backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 120 comment(s) - last by FoSTeX.. on Nov 18 at 3:24 AM
Comcast's recent practices of throttling P2P traffic has finally attracted a class action lawsuit from a frustrated customer

Comcast's bandwidth limitting and peer-to-peer traffic sabatoging traffic finally caught up with the company. A class-action lawsuit has been filed (PDF) by residents in the state of California against Comcast.

Jon Hart, the plaintiff, claims Comcast Corporation committed a breach of contract by violating Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, the Business and Professions Code section 17200 and 17500 and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act by practicing the management of P2P-based traffic including throttling bandwidth and "transmitting unauthorized hidden messages to the computers of customers who utilize such applications."

The class-action includes "all persons in California who purchased the Service [Comcast broadband Internet] between November 13, 2003 and the present and used or attempted to use peer-to-peer or online file sharing applications and/or Lotus Notes."

The plaintiff represents all persons who have used P2P and file sharing applications, but there is no mention of exceptions where copyright infringement/piracy is involved.

Hart's submission seeks contract damages for compensation of the impeded service, but does not specify an amount.

Recently, many other ISPs such as Canadian-based Bell Sympatico confessed to using traffic management to restrict access to accounts based on the type of application or protocols they are using.  However, Comcast is still the first company to get hit with a lawsuit for such practices.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Let's hope.
By mindless1 on 11/15/2007 4:59:44 PM , Rating: 4
Let's hope Comcast pays out quite a lot, to serve as a warning to other ISPs. I'm not a Comcast customer but still wouldn't mind having to pay a slight bit more for service, to have precedence set which discourages ISPs from any kind of traffic throttling, because eventually it would effect more people (traffic) than only those using P2P or Lotus Notes. Otherwise, ISPs have too great an incentive to prioritize their pay-per services to the detriment of their periodic internet service customers.




RE: Let's hope.
By clovell on 11/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Let's hope.
By Christopher1 on 11/15/2007 6:22:44 PM , Rating: 1
Wrong. That argument has been debunked by many people who have teenage kids doing Bittorrent and by myself and my parents, who are able to get through to the internet quite fine while I am BitTorrenting.


RE: Let's hope.
By Parhel on 11/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Let's hope.
By BeastieBoy on 11/16/2007 5:46:47 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah. Dial-up sucks.


RE: Let's hope.
By GreenEnvt on 11/16/2007 8:36:45 AM , Rating: 1
Right..
Last weekend I was downloading 3 Linux ISO's, getting about 300KB/s, and was still getting a sub 20ms ping while playing Team Fortess 2.

This is on a Cogeco (Canadian cable company in southern Ontario) cable connection, 10mbit down.

I do cap my upload rate to 15KB/s though.


RE: Let's hope.
By Parhel on 11/16/2007 9:56:54 AM , Rating: 3
I was exaggerating, but I'll bet it takes me over a minute to just load Google if I have BT running. I'm using Comcast, so maybe that's the issue, but I have the 6Mbps second service. I never reach over 100KBps on BT either.


RE: Let's hope.
By schwinn8 on 11/16/2007 1:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe your router can't handle the load? Most consumer-level routers really have problems with P2P. You need a pretty high end one to keep up with BT. I know my older SMC router wouldn't take it, and would simply lose its mind after a while on BT, requiring a power cycle on the router.

Even my new Netgear WPNT834 router, which was rated pretty well for P2P (see http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/content/view/25840/... ) and still will choke if I overdo it. The key is, you need to throttle your own connection down a bit, so that you don't piss off your router.

Besides which, YOUR BT usage should not have this much of an effect on the internet service in your area... unless they are simply under-serving you, in which case, we are back to the same original problem - it's not that P2P is "bad"... but that the cablecos are just not upgrading their service fast enough.

If they want to sell me 3Mbps service, I should be able to get that, whenever I want. That's how DSL works - they throttle your connection at the DSL Modem. There's no real reason they can't do this on cablemodems too... but they don't do it because the hardware doesn't support it, and they are oversubscribing for the regions. Either way, this does not mean they have the right to throttle my programs, just because they can't provide quality service.

For that matter, tell me how much I can throttle down to.. or what my limit is... they don't even want to do that.


RE: Let's hope.
By Parhel on 11/16/2007 2:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
Until I brought it up, I just thought everyone had similar performance under BitTorrent. I'm glad I asked, even if it got me a negative rating on my post (which I don't understand.) I hadn't considered that my routing might be a factor in determining my speeds. Thanks for the tip! I'll see if I can't borrow my dad's router to test how it affects the speed.


RE: Let's hope.
By smitty3268 on 11/16/2007 8:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
What I found was that the upload speed you give BT really affects your browsing performance, much more than the download speed. When you try to go to google, every time you receive a packet you have to respond that it's been received, and if BT is maxing out your upload bandwidth it gets into a vicious loop or retransmitting the page over and over again.

If you set that to some really low value and you're still having problems, looking at the router is a good next step.


RE: Let's hope.
By clovell on 11/16/2007 10:47:22 AM , Rating: 2
Then your hub isn't being saturated.


RE: Let's hope.
By InsaneGain on 11/16/2007 12:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
I pay for a premium cable internet connection with a 10 mbps down and 1 mbps up rate, and every single evening at about 8:00 pm, my latency to the local router goes from about 8 ms to 80 ms, and stays that way until 12:00 am. So if I connect to any game servers, that 80 ms adds to all the other latencies in between and gives me pings of about 120-140 ms. Obviously this is due to a saturated local router. I called my provider about it and they sent a tech guy to make sure my modem was working properly, and that is all they are going to do about it. They said that my download bandwidth is within an acceptable range.


RE: Let's hope.
By The0ne on 11/15/2007 6:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
It seems you want to make the point that they can market their service as "unliited" and yet give your crappy, limited services. They could simply just market the truth and you, the guy you are replying to and I could be happy and not feel so cheated. Remember, I was with Cox before I moved and was throttle to a low 10gig/month despite me having their $60 12Mbit/5Mbit service. This was an actual conversation I had with the IT tech guy on the phone when I called in to check. I use it to play games and occasional download larger files...linux builds, etc. Bit torrent...no. Does this seem fair to you?

I don't mind them throttling or limiting the bandwidth if there's a need but don't around boosting and selling what you aren't capable of doing. Of course this is unrealistic as marketing is always full of BS.


RE: Let's hope.
By clovell on 11/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: Let's hope.
By mindless1 on 11/15/2007 8:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
I wrote that I'm NOT a Comcast customer and guess what? No throttling and here is a post I made!

You write about cable broadband being shared bandwidth but guess what? So is the entire internet, the cable company has more internal available bandwidth that most legs you remotely connect to! The cable company is usually not the bottleneck, unless they actively try to be.


RE: Let's hope.
By clovell on 11/16/2007 10:53:42 AM , Rating: 1
When I say shared, I mean as opposed to a DSL or T1 line that has a dedidated amount of bandwidth. I agree that the cable company has a lot of bandwidth in a lot of places - I have 6Meg cable that often bursts to 20Meg and I don't often see saturation on my hub.

All the same, it happens - maybe not to you or me, but to somebody.


RE: Let's hope.
By rcc on 11/16/2007 2:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
I've had DSL and cable (at different times)in many locations, some houses, some large apartment complexes(which should be worst case for cable). To date I have never run into an instance where DSL worked better than cable, despite the sharing "potential" for restriction.

Not saying it doesn't happen, but even where I've seen prime time congestion, cable has still been faster than DSL in my locations.


RE: Let's hope.
By opterondo on 11/15/2007 9:05:41 PM , Rating: 5
Were are not talking about "throttling" here. We are talking about traffic management at the protocol level which is more akin to sabotage. ie. crap up only BT traffic, crap up only Vonage traffic, etc.


RE: Let's hope.
By goku on 11/15/2007 11:30:09 PM , Rating: 3
yeah, it's called being "oversold". If comcast can't provide the bandwidth, maybe they shouldn't be selling the lines with that much bandwidth in the first place. If comcast can't handle a neighborhood with 50 people on 8Mb+ each concurrently then maybe they should either upgrade their network or simply not guarantee 8Mb+ and guarantee what ever they can per person. Overselling your lines is plain old stupid when it comes to internet access and comcast nor any other ISP should be doing this.


RE: Let's hope.
By techyguy on 11/16/2007 3:44:24 AM , Rating: 2
Comcast overselling bandwidth? While some people might have slow connections. Where I live Comcast advertises speeds of up to 1.5 MBs. I have actually gotten up to 2 MBs a few times. When the Crysis Demo came out, the main link enabled 800 KB to 1.1 MB download speed.

On probably 5 things I have ever downloaded by torrent. I have gotten 50 - 350 KBs, on the torrent alone. It is really no big deal for me. I just let it run in the background while doing other things.

I know people that leave on their computer 24/7, constantly downloading torrents using Comcast service. It doesn't matter if those people have all the speed in the world. They are never satisfied and have lists of hundreds of albums/movies/games waiting to be downloaded.

I am glad that Comcast lowers torrent speed. I'v seen people bash in their computers, because it is too slow. Do we really need more temporaraly insane people in this world?


RE: Let's hope.
By aharris on 11/16/2007 10:20:19 AM , Rating: 2
They cap connection speeds when you sign up for a reason. This cap should be more than enough of a limit to keep their entire network browsing at decent speeds. No throttling of any type of traffic (aside from viral/malware) should be necessary.


RE: Let's hope.
By Grast on 11/15/2007 6:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
Mindless,

I will respond to you as well. Every ISP that operates in the U.S. has the right to throttle, manipulate, and reorder traffic on specified network. Just because your provider is doing so, does not mean they do not have the right. Please find and read your terms and agreements. Its kinda like a contract of what services the provider is required to offer. Since it is a contract, whether you read it or not, it still applied. Here is snippet from Comcast's terms and agreements.

************************************************* ******

http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp

You shall ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or degrade any other user's use of the Service, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an overly large burden on the network. In addition, you shall ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, disrupt, degrade, or impede Comcast's ability to deliver and provide the Service and monitor the Service, backbone, network nodes, and/or other network services.

Note: Comcast reserves the right to immediately terminate the Service and the Subscriber Agreement if you engage in any of the prohibited activities listed in this AUP or if you use the Comcast Equipment or Service in a way which is contrary to any Comcast policies or any of Comcast's suppliers' policies. You must strictly adhere to any policy set forth by another service provider accessed through the Service.

http://www.comcast.net/terms/subscriber.jsp

4. CHANGES TO SERVICES
Subject to applicable law, we have the right to change our Services, Comcast Equipment and rates or charges, at any time with or without notice. We also may rearrange, delete, add to or otherwise change programming or features or offerings contained in the Services, including but not limited to, content, functionality, hours of availability, customer equipment requirements, speed and upstream and downstream rate limitations. If we do give you notice, it may be provided on your monthly bill, as a bill insert, in a newspaper or other communication permitted under applicable law. If you find a change in the Service(s) unacceptable, you have the right to cancel your Service(s). However, if you continue to receive Service(s) after the change, this will constitute your acceptance of the change. Please take the time to read any notices of changes to the Service(s). We are not liable for failure to deliver any programming, services, features or offerings except as provided in Section 11e.

http://www.comcast.net/terms/abuse.jsp

Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other limitations Use of the Comcast network infrastructure in a manner that (i) exceeds the then current bandwidth, data storage or other limitations on the Comcast High-Speed Internet service or (ii) puts an excessive burden on the limitations of the network. Examples include: Using the Comcast network to run a Web-hosting server or any other commercial enterprise.

The end argument is this: If you do not like the terms, then do not get Internet service from Comcast or any other provider. An alternate is to actually PAY for the service which you think is deserved. It is called a BUSINESS Class service contract. However, you will pay more than 40 buck for it.

later..


RE: Let's hope.
By ryedizzel on 11/15/2007 7:14:19 PM , Rating: 3
I was downloading legitimate music from Microsoft Zune over Comcast and all of the sudden my song downloads slowed to a crawl. And this happened at 2am during a weekday, so I know it wasn’t the Zune servers being oversaturated. This really pissed me off so I called Comcast to complain and of course the idiot tech on the phone denied any kind of throttling. I felt like I was complaining to a brick wall so I'm glad someone is starting a class action lawsuit in hopes to get result. Maybe I'll jump in on it...


RE: Let's hope.
By clovell on 11/16/2007 10:55:40 AM , Rating: 1
2 am on a weekday for such a site would be a great time for server maintenance - take a couple offline at a time...


RE: Let's hope.
By totallycool on 11/16/2007 11:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
I am not sure, but zune downloads wouldnt be thru torrents, again not sure of it. So it seems highly improbable that this had anything to do with torrent throttling.


RE: Let's hope.
By mindless1 on 11/15/2007 8:42:23 PM , Rating: 4
They can write what they like and it still doesn't matter!

Customers are paying for a bandwidth based account! That throttling invalidates the primary advertised term of the service and no fine print changes this.

The bottom line is this:
If comcast takes money from a customer for their bandwidth advertised service, they are out of their right to actively prevent the customer from having the bandwidth paid for. Yes a customer can go elsewhere for internet service but they get what they paid for during the period they're with Comcast.

Let come cast stop advertising the bandwidth numbers they do if they can't maintain good service at those rates or near enough to be acceptible. THEY are the ones who chose to make a claim and then chose to invalidate it selectively.

Business class service involves programming of the cable modem for a different rate, NOT whether you get your traffic throttled or delayed because of their filtering when you pay more for this account. You are just wrong on most counts.


RE: Let's hope.
By s12033722 on 11/16/2007 3:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
You are incorrect in your basic premise. What Comcast is selling you is not a cetain amount of bandwidth for an unlimited amount of data. They are saying that they will provide up to that amount of bandwidth for an unlimited amount of TIME . Furthermore, all of their consumer contracts are "best efforts" contacts which state that they will try to give you that much bandwidth but are not obligated to do so. If you want to actually have that much bandwidth guaranteed, you have to go to a business class account which will cost far more since you are actually paying for that full bandwidth all the time regardless of whether you use it.

The basic problem is people don't understand what they are buying.


RE: Let's hope.
By mindless1 on 11/16/2007 10:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
You just made my point when you wrote "they will try to give you that much bandwidth but are not obligated to do so." They are trying to NOT give you that bandwidth for select uses, taking deliberate measures before the bandwidth is used up. For example if you were streaming video instead of P2P, you would suddenly find it came through faster it is not a "try" to provide enough bandwidth issue.

Don't you understand the concepts in this suit??


RE: Let's hope.
By opterondo on 11/15/2007 9:08:27 PM , Rating: 5
"4. CHANGES TO SERVICES
Subject to applicable law, .."

Throttling is one thing, sabotaging a particular protocol is another (Vonage, BT, Notes, etc.)

The end argument is this: Comcast may have broken the law.


RE: Let's hope.
By Grast on 11/16/2007 11:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
I will agree that is one issue where Comcast may have broken the law. MAY HAVE. Comcast does not have sabotage a protocol to throttle or manupulate traffic. The TCP/IP stack was designed with retry capability. As such, many traffic shaping devices use the inherent retry functions of the TCP stack to cause packets either to be held, reset, or dropped. This type of activity is not sabotage but normal networkk capability.

Later..


RE: Let's hope.
By Parhel on 11/15/2007 9:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter what's in a contract if the contract breaks the law. The law always supercedes a contract.

I don't pretend to know a whole lot about the laws binding ISPs, but I would assume that if it were as clear cut as you are making it out to be then this lawsuit wouldn't exist.


RE: Let's hope.
By Pjotr on 11/16/2007 7:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
My ISP does not have this in their contract, I have 100/10 MBit/s and when I FTP linux distros, DC++ or bittorrent, I get about 90+ MBit/s any time of day. I assume all my neighbours do so too. I've never had any lower speeds as long as the feeds at the other end can handle it.

Now, should they limit traffic, they would not give me what they sell. If your ISP says they can limit traffic in the contract, you've signed it. Cancel it and get another ISP. But if they never stated it in their contract with you, sue them. You're paying for a product you're not getting. Even if it's cause you share bandwidth with your neighbours. That's not your problem, it's theirs to fulfill the contract with you!


RE: Let's hope.
By djkrypplephite on 11/16/2007 9:08:02 AM , Rating: 1
The point here is that they're selling you a hybrid, but you're only really getting 10 mpg. Offering a 12 MBps line is supposed to mean that you're getting a 12 MBps line, and you're not with comcast. That's the point. Not whether or not they have the right to change their traffic, but that they're telling you essentially that you have unlimited access, when they base their predictions on a 'typical home user" focus group that doesn't do shit online, yet they still essentially advertise it the same way.

People are already paying for the service, and they were mislead into believing they would be allowed essentially unlimited use.


RE: Let's hope.
By Alexstarfire on 11/16/2007 2:32:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well, this is all great and everything, but apparently it only covers those in California who started service within the last 4 years. Not only am I not located in Georgia, but we've had their service for more than 4 years. I'm not sure if they would change their policies in all states if they didn't have to.

I'm all for having contracts and such, but I believe that the person needs to physically be told what the contract includes, but probably not word for word, as well as having to sign a written contract. No one ever reads the damn things because they are usually pages long and have like 5 or more sections to it.

After reading the parts of the contract that were posted I feel that we shouldn't even be using them period. It basically gives them control to do what they want, when they want to. It doesn't even say that they have to provide proof, or even give you a general number. The words "excessive burden", "overly large burden", and "degrade" aren't defined at all. "Degrade" is actually the worst of them considering that daily internet activities could slow the service. Does that count as degradation of service?

It also states that they don't even have to provide notice of any changes. How in the hell is that legal? They also said that if they do give you notice it doesn't even have to be sent straight to you. Apparently putting it in the newspaper counts as providing notice. I'm not sure how that works out considering not everyone gets a paper. Hell, I'm sure even the ones that do don't already read it. That's just F'ed up in my opinion.


Long live FiOS!
By EricMartello on 11/15/2007 4:56:02 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, I'm a FiOS fanboy and rightly so. I get landline phone, HDTV AND 15mbps internet for about $90 a month. The equivalent from comcast would be $150 a month, and the quality is inferior. Verizon seems to broadcast video on the TV service at a higher bitrate, meaning that SDTV channels look less crappy on a HDTV monitor. The internet service is outstanding...no service dropouts and I really do get the full advertised 15/2 Mbps speeds - no throttling.

What's the point? It's that Comcast is a mediocre company despite its large size and customer base. They love to bait and switch you with their $29.99 for 6 months crap, then jack the prices up yearly and tack on ridiculous fees. Will follow suit with bait-and-switch? I dunno, but at least they give me a REAL DISCOUNT if I agree to use fios internet for a year.




RE: Long live FiOS!
By SpaceRanger on 11/15/2007 5:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm eagerly awaiting for FiOS in my area. I'm paying $75 a month for Comcast Internet Service, and they throttle my FTP uploads to my website CONSTANTLY. It'll start out at a nice 150k per sec., then throttle down to 80k per sec. for the remainder of the transfer. Also affects my transfers to and from work too.

One day, FiOS will be available for me.. And I will be all over it!


RE: Long live FiOS!
By LumbergTech on 11/15/2007 7:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
same here, and i will not stick with comcast just because they up their speeds or actually make it unlimited

they have pissed me off to no end..

i never downloaded more than a few gigs a day and i still got disconnected from their network repeatedly, i notice it quite often..if i download over a gig in a day their piece of crap service will drop me like every hour or so

they wont admit to it but they also wont fix the problem..

fios needs to expand now because im ready for it


RE: Long live FiOS!
By spokompton on 11/16/2007 2:22:51 AM , Rating: 2
I just wanted to touch on this. That "throttling" you are experiencing is called ‘Power Boost.’ It is a boost of speed at the beginning of large download/uploads that recharges at a set time based on your provisioned speed. I have 8 meg and I see large downloads go up to 16+ megs for around the first 20 megs, then a bit later, it goes again. The same is true for uploads, they start around 1.5 meg then averaging around 75K for a while then it jumps again. So there is nothing unusual happening.


RE: Long live FiOS!
By SpaceRanger on 11/16/2007 1:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry.. No jumping for me. Once it throttles down to 80k, it stays there until the end of the transfer. I've done transferes of over 500MB to my website and each time it slows down and never speeds up again. Even if a different file is then transfered (if queued up).


They need to add these clowns
By Mitch101 on 11/15/2007 4:13:39 PM , Rating: 3
Add Time Warner and Road Runner to that list of companies that are limiting bandwidth.




RE: They need to add these clowns
By UNCjigga on 11/15/2007 4:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
If by "limiting bandwidth" you mean "offering sh1tty service" then yes.


RE: They need to add these clowns
By The0ne on 11/15/2007 6:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
You can say that again...Time Warner ><! Lame cable and internet service all around. Their new HD cable box is so buggy I don't even want to bother bringing the issues up with them. Internet is intermittent, slow and drops around midnight...for me that is. Torrent is all but useless most of the time and you literally have to reset your modem/router after bit torrent activities. I cannot surf, cannot do anything that requires internet connection if bit torrents has been running for a bit. The only that has internet access is the bit torrent itself. Very strange.


RE: They need to add these clowns
By bdewong on 11/15/2007 4:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
I mentioned this before, but it seems around the time the first article about bandwidth throttling came out, Oceanic (Time Warner) STOPPED throttling my P2P bandwidth.

I thought it was strange.


Class-action lawsuits - Argh!
By Pauli on 11/15/2007 4:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
I love these class-action lawsuits. The actual plaintiffs get nothing or close to nothing and the legal team gets millions for a relatively small number of people. In fact, I believe that this type of lawsuit is going to drive up costs and make broadband access actually more expensive because of the litigation costs.




RE: Class-action lawsuits - Argh!
By TomZ on 11/15/2007 5:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
On the other hand, lawsuits like this help keep these companies honest, by giving them a financial incentive to disclose the full terms and conditions and not make shady decisions behind the scenes. A multi-million dollar payout is a good incentive for a corporation.


RE: Class-action lawsuits - Argh!
By Pauli on 11/15/2007 6:19:43 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe so, but for the vast majority of "regular" broadband users, i.e. those of us that don't download 50GB a week, the prices get jacked up and the only thing we have to show for it is some bull**** disclosure -- our web surfing won't be affected at all.


on the bandwagon
By boredg on 11/15/2007 3:49:09 PM , Rating: 2
It'll be interesting to see how this lawsuit turns out, and whether the RIAA and MPAA will jump on the bandwagon to defend ISPs bandwidth throttling.




RE: on the bandwagon
By Polynikes on 11/15/2007 4:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think it might have a shot, if they concentrate on the "transmitting unauthorized hidden messages" part. I mean, unless there's something specific in the contract for the service that allows it that that nobody read.


Link
By clovell on 11/15/2007 3:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
The link to the PDF of the lawsuit is broken.




Man...
By jskirwin on 11/16/2007 12:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
The Slowskys are going to have trouble with this one. They might have to consider ditching their DSL if they do a lot of P2P.




I can't wait...
By cscpianoman on 11/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: I can't wait...
By deadrody on 11/15/2007 4:03:44 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry, it doesn't really matter if anyone is using Bit Torrent for illegal purposes. The fact is Comcast is not even trying to discover who is using P2P or BT for illegal purposes, they are throttling that traffic regardless of the use.

The only illegal activity in play here is from Comcast.


RE: I can't wait...
By fleshconsumed on 11/15/2007 4:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's all about credibility. A jury will be much more sympathetic towards comcast if they learn the guy sho sued was breaking the law.


RE: I can't wait...
By splint on 11/15/2007 8:07:02 PM , Rating: 3
Generally people seem to overlook that Comcast is a common carrier. This means they are not allowed to discriminate traffic. QOS creates a gray area which ISP’s use to throttle traffic, but that’s it. However, if Comcast were to inspect packets to discriminate based on content then they would lose common carrier status and thus be royally f*****. At that point they would be responsible for the dissemination of all copywriter content on their network.

So, in short, it is most definitely not in Comcast’s best interest to examine if P2P traffic is illegal or not.


RE: I can't wait...
By clovell on 11/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: I can't wait...
By geeg on 11/15/2007 4:52:15 PM , Rating: 5
then, Comcast must point out that the service they provide is not UNLIMITED but has xxGb limit monthly.


RE: I can't wait...
By clovell on 11/15/2007 5:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough.


RE: I can't wait...
By xsilver on 11/15/2007 5:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
This kind of lawsuit has already been done in australia.
Dodgy companies were advertising 10gb / month as "unlimited", this kind of stuff is not happening anymore.

I think comcast are implying that if 99.9% of the population deem it as unlimited, its good enough to advertise it as unlimited?!


RE: I can't wait...
By drivendriver on 11/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: I can't wait...
By room200 on 11/15/2007 7:28:53 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think Comcast guarantees a certain bandwidth. The advertised bandwidth numbers are peak bandwidth numbers. Notice the "up to" before the bandwidth numbers in the ads.

I have a proposal. My monthly bill is around $60.00. I propose that I should be able to pay them "up to" $60.00 per month.


RE: I can't wait...
By mindless1 on 11/15/2007 8:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
Notice they advertise "up to", not "throttled down from".

If a customer is not happy s/he should get money back in addition to having an option to switch but the fact is some people don't have but one viable broadband option and the issue is not just about Comcast doing it but that any ISP would.


RE: I can't wait...
By Grast on 11/16/2007 12:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
Mindless,

The service contract with Comcast is at will. As such, a consumer can cancel at anytime. However, no money is due to the consumer because Comcast met it requirements spelled out in the terms and agreements.

I know that pesky service contract ruins you idea. But that is living in the real world.

Later..


RE: I can't wait...
By mindless1 on 11/16/2007 10:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
Likewise with Comcast, they can cancel if they like but not take the money then actively prevent bandwidth advertised!

I know that must ruin your idea too.


RE: I can't wait...
By borowki on 11/15/2007 7:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
What next? Forbidding business from using the phrase "satisfaction guaranteed?"


RE: I can't wait...
By darkpaw on 11/15/2007 10:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
You must have missed the nut case administrative judge in DC that sued a dry cleaners for $54 million for losing his pants while posting a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign.

So glad he didn't get squat, but the family still got screwed going through that ordeal.


RE: I can't wait...
By poweruserx83 on 11/16/2007 6:35:08 AM , Rating: 2
I took a moment to think about this and I think I would support this..


RE: I can't wait...
By mindless1 on 11/15/2007 5:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
You've pulled that 20GB/day figure out of thin air I suppose, and it's non-applicable.


RE: I can't wait...
By clovell on 11/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: I can't wait...
By Symmetriad on 11/15/2007 5:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't mind if Comcast set a (reasonable and generous) bandwidth allowance per use, where you're throttled if you go above [X]GB per day - hell, most colleges do that already. The issue is that Comcast is basically saying, "Hey look, we have awesome internet service with unlimited bandwidth*!

*Unless you do that.
**Or that.
***Or that."

Which is a matter of false advertising and misleading claims. Things like bandwidth usage and limits need to be put in bold and prominently displayed in the TOS, not buried seventeen paragraphs deep and expressed in inscrutable lawyer-speak typed in five-point font. Whether P2P services are being used for illegal purposes is irrelevant in this case.


RE: I can't wait...
By Souka on 11/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: I can't wait...
By clovell on 11/15/2007 5:25:57 PM , Rating: 1
Over P2P?


RE: I can't wait...
By Souka on 11/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: I can't wait...
By clovell on 11/16/07, Rating: 0
RE: I can't wait...
By mindless1 on 11/15/2007 9:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
People using P2P or Lotus Notes are throttled regardless of whether their bandwidth was excessive. Bandwidth is a non-applicable factor and not what this discussion, news, suit is about.


RE: I can't wait...
By clovell on 11/16/2007 11:02:38 AM , Rating: 1
That seems to be rather arbitrary, then. I'm sure the courts will work it out. I'm not familar with all the particulars as the link to the lawsuit wasn't working when I first posted.


RE: I can't wait...
By Grast on 11/16/2007 12:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
mindless,

That is an assumption which you can not back-up. Please post your proof or it is just hearsay.

Everyone is missing the point. A consumer is signing a service contract with Comcast. The specifics of the service contact are layed out in the terms and agreements. These items are available to the cusomer prior to requesting service. The consumer is NOT being misled by the provider (Comcast). The level of service being provided by Comcast is as such:

1. X bandwidth for X dollars.
2. Service Expectations - bandwidth is not guaranteed.
3. Service Reliability - provider has the right to manupulate your traffic as they see fit.

It is cut and dry. I just do not see everyone's point. You are paying 40-60 dollars per month for a 6/8 meg pipe to the Internet. At this price level, service restrictions exist.

If you do not like those restrictions, upgrade to business class service type. Of course, you will pay 500 - 1000 dollars a month for 1.5 megs of bandwidth. You will probably be required to buy 2500 - 5000 dollars worth of equipment. However, you will have a service contract which states the provider is REQUIERED to deliver your traffic to the Internet with NO restrictions. You will even probably get a static IP address. Bonus.

I believe this issue boils down to on issue. Consumers believe the 40-60 per month SHOULD guarantee them unstricted access to the Internet. I am sorry but that is just not the level of service being offered.

Later..


RE: I can't wait...
By mindless1 on 11/16/2007 10:49:02 PM , Rating: 1
You're kidding right? That's what prompted all these news articles, independent tests that show it. Do the readings already instead of trying to place the burden on others.

I should clarify that I am using the term throttling to also mean traffic shaping because to me "traffic shaping" is a bullshit term, a sugar coating on reality, it's still throttling when you are being prevented from having full bandwidth paid for regardless of how they try to excuse it.


RE: I can't wait...
By Christopher1 on 11/15/2007 6:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. I uploaded 10GB of the latest Naruto Shippuuden episode (which was only 170MB), so there are legitimate uses for Bittorrent and p2p.


RE: I can't wait...
By Hacp on 11/15/2007 6:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
I use p2p for anime exclusively too, and I hate to break it to you but its not legit. The good thing is that no one is going to sue you. I never really got into downloading music or movies because I didn't have broadband until 2002-2003 and thats when the RIAA started suing people.


RE: I can't wait...
By opterondo on 11/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: I can't wait...
By borowki on 11/15/2007 9:44:38 PM , Rating: 4
Like most P2P pirates, you're deluding yourself thinking the law is on your side.

Article 5 of the Berne Convention reads:

quote:

(1) Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin , the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by this Convention.

(2) The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality ; such enjoyment and such exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Consequently, apart from the provisions of this Convention, the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his rights, shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed.


RE: I can't wait...
By dare2savefreedom on 11/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: I can't wait...
By Parhel on 11/15/2007 9:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
W
T
F

does that have to do with anything else anyone said?


RE: I can't wait...
By opterondo on 11/15/2007 8:35:41 PM , Rating: 2
6 Mbit connection = 2.7 GiB per hour < [Unlimited]


RE: I can't wait...
By Grast on 11/15/2007 6:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
What illegal activity. Read your terms and use agreement. Speed is not guaranteed. In addtion, read every terms and agreements from every Internet vendor. They all state that speeds are NOT guaranteed and that degrading another users service is violation of the service contract.

Comcast is in their rights to throttle and manuplate traffic on their network. Every Comcast user has already agreeded to this action whether they bothered to read the terms or not.

Please see below for proof.

http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp

You shall ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or degrade any other user's use of the Service, nor represent (in the sole judgment of Comcast) an overly large burden on the network. In addition, you shall ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, disrupt, degrade, or impede Comcast's ability to deliver and provide the Service and monitor the Service, backbone, network nodes, and/or other network services.

Note: Comcast reserves the right to immediately terminate the Service and the Subscriber Agreement if you engage in any of the prohibited activities listed in this AUP or if you use the Comcast Equipment or Service in a way which is contrary to any Comcast policies or any of Comcast's suppliers' policies. You must strictly adhere to any policy set forth by another service provider accessed through the Service.

http://www.comcast.net/terms/subscriber.jsp

4. CHANGES TO SERVICES
Subject to applicable law, we have the right to change our Services, Comcast Equipment and rates or charges, at any time with or without notice. We also may rearrange, delete, add to or otherwise change programming or features or offerings contained in the Services, including but not limited to, content, functionality, hours of availability, customer equipment requirements, speed and upstream and downstream rate limitations. If we do give you notice, it may be provided on your monthly bill, as a bill insert, in a newspaper or other communication permitted under applicable law. If you find a change in the Service(s) unacceptable, you have the right to cancel your Service(s). However, if you continue to receive Service(s) after the change, this will constitute your acceptance of the change. Please take the time to read any notices of changes to the Service(s). We are not liable for failure to deliver any programming, services, features or offerings except as provided in Section 11e.

http://www.comcast.net/terms/abuse.jsp

Bandwidth, Data Storage and Other limitations Use of the Comcast network infrastructure in a manner that (i) exceeds the then current bandwidth, data storage or other limitations on the Comcast High-Speed Internet service or (ii) puts an excessive burden on the limitations of the network. Examples include: Using the Comcast network to run a Web-hosting server or any other commercial enterprise.

End of law suit.


RE: I can't wait...
By hellokeith on 11/15/2007 7:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
Grast,

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. ;)


RE: I can't wait...
By opterondo on 11/15/2007 8:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
The Comcast terms and use agreement is not law. Your logic fails-

From your own post "4. CHANGES TO SERVICES
Subject to applicable law, .."

From article ".. committed a breach of contract by violating Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, the Business and Professions Code section 17200 and 17500 and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act .."


RE: I can't wait...
By teckytech9 on 11/15/2007 11:29:46 PM , Rating: 3
Comcast has no right in instantiating, impersonating, masquerading any user on its network, by injecting TCP reset packets on its behalf for traffic shaping purposes. This is akin to giving a telephone user a false busy signal, when in actuality, the phone is on-hook and working just fine. The phone network PSTN is a public utility and so is the Internet.

Comcast knows that p2p is a real threat to their cable delivery channel business model and is trying to limit its usage and acceptance under the guise of traffic shaping techniques to hamper p2p’s superior file sharing capabilities.

Lets say that content could be delivered more efficiently via p2p than FTP server methods. Also the large influx of new ipTV companies are now flourishing on the net. This means that more bandwidth usage will occur, regardless of which way the traffic flows. Comcast needs to increase their bandwidth capacity or else risk losing the majority of their subscribers to its competitors.


RE: I can't wait...
By Grast on 11/16/2007 12:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
the Internet is NOT a public utility. The phone companies have this status due to public safety issues. As too your assersion of impersonating and masquerading, that is very subjective. Who owns your identity on the internet from the network stacks point of view. Who owns the IP address which end computer is using. Is that IP address even consider real since every moden network use NAT to more efficiently use a providers allocated IP subnet. The awnser is Comcast.

Since the Internet is NOT a public utility, your example of a busy signal is illrelavent.

As to how Comcast manages their bandwidth, that is function of profitability for the Comcast and out of scope for this discussion. Comcast has already disclosed to the consumer their abilty and right to manage their network as they see fit.

later..


RE: I can't wait...
By teckytech9 on 11/16/2007 2:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As too your assertion of impersonating and masquerading, that is very subjective.

Subjective to lawful interpretation, hence the validity of the Class Action Suit brought forward.
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/HARTvC...

quote:
Since the Internet is NOT a public utility, your example of a busy signal is irrelevant.

True, since it is not subject to State/Federal regulation and oversight. However, since VoIP requires 911 services to be fully operational, public safety is riding on the net. The example outlines in simple terms how Comcast is using forgery and spoofing techniques in their traffic shaping methodologies.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3360.html

Customers pay their ISP to transport and receive their data based on the advertised data rates. If the ISP cannot deliver these rates, then it is the duty of the ISP to inform their customer in writing of their failure to do so. The ISP is also responsible to provide a refund on services that have been paid for, but cannot be delivered. Comcast may be synonymous with Concast.


RE: I can't wait...
By Cattman on 11/16/2007 1:12:08 AM , Rating: 2
Saying that a user agreement is the end of the law suit is just plain simple. You can write anything in a contract and get someone to sign it and it doesnt mean squat if a court decides otherwise. If the plaintiff can prove that his or in fact anyones bandwidth was artificially restricted even when not at peak times and was not placing a large burden on the network I'd say they have a good shot a wining. I also feel that while speed might not be guaranteed the implication is that bandwidth is determined by network traffic and conditions not what application you are using. If you are not degrading service or placing a overly large burden on the network how will they justify not giving you the bandwidth you paid for? because you use bit torrent? or Lotus Notes? Sorry but this is not the end of law suit... not even close.


RE: I can't wait...
By Grast on 11/16/2007 12:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
Cattman,

I disagree, the plaintiff's point of view regarding whether the network was burdon or not does not apply. Even a liberal judge has to agree that all service expectation were given to the plaintiff prior to service being provided. As such, the plaintiff has already agreed that is within Comcast's right to make decisions about it network and actions to correct.

Maybe I am nieve enought to believe the courts will see this lawsuit for what it is. A few customers upset with the level of service being delivered and agreed too by both parties and dismiss as such.

Additionally, since the service contract with Comcast is at will. The plantiff will suffer no harm by severing their relationship with Comcast and moving to a provider which meets their needs.

Later..


RE: I can't wait...
By totallycool on 11/15/2007 4:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
There are Legal uses for p2p. Two of the top of my head

1. Linux distro downloads (i got fedora that way).
2. WoW patches (I hate you blizz for doing this :D ).

So its not always, u know, songs and movies


RE: I can't wait...
By Etsp on 11/15/2007 4:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
As far as WoW patches are concerned, I hate blizzard too, because of how they implemented it. If you share with anyone else, you upload at full throttle, killing your download speeds and anything you want to do on the internet when it is patching.


RE: I can't wait...
By clovell on 11/15/2007 4:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
And you'd have to patch from v1.0 and download more than a few distros every day for a week or so to have used enough bandwidth for Comcast to have thought about throttling you.