Comcast May Face Lawsuits Over BitTorrent Filtering 378
An anonymous reader writes "It's been widely reported that Comcast is engaged in a sneaky form of Internet filtering. The company is terminating its customers' BitTorrent sessions by sending misleading data onto the network. The end result is that instead of targeting key heavy users, Comcast is instead engaged in an all out war against P2P protocols. In an interview with CNET, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Fred von Lohmann states that Comcast is 'throwing a spanner in the works of the Internet, hoping that this will somehow reduce bandwidth usage overall.' Other lawyers seem to have smelled blood, and are circling in the water. Lohmann reveals that '[The EFF has] already been contacted by attorneys who are considering legal action against Comcast.' Could Comcast be facing a class-action?"
ZOMG!! Squeal!! (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, to get in on the lawsuit, you have to submit an online form - and the cost of sending those few hundred KB of information over a Comcast line will doubtless cancel out that award.
Not the point (Score:2)
The point of such a lawsuit is not so much for you to personally profit by $7.32, it is that they will have to pay millions of people $7.32, plus millions of dollars more to very expensive lawyers.
The point is that after paying so much money for doing something so stupid, they'll be less inclined to do stupid things in the future.
I hope that this actually happens, so that somewhere, at some time, some executive might realize, "Gosh, it would have been a lot cheaper and more PR-friendly if we had just up
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that after paying so much money for doing something so stupid, they'll be less inclined to do stupid things in the future.
In theory, yes, but in reality, no. The real point is to knock a tooth or two out of a giant in the industry with expensive, time-wasting resources defending a lawsuit which basically enhances the competition's position in the industry since they are not a part of the expensive legal proceedings. That's probably not a written rule, or maybe not even an intention of the laws that allow class-action lawsuits (IANAL so I don't really know), but it still hurts Comcast. And no, there won't be much learning go
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just P2P -- Lotus Notes traffic also! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not just P2P -- Lotus Notes traffic also! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want money (was Re:ZOMG!! Squeal!!) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. I do not want my data traffic to be lower priority than someone else's VOIP. I don't use VOIP, I HAVE PHONE SERVICE. When I first heard of VOIP in 1996 I thought it was a bad idea, and I think it's worse now.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I was just thinking how much I don't miss Comcast. Even though DSL isn't 6 or 60 Megs up/down like I would expect from a Utopia [utopianet.org] connection, at least I don't have to deal with Comcast's Frankenstein behaviour.
Personally I hope as a nation we consider the Internet "Important" to our economic future. If so then why are we not building a National Infrastructure as proposed by Clinton/Gore int he 90's? I'm talking about NII. From
Re: (Score:2)
I'd join this class action. I'm a Comcast customer and I can't stand the way they try to restrict Internet activity when they often claim service is "unlimited".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Reverse this notion and look at it from the likely payout end. It is like having to honor a rebate you didn't have to tell customers they were eligible for 7 years down the road. think how many rebates are honored w
Re: (Score:2)
Sign something saying that during such and such a timeframe, you were engaged in stealing music/movies/games/porn using bittorrent, and Comcast's throttling of bittorrent or cancellation of your account for excessive bandwidth consumption negatively impacted your illicit activities?
Who is the class going to be? The 5 legitimate torrent users
Re:ZOMG!! Squeal!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably people will look hard to discover what possible legal torrent there aare that would account for a 50+ Gb habit for the last three years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So even though the majority of Bittorrent traffic is based on infringing copyright, it's also used for the majority portion of Linux ISO distribution. It's also used by a few game companies and other, very legitim
Comcast (Score:5, Insightful)
One should hope so (Score:5, Interesting)
One should hope so. See, here's the deal.
If I were on Comcast's Internet service, I would be paying for the ability to communicate with other people to accomplish various legal tasks. And if there is anything to learn in the past few days immediately following the release of Gutsy Gibbon, with Ubuntu.com completely hosed as far as I can tell, there are legitimate, much-needed, legal ways to use peer-to-peer services. If this isn't the fundamental reason for signing up with an Internet Service Provider, to be able to communicate with other computers, what is?
If they had told me up front that they would be resetting peer-to-peer connections, I might be mad, but at least I'd know it up front and could choose to sign up with a service that doesn't do so. If these were technical problems that forced their actions as a resolution, then I might agree that taking necessary action to restore service is a Good Thing. If there really were no legitimate uses for peer-to-peer networks, as the RIAA and MPAA would have everyone believe, then I would still disagree, but at least I would understand.
As it is, though, none of those things are true. Comcast is still denying that they are deliberately causing connections to fail, in spite of the incontrovertible proof that has been offered, and that only after Comcast said nothing at all to their customers for... well... we don't know how long. As it is, it's not in response to connections being down, it was planned out and implemented while nothing was broken in response to some hypothetical situation that might arise. In fact, in having problems with Lotus Notes, Comcast has actually broken something else that was working before in order to fix a problem that didn't exist to begin with!
In short, if I were on Comcast's Internet service, I would be paying them to deliver network packets, that's all. At best, Comcast has engaged in an egregious breach of contract by deliberately interfering with my ability to get packets from A to B. At worst, they are guilty of deliberately and secretly impersonating someone they're not, and if I'm not mistaken, that's a crime. They might be lucky if they can get out of this with just a class action lawsuit.
I'm not on Comcast's Internet service, thank goodness, although I am on AT&T's, and believe me, it's not much better. All of this stupidity just makes me long even more for more competition in this space for something else to come along. I never that I'd see the day when, "We won't interfere with your Internet connection!" would actually become a selling point, yet here we are.
If I can indulge in a bit of tinfoil-hattishness, it really makes me wonder. The RIAA and MPAA are a huge media creation conglomerate. As mentioned, they hate, HATE, HATE peer-to-peer software, even with all of its legitimate uses. As some of you may know, Comcast is more than just an Internet service provider, they also happen to be the largest media provider company, and they're facing increased competition from telcos and satellite providers. Who wants to bet that Comcast has been either paid off or offered sweet deals on media content in trade for pushing the RIAA's and MPAA's agenda of controlling what applications can and can't be used on the Internet?
Something to think about...
Re: (Score:2)
While I wish I could share your optimism that a Big Bad will get hit hard, given the track record of class actions against similar Tech Big Bads seem to have no negative effect on the company. (Sony, Microsoft.)
What would be great is if the threat of charter removal loomed over their head, but IF Comcast got dissolved, how would that affect their monopoly situation? There's no *real* fear. Comcast will still be around.
It'
Re:One should hope so (Score:4, Insightful)
and could choose to sign up with a service that doesn't do so
We're on the slow network, too. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Western Union used to print disclaimers on every telegraph form, which is plain English translated to:
It will get there when it gets there.
The deferred service - the night letter rates - are cheaper.
I never thought that I'd see the day when, "We won't interfere with your Internet connection!" would actually become a selling point, yet here we are.
It has been a selling point from day one.
But your T1 ser
Re:Comcast (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Where does it end? Modifying emails because they disapprove of the content? What if your cell phone company monitored your phone conversations, and bleeped out words they didn't like?
This is obnoxious on so many levels it's not even funny...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Internet lines were denied the same designation, so they can, hence network-non-neutrality
The idea, however, is that if they do that, they will lose all their customers, and be sued for it, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast has absolutely no right to modify the traffic of their customers, just like the phone company has no right to change what I say on the phone. And just like the postal office has no right to modify the letters I send while they are in transit.
And this isn't even about modifying traffic. It is about Comcast deliberately injecting false data into the network with information falsely claiming that it was sent by parties other than Comcast.
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy is broken. Suppose you rented me a TV and told me it picked up all the off-air stations just fine. Then, I discovered that it wouldn't pick up Channel 62, and I complained to you about this. Later, I discover that not only this TV, but all the TVs you rent refuse to pick up Channel 62. All of them pick up the local Channel 8 network affiliate though, which you just happen to be on very good terms with. After all, it turns out you're getting a share of ad revenue from Channel 8, because you
Re: (Score:2)
Go reread the grandparent:
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the part where I said "You told me it picked up all the off-air stations." Comcast goes around screaming "we'll give you gobs of bandwidth!" misrepresenting what it is exactly they're selling.
If you go into an Apple store and ask "Will it play my Windows files?" and the sales droid say "Yes," you have a right to return it when you discover it doesn't.
--JoeRe: (Score:2)
As a Comcast customer, you are not currently receiving unlimited Internet access, in any way of defining the term. They aren't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do not OWN the network you are just renting it.
But you're subscribing to an ISP proper, not an ISP* (* some limitations of connectivity and authenticity of traffic apply). Internet traffic comes in all shapes and ports and by blocking certain things and intentionally dicking around with that traffic they are misrepresenting what they're selling. It's even MORE nefarious if you consider that, for high speed, you may not even have a competitor able to pick you up on it.
Imagine if the mail worked that way. The love letter you send gets altered to read tha
Re:Comcast (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Property rights are not, and never have been, absolute rights. I can not fill my backyard swimming pool full of radioactive sludge no matter how much I want to.
3. Comcast is a government blessed monopoly in many cases. Therefore, their behavior is even more limited since they must "act in the public interest."
4. Comcast likes to enjoy the legal protections of being a "common carrier" (i.e a dumb pipe). This behavior shows that they are not a dumb pipe at all. Once a provider starts manipulating the traffic flowing across their network, they lose common carrier status, and are now responsible for ALL the traffic on their network.
5. They are forging packets. This is a computer crime. [usdoj.gov] ("knowingly cause[] the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally cause[] damage without authorization, to a protected computer", where "damage is "any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information." and "loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value.") While you may not be able to say that any one computer was "damaged" in excess of $5,000, the entire network was affected, and that is certainly more than $5,000.
6. They are deciptively advertising their serves as "unlimited" when it clearly is "limited."
7. While not related here, you should know, that just because a legal "agreement" says something, doesn't make it legal. Case in point: The indemnity clause at ski resorts that say "If our ski lift collapses, you can't sue." Bullshit. You can, as there is a clear public interest in not having deathtrap ski lifts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue I take with this is that there are a myriad of ways to handle this problem. Forged packet RST is not the answer. There are plenty of options at their disposal, but they have chosen one that not only spoofs my identity but is very disruptive. What is wrong with response
Re:Comcast (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as they have a government granted monopoly on local cable service, they have the right to provide fully functional cable internet service to any resident who requests it and is willing to pay the fee specified in the contract between Comcast and the municipality.
Companies getting to chose who they do business with is great - I kicked people out occasionally when I owned a retail store - but it simply doesn't apply to utility co
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
It's Working! (Score:5, Funny)
Honestly, I have to give Comcast this point. I was thinking about signing up with Comcast, but now will be going with Copowi [copowi.com] instead. That'll save Comcast some bandwidth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They -want- all the heavy users to leave and leave them with only light users that pay full price. It's their dream situation.
Comcast Rebate (Score:2, Funny)
Filtering vs. tampering (Score:5, Informative)
Passively dropping packets in an attempt to shape traffic or implement some QoS policy is one thing. Actively "jamming" connections is quite another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Spoken like someone with only a limited concept of network equipment. Let's roughly break down filtering techniques into two broad categories:
Both techniques have their plusses and minuses. In the first case, the filter can literally filter the packets. That is, it simply drops them rather than forwarding them on. The downside is that if the filter machine goes down then the two endpoints cannot com
Re: (Score:2)
Nice post, Jimithing, even if I don't agree with your EFF rant...
Re: (Score:2)
They just need to invest in the proper equipment for shaping, not randomly close people's connections. Hell, as someone else already pointed out, WoW's patcher uses a BitTorrent derivative. Not being able to grab a 200MB patch because some gremlin is randomly spamming us with RSTs isn't going to make me a
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. You're right. They could use proper QoS and no one would know the difference. But in the specific cast of BitTorrent, sending RST to both sides effectively does QoS without really breaking the protocol. BT will simply retry. You will get your 200MB patch, just more slowly.
The thing I take issue with is the idea that something with basically the same end result is somehow illegal because you are able to observe that it's being done as opposed to real QoS which no one would have noticed except for
Well hip me up and count me in, jiggly-doo !! (Score:2)
It would be nice.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Having said that, I hope it scares the crap out of Comcast (and any other ISP dumb enough to try this).
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope it scares the crap out of every ISP that promotes high speed internet connections for large file transfers, while manipulating traffic behind the scenes.
For example, Rogers in Canada which states "Enjoy the next generation of Internet service great for sharing large files and much more" [shoprogers.com], while throttling the P2P services (or any encrypted connection) that are required for the very same as reported h [michaelgeist.ca]
Big and Little answers to this (Score:4, Interesting)
Little question: Does the packet shaping and interdiction violate the agreement that comcast made with users? does it violate upstream agreements with other providers?
the big question isn't likely to be solved by this lawsuit. It is the question we want answered, and quickly, but any lawsuit is likely to stem from some violation of contract erms or some misrepresentation in advertising, not the existential question of Comcast's nature as a common or a private carrier.
The little question might be enlightening, but I doubt it. This policy might have been implemented after consulting the legal depatment and determining that the TOS for Comcast users was draconian and one sided enough to permit this sort of meddling. Alternately, it may have been the result of a business action distinct from legal consulation. Comcast may have been dumb enough to think that their users would be able to notice or test this phenomenon. My money is on a combination of the two notions. comcast probably cleared "packet shaping" in the abstract with legal, but failed to note this wrinkle in the method with them.
they will probably argue in court that they have the right to provide their definition of QOS to buyers, and this requires that they stop "illegal" traffic. They will presumably go through great pains to paint Bittorrent as illegitimate, and justify their actions on that front. They will also bring up the likely fact that residential broadband users have no uptime/QOS clause in their contracts, a fact that will become much more important than the supposed illegality of traffic.
That is where the meat will be. What sort of QOS/uptime/bandwidth promises are made internal and external to the contract. Not very fun stuff, but them's the breaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still think they are wrong, for the record, I'm just speculating on how a court case would proceed.
The pendulum being forced the other way? (Score:2)
Heh... (Score:3, Funny)
1) The one guy out there actually downloading Creative Commons-licensed Ogg Theora files
...or...
2) A complete idiot
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Lotus notes is similarly affected. It seems that if you transmit small bursts of packets, Comcast give you the bandwidth you've paid for. If you start streaming data, or the volume of data goes
This was The Straw... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not everyone is so lucky, I read so many posts in other threads saying that Comcast is their only option for broadband. Hopefully that will change for them. I have a friend in a rural area who was able to sign up for sprint wireless broadband, because comcast wont run their cable 20 feet across the road to his house. The only issue with the sprint connection is it is not incredibly reliable, but for the most part his link stays up while he is using it.
UnFair thee well, Comcast...
Re: (Score:2)
that broke the internet's back for me. I've already ordered DSL service to replace my current Comcast connection. As soon as it is up and running I'm taking both my cable box and my modem back personally, and explaining that the reason I am cancelling is due to Comcast's complete disregard for customer service in that they constantly lie to their customers about having "unlimited" service as well as messing around with packets they ought not be messing around with.
Be sure to bring a claw hammer with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Network Neutrality whether you like it or not (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Network neutrality laws, as currently drafted, would forbid discriminating based upon the source or destination of traffic, not based upon the type of traffic. This is often misunderstood, partly because of FUD spread by big network operators. They do not restrict traffic shaping or even completely blocking a given type of traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevertheless, it is a related issue, and when a case like this goes to court, the result may be a judicial decision as to what is fair behavior on the internet (which legislation aims to achieve), but which may not have direct basis in legislation, but may allow for considerably more judicial wiggle room than if there were a basis in legislation.
Pirillo (Score:4, Interesting)
WoW is good for something (Score:2, Funny)
Re:WoW is good for something (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps, if Google were to (Score:2)
Comcast may be able to do this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt that a judge would consider any Comcast advertising I've seen as an example of Comcast advertising "unrestricted" Internet service. "unlimited" could easily be argued to mean an unlimited amount of traffic, and there would've got a point. Unrestricted is a different thing, and I've never seen any Comcast advertising where they claimed that there are no restrictions on your use of their service.
Lawsuits will have unintended consequences. (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Comcast rebuttal says that all the traffic is illegal.
3) RIAA, the Business Software Alliance, say, "oh ho, you can figure out that this traffic is illegal.. why are you allowing it at all?"
4) Comcast agrees to halt all "illegal" traffic, winning the 1st lawsuit, after being joined by RIAA and co, and they agree to drop their lawsuits against Comcast.
5) P2P is dead, killed by ISPs that follow comcast's lead.
Re: (Score:2)
If all the traffic was illegal then RIAA would already be able to outlaw it.
They have repeatedly FAILED to do that against bit-torrent, because NO, all P2P is NOT illegal.
So you left out the following step:
2.5: Judge throws out Comcast entire argument because he declares that as per the precedent, P2P traffic has already been declared legal per se, while individual examples might contain illegal things, it is up to Comccast to prove that they are ONLYU blocking the illegal stuff, which t
Re:Lawsuits will have unintended consequences. (Score:4, Informative)
Detecting the RST? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try something along the lines of: Change the interface name and port number to suit your needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Kiss neutral traffic access goodbye... (Score:2, Insightful)
Having said that...
Remember when the Green Card Lottery spam first went out? Everyone was up in arms about it, threats and lawsuits were coming from all sides...sound familiar? And that stopped the spam problem dead in it's tracks, right?
Same thing here. This is just the first volley. They're testing the waters. In 5 years it'll be commonplac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't had any problems with DHCP timeout, but that might be because I'm not on DHCP. For some lame reason, the early adopters were set up as PPPoE, and they can't change it without literally shutting down and reactivating my account. It's clearly an administrative problem, rather than a technical one -- new customers get DHCP.
It works, it's reliable, except for when the ActionTec router (provided by them) starting acting wonky. If you have multiple static IP'
Turn on encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
I turned it on yesterday and am getting unheard of download speeds: over a 1000 kB/sec. in some cases. I've never seen speeds that high. I use Comcast. And my uploads are getting better so my ratio doesn't ban me from my favorite site.
(Just for linux iso's of course.)
Well - they are denying it (Score:5, Informative)
I got the following response
"I understand you have some concerns over recent web gossip that has
suggested Comcast is blocking or hindering customer access to
BitTorrent. My name is Armin and I will be glad to assist you.
Mark, we do not block access to any P2P (Peer To Peer) applications,
including BitTorrent. We respect our customers' privacy and don't
monitor specific customer activities on the Internet, or track
individual online behavior, such as which websites are visited.
Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting
BitTorrent or any other site.
Additionally, Comcast does not "throttle" bandwidth (limit throughput on
the network). Comcast also is not traffic shaping or packet shaping.
We have a responsibility to manage our network to ensure that our
customers have the best broadband experience possible. That means we
use the latest technologies to manage our network to provide a quality
experience for all Comcast subscribers. This is standard practice for
network operators around the world. I do not have specific information
to provide to you regarding the details of how we manage our network, or
vendors that may be used.
I hope that I was able to effectively address your concerns. If you
have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact
us back."
New P2P lawsuit defense: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does AJAX smell like BitTorrent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the issue here is that they are interfering with communications, rather than facilitating it. For me this is analogous to phoning a friend and purposely having the phone hang up by a third-party, even if the third-party runs part of the infrastruc
Re: (Score:2)
But the real issue is if they can defend this by saying these are (mostly?) illegal communications that they can be held liable for. Because they certainly do not have any sort of "common carrier" status. They can certainly be held liable for contributing to infringement without much of a stretch at all of current case rulings.
So anyone that really does sue them may just find out that Comcast is holding a little card that says the local US Attorney's office sa
oh, yeah, they are actively breaking something (Score:2)
they are intercepting your request and changing it into asking for used bubble gum.
not passing the data straight through, for a Data Carrier, is a class-1 Super Sin. now giving a copy to the NSA to sort through and find out if any of your relatives back to Alexander the Shepherd had an axe to grind with the US government is another matter, and under review in many places.
but horking up your data stream? federal case.
Re:I don't know (Score:5, Insightful)
Comcast has 1.) advertised full-function internet service 2.) contracted with municipalities to provide that service to residents. Sending out spoofed packets to disrupt users internet usage simply isn't reasonable behavior for a company claiming to provide internet service.
Re: (Score:2)
So you have no problems with the telephone company changing the words you say on your phone call so that the other party thinks you're saying something else, or the post office opening your letters and changing them for other letters before delivering them, right? Get real, if you say that this isn't "breaking" something, then you are insane. The fundamental job of an ISP is to faith
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you been paying attention?
Now, if you are an idiot and start your own DDoS attack from inside the US to another US company's connection you are done for. As soon as they track you down and confirm that you are indeed the person using some given IP address. It will take a while (months, probably), but if you
Re: (Score:2)
also, this has been the case for years: DOS attacks [wikipedia.org]. This definition does not take into account what service is being denied. In essence, Comcast is DOS'ing bittorrent protocols, preventing them from funcitoning as intended by sending malignant false packets. Sure they are targeting a protocol with these packets, instead of say a windows box to blue-screen it, or a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In most cases the local town or city has contracted with a single cable provider and a single DSL provider. That makes the list of choices very small, and means that it's reasonable to think of Comcast as a contracted public utility rather than a private firm in a competitive market.
In any case, the correct response to poor behavior by a cable or DSL provider is simply to complain to the city or town. Tell them that the providers are abusing their monopo
What would be the point? (WAS: Sue them) (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Now if they want to say forging packet sniffing data and/or screenshots, etc... is too easy then take that ruling and apply it to every single computer crime case ever.