Comcast Pays Out $16M In P2P Throttling Suit 176
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."
Typical! (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again the lawyers are the only winners. $16 is farcical, and the total $16 million is a rounding error for Comcast -- it doesn't serve as much incentive against bad behaviour in the future.
Re:Typical! (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, although I am not in Comcast's service area, if I were I don't think I would want to sign a piece of paper saying I used one or more P2P services between two dates. The MPAA and RIAA are way too aggressive to give them even a sliver of help for $16.
Re:Typical! (Score:5, Funny)
Replace one taboo with another and watch the reaction you get. It is an interesting reaction because which one is worse (for the British prudes)?
People, at their own peril, take me too seriously.
Re:Typical! (Score:4, Insightful)
British prudes
They certainly exist, but they don't have control over the media. After 21:00, supposedly when young children are no longer watching, pretty much anything except porn is broadcast on normal channels. Before that time nudity would normally be non-sexual.
The full rules for broadcasters [ofcom.org.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
Linux CD and DVD images. It's the fastest way to get a burnable Knoppix ISO image.
Check your md5sums and PGP signatures, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a hint: They're only calling it the colonies when they know an American is listening.
Re: (Score:2)
LMAO, British prudes.
Americans are only the biggest load of Christian fundamentalists in the world.
Yeah, I like to think that they could have stopped the Puritans from moving to North America, but didn't because they were happy to see them go.
It's hard to name another group that is so eager to use the law to enforce their morality on other people.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I would want to sign a piece of paper saying I used one or more P2P services between two dates.
I, for one, welcome the opportunity to sign a paper saying I downloaded Ubuntu, because I did.
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our anonymous Misuse-of-I-For-One-Welcoming overlords.
Re:Typical! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's also Linux distributions. I can honestly say that I downloaded several Linux ISO's over the previous year via Bittorrent. I can't say that's ALL I downloaded, but I did use it for that :).
Re: (Score:2)
In theory you are correct but fat load of luck proving it in court with the MAFIAA litigation machine grinding you to smithereens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Typical! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Class actions let you bring suits where no one person has been harmed a meaningful amount. How much legally-cognizable value did you lose from having P2P interrupted? Probably not enough to sue over. Without class action, comcast
Re:Typical! (Score:4, Insightful)
That class action settlement means nothing without an injunction to stop Comcast from further meddling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As long as you don't take part in the settlement, you can still sue them individually.
Actually, as with most class action settlements, everybody is opted in by default, and you must explicitly opt out in order to retain your rights to sue on your own. Didn't hear about the settlement in time to file a claim or opt out? Gee, that's a shame.
From the table at the bottom of the official settlement page [p2pcongest...lement.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, as with most class action settlements, everybody is opted in by default, and you must explicitly opt out in order to retain your rights to sue on your own. Didn't hear about the settlement in time to file a claim or opt out? Gee, that's a shame.
Nothing's written in stone, especially when agreements are made without your consent. While it's always best to take action in a timely manner, it is possible, in some cases, to argue that special circumstances warrant "turning back the clock." Note that
Re: (Score:2)
Considering they did that while at the same time advertising "unlimited internet" it should be worth the monthly fee x however many months (counting even fractional months as 1 month) the interruptions occurred. Of course, if you were smart enough to block RST packets on the affected ports, there really isn't much to complain about.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Your suspicions are correct. My company actually initiated one of these class actions after getting sued by an unscrupulous customer with an unscrupulous lawyer. Their case had no merit whatsoever, but it was about the 5th such case - clearly seeking an "it's cheaper to settle than litigate" settlement. We got the unscrupulous lawyer to bite on the idea of owning a class action suit. We then answered his subpoenas, helped him contact the class and get certified and then settle. It immunized us from any
Re:Typical! (Score:4, Insightful)
$16 million is a golf bet for the CEO of Comcast. They'll make $16 million selling cable porn this afternoon.
I'm trying to think of the last time a corporation was fined or sanctioned in such a way that it really changed their behavior. Anyone want to give some examples?
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly. Didn't Comcast just buy NBC? They'll just cancel some show (what's on NBC anyway?) and that's that.
[John]
Re:Typical! (Score:5, Informative)
Between 1982 and 1992, over 700 people had been seriously burned by McDonald's coffee that was brewed at a temperature that was not fit for drinking; at the time they were serving coffee at a temperature of 180-190F, a temperature that can result in third-degree burns in as little as two seconds. They had already paid claims as high as $500,000 for burns resulting from these high temperatures but had apparently done nothing to change their procedures to prevent future injuries.
Enter 79-year-old Ms. Liebeck and the infamous "coffee lawsuit." In 1992 she purchased a cup of coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru; placed the cup between her knees; and removed the lid to add cream and sugar. The cup slipped, spilling the coffee onto her cotton sweatpants which absorbed the hot liquid, resulting in serious burns.(1) This brief exposure to the coffee resulted in burns over 16% of her body, 8% of which were third-degree burns requiring skin grafts on her groin, buttocks, and thighs. She was in the hospital for eight days as the result of these injuries.
She requested $20,000 from McDonald's to cover her medical bills (which were $11,000) but McDonald's only offered $800. After filing suit a third-party mediator advised settlement of $225,000 but McDonald's refused. At trial the jury found Ms. Liebeck partly responsible for her injuries (20%) with McDonald's liable for the remaining 80%. She was awarded $160,000 ($200,000 less 20%) for compensatory damages (actual damages plus injury and harm) as well as $2.7M in punitive damages (intended to punish the harming party). The jury came up with the punitive damages amount based on two day's sales of McDonald's coffee throughout the franchise.(2) The jury's intention was to send McDonald's a message in an attempt to get them to change their business practices.
It worked. Days after the verdict the coffee served by the same McDonald's location was twenty degrees cooler. Additionally the restaurant now adds cream and sugar to the coffee for you at the drive-thru, mitigating the risk of a repeat incident.
Unfortunately this "example" of how to change corporate behavior has served as a rallying cry for corporate interests. When it's the businesses that control media spin it can become difficult for individuals to properly position stories that are "pro-consumer."
I agree that $16M is unlikely to affect change at Comcast (at least to the extent that their customers would like) but feel that it's a step in the right direction. I'm one of the "affected" customers here and will take my $16 and move on; nothing would preclude me from filing suit if they were to recommence (or continue?) their behavior in the future.
--------
(1) Despite common belief to the contrary, Ms. Liebeck was not the driver of the car. She was a passenger. Additionally, the driver, her grandson, actually pulled the car over and came to a stop to allow Ms. Liebeck to carefully remove the lid. She had taken what many would consider to be the steps of a "reasonable" person.
(2) On appeal the punitive award was reduced to $480,000 and the parties eventually settled out of court for an amount presumed to be in the neighborhood of $600,000.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No they weren't. No one else ever serves coffee at 190 degrees. 165 is the norm.
At least do some research before opening your pie-hole.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Back atcha.
Wiki:
"Though defenders of the Liebeck verdict argue that her coffee was unusually hotter than other coffee sold, other major vendors of coffee, including Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, Wendy's, and Burger King, produce coffee at a similar or higher temperature, and have been subjected to similar lawsuits over third-degree burns"
In fact, "McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 C (176–194 F), relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability..."
Re:Typical! (Score:5, Informative)
"Standard serving temperature" implies that this would be a reference temperature against which temperatures at other restaurants would be compared; but McDonald's served their coffee at a higher temperature than their peers.
In preparation for the trial, the plaintiff measured temperatures at 18 restaurants and 20 McDonald’s, and “McDonald’s was responsible for nine of the twelve highest temperature readings.”
The McDonald's QA Manager testified that the corporation realized that burns would occur, but maintained the "holding temperature" of 180-190(1) of its coffee because their research indicated customers buy coffee on their way to work or home and so wanted the coffee to be at an appropriate temperature up to thirty minutes later.
Hardly a "standard" nor an appreciation for consumers well-being.
--------
(1) by comparison the average holding temperature coffee at home is 135-140
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From the wiki article:
Re:Typical! (Score:4, Informative)
I just found an article that details much of the info; I'd not used this article as a source: http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/V11N1/Coffee.pdf [jtexconsumerlaw.com]
Much of the other info I found from a variety of sources (to include Wiki). Here are some:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305417907002550 [elsevier.com] (abstract only but "optimal drinking temperature" is 136)
http://www.eweek.org/site/news/Features/coffee.shtml [eweek.org] ("safe temperature" of drinking coffee @ 143)
Also, note that the 7th Circuit Appeals decision mentioned in the Wiki entry above is ANGELINA AND JACK MCMAHON v BUNN-O-MATIC CORP., ET AL and has some differences from the Liebeck case.
First, the holding temperature at issue was 179, not up to 190 as in the case at hand. Second, and more important, the plaintiffs in the cited case were suing a manufacturer, not a provider; this distinction is important and was the foundation for much of Judge Easterbrook's opinion which includes:
Judge Easterbrook is pointing out that the manufacturer did not make the decision to design their coffee maker with full knowledge of the containers into which they would be poured; obviously McDonald's is in a different position and there is no clear conclusion that the judge would've held differently than was in the McDonald's case based on these facts alone.
Also, I was mistaken regarding the study of temperatures of coffee at other restaurants; the study was done for a different case in 1986 in Texas but the results still hold true and were reported in the WSF (as cited here: http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm [vanosteen.com])
I realize we've gone far astray from my initial point (the success of modifying corporate decisions via the torts system) but for years I believed the myths about this case and saw it as a symptom of what was wrong with the legal system in the U.S. The more I learned about the actual case the more I realized that I was mistaken; I take the opportunity to enlighten others about the facts if possible. I recognize that frivolous lawsuits exist but do not feel that this is one of them. Ms. Liebeck died in 2004 after contending with not just the "incident" but also many jokes unjustly made at her expense and I think that's a shame.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
190F? Hardly the standard serving temperature for coffee:
Take a swig of 140F coffee -- the temperature your home coffee maker produces. You'll swallow in a hurry, your mouth will feel tender for a few minutes, and you might express your discomfort.
Take a swig of 165F coffee -- the temperature your local restaraunt keeps theirs at. You might swallow, you might spit it out, you'll probably curse for a bit, and your mouth will stop hurting by the end of the day.
Take a swig of 190F coffee -- the temperature
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Take a swig of 140F coffee -- the temperature your home coffee maker produces.
Um, no. Here's a link to the User manual of a HOME coffee maker; http://bunn.com/pdfs/retail/usecare/38864.0000_BTX_U_C_English.pdf [bunn.com]
It says: "The water is approximately
50F hotter than what’s available from your hot water faucet". Hot faucet water is 130-140, so the coffee maker water is 180-190.
It also says "The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing
temperature of approximately 200F."
That's 200 deg
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite [fiercetelecom.com], unless he's betting 75% of his salary.
Granted, $16M is still just half a percent of their net income for 2008, but half a percent is probably enough. For someone making $50k/yr, half a percent of that would be $250 -- enough of a penalty to make most people take notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Ford, over the Pinto. It's really sad I have to look back to the '70s for an example.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think they should have to pay $16 to all of us.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
$16 isn't a lot. However, I'm still going to apply for the settlement and will make it part of a larger donation to the local food bank and/or homeless shelter. I encourage you to do the same.
So.... (Score:2)
$15,998,000 to punch deep enough to hit Comcast's pain receptors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that you're talking about punitive damages.
You won a boat! scam. (Score:2)
Ok I realize I have my tin hat firmly on but does this sound to anyone like the old you won a boat trick to catch wanted people.
Hey p2p users you can get $16 come register at our office to pick up the money.
On another note, what happens if no one claims money like this from class action suits?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You won a boat! scam. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a lot of people (I'm one) who uses BitTorrent, etc. to download Linux distros, FOS software, music that the artist encourages you to share (and there's more of that than there is RIAA music), etc.
P2P is not proof of illicit activity, although the RIAA wants everyone to think it is.
Re: (Score:2)
P2P is not proof of illicit activity, although the RIAA wants everyone to think it is.
Absolutely correct. But to the uneducated masses, P2P users are all downloading illegal materials. Just like Tor users.
Educating people is the only way to clear this up.
Re: (Score:2)
P2P is not proof of illicit activity, although the RIAA wants everyone to think it is.
Absolutely correct. But to the uneducated masses, P2P users are all downloading illegal materials. Just like Tor users. Educating people is the only way to clear this up.
I'm not sure if "education" is the word for "when monied interests are involved, don't assume you know anything about a subject until you've investigated it for yourself." Maybe "common sense" is a better word for that?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hey p2p users you can get $16 come register at our office to pick up the money.
If I had to go to an office to get my check, I'd bring a burned copy of OpenDisc [wikipedia.org] (free software for Windows) and give it to whoever would give me the check.
I for one welcome... (Score:2)
... this efficient new way for RIAA and MPAA to identify people to sue - for $16 I am of course very likely to say "hey, I use p2p!" (or go through the shame of admitting that I use Lotus Notes) and then wait for the gazillion dollar lawsuit to come my way for downloading Ubuntu 7...
Gotta love it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gotta love it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's silly, I think it's a damned shame.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is many of the laws on the books that crimes that ordinary people are committing were once ones that only organizations can do.
Lets just use Copyright infringement, back even 20 years ago being able to copy music from one device and spread it to millions of people needed a lot of money and resources. Today one person can do it and have it spread like wildfire. But the laws for fines for such actions are still based on the old model. Sure it would $80,000 good fine for say a Radio Station to P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Unfortunately U.S. laws are usually written to favor corporations at the expense of individuals.
Actually, they're (mostly) written to pretend that there is no difference between people and corporations. If you think these two classes of entity are one and the same, clap your hands together and say "I believe in bailouts!"
Re: (Score:2)
I've always felt that all fines (anything from traffic violations to sanctions against companies) should be a percentage of the target's net worth. This completely eliminates the concern that the law is much more of a deterrent against poor people and small organizations while hardly amounting to a rounding error for the wealthy and multinational corporations.
1%? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
... during the time Comcast was infringing their rights ...
How were their rights infringed? This seems like a simple breach of contract. Comcast was contractually obligated to provide a certain service and failed to do so.
Ummmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a Comcast customer, I was throttled, I've never used my connection to download music or movies (TV shows and OSS only), and I still don't think I want to apply for my $16 pittance.
Prediction: The sharks who ran this class-action suit aren't going to be satisfied with $6.4 million (the usual 40% of $16 million), and they're going to make a few more bucks sell the names and details to RIAA/MPAA so everyone who receives their $16 will be slapped with a $999999 gazillion lawsuit for illegal file sharing. Most of the P2P users end up disconnected and eventually homeless after the spate of ruinous P2P lawsuits, Comcast gets to dump their heaviest-bandwidth users, everyone wins except the granny whose next door neighbor mooched off her WiFi and got a copy of Avatar.
"A strange game. The only way to win is not to play."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let me know how that works out for you, assuming they allow you access to slashdot from prison.
They do.
Say "Hi" to Bubba. He goes easier on people who are nice to him. :)
No I don't.
Tell me (Score:4, Funny)
As part of the settlement, does Comcast get to hand over names and addresses of all the claimants to the MPAA/RIAA for a nice tidy sum, say, $16 million?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Comcast will necessarily have access to the names and addresses. Usually Comcast pays their money to the lawyers who initiated the class action suit, and the lawyers then divvy it up by the approximate number of people in the class, minus their traditional 40% that they keep. Then, any unclaimed amounts, they keep. Plus they have the names and addresses which they keep.
It won't be Comcast handing the names and addresses over to MPAA/RIAA. I'd actually trust Comcast with that information mor
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, who wants to exclude themselves from this lawsuit, and maybe hire one of those country type lawyers, say like one of those that live in New York for a "real" case that will not just be settled? I have had too much trouble with my Comcastic service, and tired of even my Internet being throttled. I can go to Speedtest.net and it automagically lets Google load up the page. Without it, even Google may have a hard time. I have actually resorted to having TabMixPlus reload the Speedtest.net tab about eve
Re: (Score:2)
The lawyers working this have no interest in paying you the $16. They have no interest in stopping Comcast from doing this. Their interest in both ended when their bribe check to the judge cleared and they got granted "class action" status. From that point forward it was all about maximizing the settlement and minimizing effort.
Comcast knew this, of course, and pulled some money out of petty cash so the lawyers could make $6 million in cash today and move on to the next righteous-looking yet profitable c
Comcast is in the MPAA (Score:2)
It won't be Comcast handing the names and addresses over to MPAA/RIAA.
Comcast will soon own half of Universal Studios, which is in the MPAA. But then every major TV news outlet is in the MPAA too.
Re: (Score:2)
Without specific lists of things you downloaded, the RIAA/MPAA can't do anything. Methinks the paranoia is running a bit too rampant on this one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can people on Slashdot be so fucking dumb? If Comcast wanted to sell your name to the RIAA or MPAA, they already have all the information they need. Hell, they could hand over your credit card number, if they wanted to.
Yeah, Comcast sucks, but use your fucking brains, people.
Re: (Score:2)
but use your fucking brains,
Hmm let's see. If I was Comcast I could invest in a) a whole army of staff and hardware to collect data on users who were using bit torrent, edonkey, etc, then risk being sued by giving that data to a 3rd party, or b) I could get the LAWYERS for the plaintiff to collect that data for me, and hand it over to a 3rd party without ANY risk of legal fallout (after all, the exact terms of the settlement are confidential). Hmmmmmm, I dunno - which is better? Brains
It's a trap! (Score:2, Insightful)
They'll give you 16 bucks, and the RIAA will take 20 grand!
They're still doing it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Comcast in my area will start cutting connection to your modem if you use full bandwidth bittorrent for more than a few minutes. Reset your modem, and you're fine for another couple minutes, then it's out again.
If you turn off bittorrent, or throttle the settings back to rediculously low levels (say, 384 kbps download and 32kbps upload), there's no problem at all. If I pull a couple hundred megs down off a website or do a huge ubuntu update at full speed (1.8megabytes a second or so) I never have any proble
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast in my area will start cutting connection to your modem if you use full bandwidth bittorrent for more than a few minutes.
For me, it's not Comcast but the router. If I torrent without throttling, the router crashes, and I have to power-cycle it to get it going again. I don't think the stock firmware versions on home NAT-router appliances are intended to handle dozens of simultaneous inbound connections.
If I pull a couple hundred megs down off a website or do a huge ubuntu update at full speed (1.8megabytes a second or so) I never have any problems
That's because you have only one connection open at once.
Who the hell needs 50mbps downloads except bittorrent users
Businesses, multi-family residences, and people watching HDTV streams.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't run a business on one of their residential lines (which extreme 50 is)
I must have confused it with the corresponding tier of Comcast Business Class, which Comcast is promoting all the time on the cable news channels.
I can't imagine what most people would max out a 50mbps connection for, for 8 hours, other than downloading extremely large files (I.e. pirated games, movies, etc).
Steam is not "pirated", nor is iTunes Store. Blu-ray movies are streamed from the disc at 54 Mbps.
I'm sure that somebody else out there uses it for some legitimate reason, I'm just saying that those users are few and far between
As Internet connection speeds in the United States and Canada slowly climb to match those available in Japan and the Republic of Korea, and as the size of an operating system service pack continues to climb (it's currently about 200 MB for Windows, Mac OS X, or Ubuntu
Re: (Score:2)
Lan activity appears normal but you can't hit the cloud.
When the router is working, I can visit http://192.168.1.1/ [192.168.1.1] and get a password prompt to log in to the router's web-based administration panel. When it's frozen, I get a timeout from 192.168.1.1.
I would test it without the router in place
How, when the router's firewall is the only thing keeping worm packets from reaching the LAN?
Letter from my ex-wife. to comcast (Score:3, Funny)
Dear Comcast's Lawyers,
I'd like to receive my $16, as I was unable to download numerous hit Hollywood movies and popular music at acceptable speeds while on your service. I was affected while using such protocols as E-donkey, Bittorrent, Limewire, Gnutella, and anything else that might get me sued. Please send the check to my address above.
Yours Truly,
Fished's Ex-Wife
Recycle the settlement (Score:3, Funny)
Phase 1: Find as many geeks in your area that are eligible for the settlement.
Phase 1a: Jump through the hoops this settlement will likely require ("Submissions must be sent on a 3x5 index card, handwritten in blue ink with no misspelled words, and a tiny drawing of a European Swallow hand drawn in the lower left hand corner not to exceed 13% the total area of the card...")
Phase 2: ????
Phase 3: Have everyone deposit their checks, then send $16.00 donations to the EFF, OpenSSH Foundation, FSF, or FOSS project of your choice.
Specific programs? That's a load of... (Score:2)
Ok, so if your Blizzard updater got throttled, you can't say a word? You have to sign a paper confessing that you used one of those specific P2P client, where 99% of the users are downloading copyrighted material?
Yeah, there's nothing to fear, comrade, come in and sign this paper for your huge 16$ check.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah, my mistake.
So, is there any commercial program out there which uses P2P?
Hasn't Stopped Comcast (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hasn't Stopped Comcast (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I had this same issue. It is Comcast, but it is because they gave you a faulty modem (either crappy, broken or misconfigured). File a complaint, then demand a new modem.
Also make sure to get a new modem directly from Comcast. Many of the at-home technicians are outsourced to other companies. At least in my area, most of these companies just take defective modems from one location and then use it at the next house call (this was verified by two Comcast employees). If you get it directly from a Comcast l
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously (Score:3, Insightful)
So hit them where it hurts their pocket book (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, there should be legal repercussions for a company doing something like this to its customers. Unfortuneately, lawyers aren't cheap and companies can pay to have more of them. While more doesn't mean better, it does reduce your chances of being able to go up against such a company. Of course it would be different if you identified the people who were wronged by this ahead of time and had each one chip in five bucks for a legal team ($5 X 1 million people, you get the idea).
Regardless of this, getti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do the words "monopoly" mean anything to you?
Comcast apparently sucks...but does it suck bad enough that, when there's no other game in town, it's better to just do without?
its a trap (Score:2)
Still going on? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
P2P for all updates (Score:3, Interesting)
Benefits:
(1) It's more efficient for everybody (I would imagine that bandwidth for folks like MS / AVG / even SourceForge would be lower by at least a magnitude of ten)
(2) It further legitimizes P2P
(3) It forces ISP's hand in treating bittorrents like all other traffic
While I appreciate that the tin-hat-wearers may believe that the MPAA / RIAA wouldn't want such a move I wonder if there are technical aspects of which I'm unaware?
Re: (Score:2)
many isps, especially in the states, can't do their one single job properly; transfering data. they dont want to put money into upgrading their infrastructure, they want to make the net a one-way street and they want to get paid handsomely for it.
isps having to pick up their own slack and actually doing properly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No you can't.
You can trust that the hashes matched. Thats it.
Have you not been around for the many many times over the past few years where people have shown viable ways to get around the various common (i.e. the ones we use for anything that matters to this discussion) hashing algorithms?
Hashes are a level of authentication, but they are defeat able, just gotta find the right spot and the right payload.
With P2P you are willingly accepting data from many people you know nothing about. When HTTP, even with
Re: (Score:2)
that's what the hash checks are for.
Turn BitTorrent back on. (Score:2)
Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !! (Score:4, Funny)
You're right. It's not ferrous.
Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ore what?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How vein.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ok, no more chemistry jokes. Period.
Re: (Score:2)