Comcast May Face Lawsuits Over BitTorrent Filtering

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?"

Comments

Comcast

[jcicora]

Personally I hope they do get sued. While I do think our society is overly litigous, and Comcast does have the right to modify traffic on the network they own, I don't think they have the right to lie or mislead about it. And isn't this the same Comcast who had the unlimited plan with bandwidth caps?

Re:Comcast

[UncleTogie]

Comcast does have the right to modify traffic on the network they own

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:Comcast

[coaxial]

1. Court issued writs and warrants do not requestion permission! You are compelled to comply. There is nothing optional about them.

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. ("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:I don't know

[Chandon Seldon]

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:One should hope so

[profquad]

and could choose to sign up with a service that doesn't do so

Lucky.