols, but as I understand it, what happens is that that the receiving computer gets so many packets and then signals back to say "my buffer is full - don't send any more until I say so". Under normal use the receiver would then process the buffer contents, and then signal the sender saying, "next packet, please

  • Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise.
    Of course [msn.com] they don't block [arstechnica.com] anyone's traffic [digitaltrends.com]. Why would anyone dare claim they would stoop to such low measures? Why, they're Comcastic [freepress.net]!

  • Haha, good luck. (Score:5, Funny)

    by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Friday February 22 2008, @06:50AM (#22513236)
    You're arguing with Comcast about the words they used to describe their service? Do you know how that works in the UK?

    Unlimited 1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.
    2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.
    3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

    4. (ISP Def. only) Confined within limits; restricted or circumscribed: a limited space; limited resources.)

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by sc7 (1141597)
      Nowhere on Comcast's site, does it say "Unlimited". That was taken off years ago.
      • No but they do advertise as "Internet". RFC's define the internet, and since they are not handling TCP according to the RFC's, I'd argue they're not providing Internet. They're providing access to the Comcast network.

        reset (RST) must be sent whenever a segment arrives
        which apparently is not intended for the current connection. A reset
        must not be sent if it is not clear that this is the case.

        rfc 793

        In fact this is a problem already solved by ICMP packet type 3 (Destination Unreachable) code 13 (Communication Administratively Prohibited).

        But the problem is if Comcast labels it like it is, then applications may start presenting error messages of what it is. If people started get

        • It wasn't the fact that they may have used the word "Unlimited" in their advertising, but that they were arguing over the definition of a word or phrase.

          In the UK at least, they seem to be able to stretch "Unlimited" to mean "Unlimited until you've used 1GB of data per day, in which time your upstream will be LIMITED, your downstream will be LIMITED, and you may be charged for excessive usage of this UNLIMITED (now LIMITED) service (Which, by the way, is LIMITED by the current usage of our backbone which has FAR less bandwidth than we're selling, meaning you never, EVER get the speed you subscribe for). You could also be cut off for exceeding these LIMITS at any time, but that's ok because we already have the money for this year's subscription! ,,|,,"

          So pay for a connection with an SLA and quit whining.

          Oh, you don't want to pay several hundred or thousand dollars (pounds) per month for a few dedicated megabits? Then why are you complaining? You're getting consumer level service. You get what you pay for. Live with it or shell out for a real connection.

            • You missed the point by so much of a margin you could work as a government Spin-Doctor. Did you even read the first line?

              The ridiculous semantics of a frivolous lawsuit aren't my concern so much as why the lawsuit was filed in the first place and what the outcome of such suits will be. Do you really think the broadband providers will seriously change their ways and cease all traffic shaping efforts and allow truly unlimited pipes to the Internet at ever increasing speeds? Seriously? Or back in reality, providers will instead collectively change their ways, realize it's not a market they need to worry about grassroots compet

            • If I go with provider A because they say, "unlimited service at $50/month," and then they say, "Well, we meant 200M/month and we mess with some protocols," I believe I have a case.

              If I go with a vendor who says "quality replica Rolex for $50" and it breaks in a month, do I have a case?

              If I go with a car dealer that says "Quality used cars at wholesale prices" and find out that the cars are salvage/rebuilt/flood damaged cars, do I have a case?

              If I go with a bargain basement electronics store and find out the products are remanufactured, salvaged, damaged or dented do I have a case?

              If I go to a clothing outlet and find that the 80% off retail articles are seconds do I have a ca

    • You're arguing with Comcast about the words they used to describe their service?
      Actually, when they were trying to sell their service to me, I believe they used the word, "Comcastic".
  • Servers. Last I checked.. hosting your own email, telnet, httpd servers (I'm sure there are others - seems like it's most of the well known ports (1023)) wasn't doable using standard ports - both against TOS and directly dropped into /dev/null. If a judge won't understand/take into consideration the difference between throttling and blocking, I don't give them leeway regarding the loss of needing standard ports.
  • Is this going to get federal class action status if out of staters join in with the defendent? If not, count me in to make it federal.
  • I have Cablevision, and I have noticed that I was throttled after downloading torrent files. The interesting thing was that they throttled my upload speed only, which I didn't even notice until I tried to upload a file to a friend of mine and it was capped at 17kb/sec. I guess that isn't as egregious, and definately more surreptitious, which is why they probably have been keeping their throttling under the radar...

  • Yeah right (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kimvette (919543) on Friday February 22 2008, @11:56AM (#22516286) Homepage

    Spokesman Charlie Douglas was quoted saying, 'To be clear, Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise.'"


    So please explain to me why Linux distros were PAINFULLY slow to download until I implemented rules on my firewall to block RST packets?

    Tagging this article "getfios"

    • Re:Better idea (Score:4, Informative)

      by Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS- (624050) on Friday February 22 2008, @04:11AM (#22512682) Journal
      There are plenty of legitmate uses for bit torrent. Blizzard uses it to distribute patches, and vuze uses it to distribute liscensed content.

      • Re:Better idea (Score:4, Interesting)

        by mapkinase (958129) on Friday February 22 2008, @07:33AM (#22513414) Homepage Journal
        And that constitutes how many percent points of total torrent traffic?

        • Re:Better idea (Score:5, Insightful)

          by TheCRAIGGERS (909877) on Friday February 22 2008, @09:12AM (#22514030)
          I can't tell if this is flamebait or not, so I'll be good and reply instead of modding.

          As long as it's over 0%, the percentage doesn't matter. The point is, they're supposed to be a common carrier and route the damn packets. Customers and services that customers pay to use rely on ISPs adhering to standards. And please, don't make Comcast out to be some great defender of the Copyright. They're only doing this to save their stockholders money- nothing more.

          Besides, piracy existed (and still does) well before the Torrent protocol. HTTP, IRC, SMTP, and FTP are all still used to transfer files in violation of copyright. Should Comcast throttle these indiscriminately as well? Where do you draw the line?
          • First of all, it is not about Comcast at all. And in no way I am going to defend a company that tortured me with average download speeds of 30kbps for the whole year (it was a ISP of choice for my landlord). The whole idea of me defending Comcast is actually offensive judging by amount of suffering I had to endure during that year.

            As for other protocols you have mentioned, I have the same question: what is the percentage of traffic in question consittues in HTTP, IRC, SMTP and FTP.

            I am going to put myself a
            • The idea of assigning unique signatures to "approved" bittorrent traffic is a fiasco waiting to happen, and counter to the ideals of an egalitarian internet (rather than a one-way tube from large corporations into the minds of consumers - we already have TV for that!) Since a signature would have to depend on the data being torrented (to prevent 'illegitimate' parties from coping it verbatim for their own torrents), a new one would be required for every new or changed file. This would add an anticompetiti
              • Thanks for the reply to the question of a noob. You seem to be much more educated in torrents than I am. What about an idea of registering torrent seeds? That will probably kill the privacy none less than the piracy, but then people will be less inclined to do something that is considered illegal (not necessarily that which I agree with). It will be like a gun ownership (I know, nobody ever died because of the torrent, I just do not have better analogy besides comparing it to notorious registering of copier
                • I can't think of a way in which that would work very well either. At least from a technical standpoint, the way that bittorrent works makes virtually no distinction between seeders and leechers. As soon as a leecher gets the last piece of data, they become a seeder. So, either your system would have to register leechers as well as seeders, or it would have to automagically prevent the people who have 100% of the file from continuing to torrent without a permit. The first approach fails handily: if the p
              • Sorry, by "torrent seeds" I meant "torrent seeders". Anyway, the computers that participate in torrents.

            • As for other protocols you have mentioned, I have the same question: what is the percentage of traffic in question consittues in HTTP, IRC, SMTP and FTP.

              The MPAA v Sony ("the Betamax case") already established that as irrelevant. The question is not "what percentage of the use is infringing", but merely, "are their substantial non-infringing uses?" For torrent, the answer is clearly yes. Not just Linux ISOs and game updates--there are thousands of bands that allow redistribution of their concert recordings, including some pretty big names. (The Internet Archive [archive.org] has over 2500 bands who have opted into their free hosting/redistribution service. And they

              • "are their substantial non-infringing uses?" You are making very good argument (or answer) to my question, but I still think that this should be compared to the loss. If you define substantial in terms of business generated or something equivalent to that, then it has to be compared to something. There is no "absolute" substantial.

                For bands, we still need the numbers: business generated via torrents versus business loss (which could be actually not that significant, I do not know) of proverbial RIAA and MPA
                • Replying probably too late for anyone to see, but what the heck... :)

                  If you define substantial in terms of business generated or something equivalent to that, then it has to be compared to something.

                  How is an arbitrary percentage of business, or whatever you're proposing, any less arbitrary than an arbitrary definition of "substantial"? ("Predefined" does not equate to "nonarbitrary".) In any case, the MPAA raised that exact argument in the Betamax case, and successfully showed that the overwhelming majority of use of the VCR at that time was for copyright infringment. The court accepted the argument, but ruled it irrelevant, as t

                  • "and successfully showed that the overwhelming majority of use of the VCR at that time was for copyright infringment." Right, but the question is about how much damage it done do the industry compared to the business benefit of using VCR (units sold, etc). Since it was physical copying it was probably less than now.

                  • Their argument is that you are transmitting information that you do not have a right to possess, or transmit. That what copying is in the word "copyright".
              • I agree with you. You are absolutely right, and that is the flaw of my comparison.

                Yet, the tradition of the laws of US does that all the time, and converts all types of risks, both financial and personal, into monetary value. That is why we have life insurance, accident insurance, that is why relatives of the wrongfully killed are suing for millions. It is unfortunate, in my opinion (thanks again for reminding about that flaw in my arguments), but that is how it operates.
      • Everyone uses this argument as reasoning for why Comcast *SHOULDN'T* throttle bit torrent traffic, but the large majority of bit torrent traffic is illegitimate to begin with. As someone said before, how much of a percentage of bit torrent traffic is legal? (Not that I agree with it), but this is really the crux of the matter. As long as they can fall back on the arguement that they are trying to protect copyright infringement while 95% of bt traffic is movies and music, they will probably always come out o

        • [the amount of bittorrent traffic that is legal] is really the crux of the matter.

          I'll buy "crux of the disagreement," but if Comcast is a common carrier, then the content doesn't matter at all.

          The rationale for maintaining one's status as a common carrier is to avoid liability for what's being transmitted. Comcast seems to want to discriminate based on protocol while remaining ignorant of content. That way they can reduce bandwidth (and therefore costs), theoretically increase revenue, and avoid legal cost

      • Blizzard uses it to distribute patches

        One of my biggest complaints too. X million dollars per month and they can't provide dedicated http/ftp patch servers? Cheap bastards.. Takes hours to patch a fresh install thanks to that crap.

    • Re:They just don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by oyenstikker (536040) <slashdot@@@sbyrne...org> on Friday February 22 2008, @08:23AM (#22513668) Homepage Journal
      They probably did a cost analysis and determined that it was cheaper to deal with the lawsuits than to upgrade their infrastructure. There is little risk of losing their customers, because in most markets they have no competition.

      You can buy your natural gas from one provider and have it delivered by the one with the local monopoly on the pipes. Why can't we do this with internet connections?
      • Yeah, but one does have to wonder, how many lawsuits were they thinking of dealing with? And even though they have a virtual monopoly currently in certain markets, said monopoly is not necessarily permanent, and whatever local groups they have franchise agreements with can decide to terminate their franchise agreement. Also, they might be fined by local authorities. This whole ordeal that they brought upon themselves could have very serious consequences for their future business.

        • whatever local groups they have franchise agreements with can decide to terminate their franchise agreement. Also, they might be fined by local authorities.

          It makes me wonder what we can do to help speed that process along. Maybe suing Comcast and the local government that gave them a monopoly would help?

    • ... You'd think by now, instead of fighting all of these legal battles, they'd stop the throttling, instead of opening themselves to more costly law suits.

      Yep, you're right. A Slashdotter's analysis of their legal costs versus bandwidth and peering savings gains is more adept than the corporate lawyers and network engineers. You should fire off a resumee.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.