Comcast Sued Again over P2P Throttling

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

Comments

But...

[TubeSteak]

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

Re:But...

[snl2587]

Which is great, at least for Comcast.

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

Alternate reality.

[palegray.net]

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

Re:Alternate reality.

[mapkinase]

here is the best report of how they do it in details that are more satisfactory to me. tag: Sandvine.

Re:Better idea

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

There are plenty of legitmate uses for bit torrent. Blizzard uses it to distribute patches, and vuze uses it to distribute liscensed content.

Re:No, they don't block them

[NickFortune]

Exactly.

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

Haha, good luck.

[L4t3r4lu5]

You're arguing with Comcast about the words they used to describe their service? Do you know how that works in the UK?

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

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

Re:Haha, good luck.

[sc7]

Nowhere on Comcast's site, does it say "Unlimited". That was taken off years ago.

Re:Better idea

[mapkinase]

And that constitutes how many percent points of total torrent traffic?

Re:They just don't get it

[oyenstikker]

They probably did a cost analysis and determined that it was cheaper to deal with the lawsuits than to upgrade their infrastructure. There is little risk of losing their customers, because in most markets they have no competition.

You can buy your natural gas from one provider and have it delivered by the one with the local monopoly on the pipes. Why can't we do this with internet connections?

Re:Better idea

[TheCRAIGGERS]

I can't tell if this is flamebait or not, so I'll be good and reply instead of modding.

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

Besides, piracy existed (and still does) well before the Torrent protocol. HTTP, IRC, SMTP, and FTP are all still used to transfer files in violation of copyright. Should Comcast throttle these indiscriminately as well? Where do you draw the line?

Yeah right

[kimvette]

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

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

Tagging this article "getfios"

Re:legitimate use for p2p

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

Don't forget to add, "Reproduction should be banned because it can create killers"

Enough with the damn tubes!

[GodInHell]

It IS a series of tubes. If you're trying to explain how the network of interconnected nodes that we call the internet works - a series of tubes is a great straight-forward analogy that damn near everyone can understand. It's an analogy I used to use to explain concepts to grandfathers before that poor sod said it in front of a camera, and it remains true. Other points aside - the series of tubes mocking should stop. -GiH