Comcast Pays Out $16M In P2P Throttling Suit

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."

Comments

Typical!

[SirLoadALot]

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!

[SirLoadALot]

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!

[Inda]

Amateur porn. Say you were downloading amateur porn. When people ask me how to download movies and music, I tell them I only use P2P for amateur porn.

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!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you refer to the British as prudes? The US has stricter censorship than the British do.

Re:Typical!

[tepples]

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:Typical!

[supersat]

World of Warcraft uses BitTorrent to distribute its patches. Every WoW player using Comcast can make a claim without admitting to anything that the MAFIAA might use against them.

Re:Typical!

[Anonymous Coward]

LMAO, British prudes.

Americans are only the biggest load of Christian fundamentalists in the world.

Re:Typical!

[elrous0]

Not only that, but it basically immunizes them against further lawsuits on the issue. Sometimes, I think some of these class action suits are the result of a collaboration between the companies and some lawyers. The lawyers get a big payday, the companies get immunity from anymore lawsuits, and the consumer gets screwed.

Re:Typical!

[xaxa]

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.

Re:Typical!

[PopeRatzo]

$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:Typical!

[MBGMorden]

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:Typical!

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome your misuse of the "I for one, welcome" meme.

Re:Typical!

[Bigbutt]

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!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cite?

Re:Typical!

[Anonymous Coward]

To the Brits,

You've got to remember the US education system still focuses on the "Tea and Crumpet" persona from last century/ early this century when...well...the British were prudes, and all we saw was the aristocracy. Now if anyone pays attention to the culture they'd know that's a bygone era. However, I still have friends in the UK that refer to the US as the Colonies. Some times it hard for people to let go of the past.

Re:Typical!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are legit uses of P2P.
One app that does use this is Notes. If you use the thick client then you are using P2P. I'm one of those people who do just that.

If you think that the MPAA & RIAA Are going to get anywhere coming after me then you have enother thing coming. They'll be hit so fast with a multi million dollar suit they wont have time to blink.
Yes, I'm a lawyer. (wait for the boo hiss). One who happens to think that their tactics in this area is totaly reprehensible.
As for searching my computer... Fat chance. There is client information on it.

Re:Typical!

[jambarama]

Comcast is not immunized from further suits. As long as you don't take part in the settlement, you can still sue them individually. Alternately, although it is unlikely a judge will certify another class over the same issue, it has happened before (see asbestos lawsuits).

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 wouldn't be deterred from repeating this behavior and no one would get anything. I know $16 isn't much, but really how much do you think is reasonable for a few months of p2p interruption on a residential cable line?

Re:Typical!

[shentino]

In theory you are correct but fat load of luck proving it in court with the MAFIAA litigation machine grinding you to smithereens.

Re:Typical!

[shentino]

That class action settlement means nothing without an injunction to stop Comcast from further meddling.

Re:Typical!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it is easier to blame greedy lawyers, or some other unpopular group, but the $16M figure may have been low because the cause of action was weak and the damages are fairly speculative.

Re:Typical!

[Antique Geekmeister]

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:Typical!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right because pursuing the suit to a ruling would've cut down on legal fees & gotten more money to consumers...

Re:Typical!

[jambarama]

You're right, there is no binding precedent or permanent injunction, but a ruling can go either way - comcast could have gotten permission to screw with their network in the future. Of course a settlement isn't as good as a favorable ruling, but it does signal to others that they can expect meddling to cost $16M and a lot of bad publicity. Plus, the incident brought the FCC down on this kind of behavior, so ISPs have that to worry about too.

Re:Typical!

[Uncle Rummy]

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:

Exclude Yourself: Get out of the Class You may ask to get out of the Class and keep your right to sue on your own about the claims in the lawsuit.

Do Nothing: You remain in the Settlement. You get no money or compensation and give up your right to sue about the claims in the lawsuit.

Re:Typical!

[Nathrael]

Hate speech?

Re:Typical!

[kimvette]

I know $16 isn't much, but really how much do you think is reasonable for a few months of p2p interruption on a residential cable line?

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:Typical!

[ppanon]

Page 3

Re:Typical!

[StuartHankins]

Absolutely correct. It's like having to sign a paper publicly admitting you have some socially unacceptable disease in order to receive the benefits of the suit. You shouldn't have to shame yourself -- or in this case expose yourself to risk of prosecution and/or increased review by lawyer-happy third parties interested in your online P2P activity. You would be painting a big target on yourself and if you were ever actually accused of distributing / downloading items via P2P you've just removed your "couldn't be me" defense.

Re:Typical!

[StuartHankins]

This isn't intended to jinx you or anything -- but if anyone is going to get hit with a suit by the **AA's I hope it's a lawyer. They're the only ones who can afford to defend themselves. Most of the rest of us can't afford your industry's rates.

Re:Typical!

[drew30319]

Although it wasn't a fine, McDonald's changed its business practices when sued for the dangerous temperature of their coffee. While the case has been the butt of many, many jokes the jokes (and vitriol) are primarily based on misinformation.

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:Typical!

[ImYourVirus]

Hey don't lump me in with those fundamentalist psychos.

Re:Typical!

[Shagg]

Blah blah blah... they were using the standard serving temperature for coffee.

Re:Typical!

[cawpin]

From the description :"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;" Well, I think their $16 million just blew up. Since bittorrent is a P2P service, I'm sure any one who used bittorrent AT ALL "attempted to use Comcast service" to download something.

Personally, I think they should have to pay $16 to all of us.

Re:Typical!

[StikyPad]

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 you probably wouldn't be able to receive a payout from the settlement after the deadline, but if you had specific large claims, you may be able to file an exclusion after the deadline.

Re:Typical!

[StikyPad]

Not quite, 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:Typical!

[Anonymous Coward]

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 future specious lawsuits and only cost about $1million net. We had already spent that much winning the previous 4 lawsuits, so it was a no-brainer. We cleaned up 10,000 cases and gave each customer a pittance and the lawyer got a decent payday even though he's a complete incompetent boob who was only looking to scam ten or twenty thousand in nuisance money from us in the first place. It actually worked out OK. It would have been better if there weren't dishonest people out there looking to cheat you, but absent that, it was a brilliant way to solve a problem that threatened to bleed us dry by a thousand paper cuts.

Re:Typical!

[nigelo]

I, for one, welcome our anonymous Misuse-of-I-For-One-Welcoming overlords.

Re:Typical!

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Typical!

[drew30319]

While I don't feel that your derisive "blah blah blah" was necessary I appreciate the opportunity to "debunk" another myth.

"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:Typical!

[Gerald]

$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.

Re:Typical!

[Shagg]

From the wiki article:

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.[18]

Home and commercial coffee makers often reach comparable temperatures.[19] The National Coffee Association of U.S.A. instructs that coffee should be brewed "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit [91-96 C] for optimal extraction" and consumed "immediately". If not consumed immediately, the coffee is to be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit".[20]

Liebeck's attorney, Reed Morgan, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America defend the lawsuit by claiming that McDonald's reduced the temperature of their coffee after the suit. Morgan has since brought other lawsuits against McDonald's over hot-coffee burns.[21] McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80-90 C (176-194 F),[22] relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.[22][23] The Specialty Coffee Association supports improved packaging methods rather than lowering the temperature at which coffee is served.[21] The association has successfully aided the defense of subsequent coffee burn cases.[24]

Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 F (82 C) in this case) is not "unreasonably dangerous."

Wiki has numerous references for their data. Do you have any?

Re:Typical!

[causality]

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:Typical!

[Richy_T]

Here's a hint: They're only calling it the colonies when they know an American is listening.

Re:Typical!

[base3]

As for searching my computer... Fat chance. There is client information on it.

I'm not a lawyer, but here's how I picture that going down: "That's okay. The court will appoint a special master to image your disk and keep your client information out of the hands of the plaintiffs. Costs for the special master will be borne by the defendant inasmuch as he is the one with extraordinary needs."

Re:Typical!

[drew30319]

Yes; much comes from the case itself but unfortunately it was not reported and may be difficult for you to locate without using a paid service (West or Lexis). Here's the information in the event that you are able to look it up: Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc., No. CV 93 02419, 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 18, 1994).

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

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 (abstract only but "optimal drinking temperature" is 136)
http://www.eweek.org/site/news/Features/coffee.shtml ("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:

"Start with the contention that Bunn's coffee maker was negligently designed because [...] 'at the temperatures at which this coffee was brewed and maintained the structural integrity of the styrofoam cup into which the coffee was poured would be compromised making it more flexible and likely to give way or collapse when its rigid lid is removed.' It is far from clear to us that this effect, if a substantial one, should be laid at the door of Bunn rather than of the cup's producer[...]."

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)

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:Typical!

[sjames]

Ford, over the Pinto. It's really sad I have to look back to the '70s for an example.

Re:Typical!

[Ykant]

A point, followed by a counterpoint, followed by a rebuttal, countered by a request for citations, and actual citations given.

You, sir, have won Slashdot. Congratulations.

Re:Typical!

[Anonymous Coward]

135f (57c) is undrinkably cold coffee. One of the biggest reasons I always go for espresso based coffees while out is that anything from the filter machine is usually too cold and/or stale.

If I'm preparing coffee at home, I never keep coffee on the hotpate, I make it fresh and serve it at about 80c. Which, coincientlly is 176f, just below the temperature that McDonalds hold coffee at.

Re:Typical!

[nurb432]

Not only that, who is going to be stupid enough to admit, on record, that they 'might be a pirate'?

Re:Typical!

[nurb432]

Or BSD iso, etc.. But still, would YOU want to be on a list, for doing nothing wrong?

Re:Typical!

[selven]

Hi, I'm a psycho. Don't lump me in with those fundamentalists.

Re:Typical!

[linuxrocks123]

"It's hard to name another group that is so eager to use the law to enforce their morality on other people."

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34939

You have the worst imagination ever.

---linuxrocks123

Re:Typical!

[Carnildo]

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 McDonalds used to keep theirs at. You'll shriek in agony, and if you don't spit it out in a hurry, you'll spend the next few days in the hospital on an IV drip while the doctors see if your mouth and throat need reconstructive surgery.

Re:Typical!

[causality]

"It's hard to name another group that is so eager to use the law to enforce their morality on other people."

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34939

You have the worst imagination ever.

---linuxrocks123

Yeah, after I posted that I wished Slash had an edit function. I intended to limit my comment to the Western world and neglected to do so. Yes I am aware that some Muslims want to do much worse with Sharia law. Still, in the time-honored Slashdot tradition, don't ever miss an opportunity to denigrate or belittle a stranger.

Hubris - "to cause [or attempt to cause, in this case] shame to the target, not in order that anything may happen to you, nor because anything has happened to you, but merely for your own gratification. Hubris is not the requital of past injuries; this is revenge. As for the pleasure in hubris, its cause is this: men think that by ill-treating others they make their own superiority the greater."
-- Aristotle

Re:Typical!

[linuxrocks123]

I didn't really intend to denigrate you; it was meant in jest. Please read "you have the worst imagination ever" as if it had a smiley after it.

Chill out, man :)

---linuxrocks123

Re:Typical!

[fredklein]

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!

[Ka D'Argo]

The choice of some customers is not the choice all customers want.

Case in point, I stop for a sausge-egg biscuit at a local fast food chain every day before work. It's near my office so I've got usually 10-15 minutes to eat before heading into work. Now, these biscuits are almost always scorching hot. I mean hot to the point that simply holding the biscuit in your hand, would burn skin. Maybe just first degree burns but still burns.

Now imagine trying to eat that. Sure, I've got the 10-15 minutes to eat it, but who wants to let it sit on the dashboard for that long just to cool off enough to eat, so I can scarf it down in 3-4 minutes before having to clock in for the day? My solution is, ask them to not cook it so hot, or arrive earlier to work, so I have "appropriate time" to let it cool. I call B.S. If a piece of food is literally to hot to be held in your hands, from a fast food place (where you typically expect to eat within a few minutes of buying your food) then they've obviously made it TOO hot.

Re:Typical!

[fredklein]

but McDonald's served their coffee at a higher temperature than their peers.

Incorrect. Check out the Wiki article references.

Hell, 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

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 degrees, even HOTTER than McDonalds. In a a HOME coffee maker.

Even a little research will find lots more coffee makers like this.

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.”

Without knowing the actual temperatures involved, this 'fact' is useless. 89,89,89,89,89,90- Oh, my god, that last one has "the Highest Temperature!!!1!111", but it's only a single degree hotter.

The McDonald's QA Manager testified that the corporation realized that burns would occur,

Actually, he said "that ALL foods hotter than 130 F (54 C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers". (Please Note that all 'hot' food must be held at 140 or higher for health reasons. Therefore, ALL 'hot' food is technically a burn hazard.)

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.

McDonalds are bastards, aren't they? I mean, giving the customers what they want! No company ever stayed in business doing that!!

Re:Typical!

[fredklein]

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

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 degrees, even HOTTER than McDonalds. In a a HOME coffee maker.

Besides, as has been pointed out, this was coffee at a DRIVE THRU. it was expected that customers purchase the coffee, then drive to work, then drink. To be hot at the destination, it needs to be hotter when made/served.

Re:Typical!

[Anonymous Coward]

I used P2P during that time to download the client for Darkfall Online. It was over 10Gigs and i recall having my connection reset quite a few times.

Re:Typical!

[MacWiz]

I don't think I would want to sign a piece of paper saying I used one or more P2P services between two dates.

Well, "attempted to use" works, too and doesn't imply guilt because Comcast made it unlikely that any dreaded copyright infringement would take place.

Some independent artists actually take advantage of P2P sites, posting their songs for free consumption in order to expand their audience, if we could only figure out how to get people to search for our stuff. For us, this is a seriously anti-competitive action. If you don't want to sell at the swap meet, fine. But don't shut it down. Some of us are okay with it and actually enjoy just looking at what everyone has to offer.

To jump about five steps further, the entire purpose of the internet is to enable the basic sharing of information. File sharing, whether on peer-to-peer sites or a simple web site, is a natural evolution of the resource and serves the underlying purpose.

Despite everything the RIAA, MPAA and ISPs like Comcast do to try to stop the flow, it'll never happen. It is contrary to the purpose of the internet. Their target will just keep moving, re-routing and disappearing into the cloud.

Re:Typical!

[Anonymous Coward]

McDonalds serves coffee near 200F. It is undrinkably hot, and hotter than coffee is supposed to even be brewed at.

It takes four minutes for coffee to get to 80C from 95C, in a press pot. You serve coffee after it has brewed, at 80C. Not 95C.

Re:Typical!

[poopdeville]

That's 200 degrees, even HOTTER than McDonalds. In a a HOME coffee maker.

Coffee might be brewed at 200 degrees, but coffee isn't served at 200 degrees. It is too hot to drink about about 180F. 190F will cause first and second degree burns.

You will also notice that your home coffee maker will slowly drip, and that the liquid previously collected will give off heat, even while more liquid collects.

I can tell you that I regularly brew coffee at 95C or so, with a press pot. It takes four to five minutes before the boiling water becomes extremely hot coffee. And a few minutes after that before it can even be drank, at 80C or so.

Whereas your home coffee maker lets coffee slowly cool, McDonalds was reheating their coffee to 200F, and serving that.

Hell, beer is brewed above 212 degrees. Do you drink your beer that hot? (I should hope not. But it illustrates the fallacy of equating brewing and serving temperatures)

Re:Typical!

[mrmeval]

At least there are multiple instances of this. "Class Action" lawsuits are a farcical way to protect a business by lumping all the suits, compatible or not, into one suit. If they had to handle 16 million law suits it may be unfair but it would tend to curb bad behavior.

In California in the 90s with electronic manufacturers were being sued by a large block of their warranty repair shops in that state. They barely lost class action status which then meant they had to handle ~400 civil cases individually. It was over proper compensation for work performed. I do not recall the outcome but it was a damned good ruling that gave a lot of clout to the individual warrant shops which are usually sole proprietor outfits.

Re:Typical!

[fredklein]

The link I provided goes to a coffeemaker that has a "Stainless steel vacuum insulated carafe" to keep the coffee hot. It's basically a thermos.

So much for "the liquid previously collected will give off heat".

Also, many coffee makers have a 'brew interrupt' feature, where you can remove the carafe during brewing to pour yourself a cup right away. Therefore, there's no significant time for cooling.

The manual also contains some "Do's and Don'ts". One "Don't" is "Reheating for serving any coffee with a temperature below 175". This means that coffee below 175 is TOO COLD to even re-heat. (McDonalds had theirs at 180-185)

McDonalds was reheating their coffee to 200F, and serving that.

Incorrect. They had theirs at 180-185.

Coffee might be brewed at 200 degrees, but coffee isn't served at 200 degrees. It is too hot to drink about about 180F. 190F will cause first and second degree burns.

The National Coffee Association (and who better knows coffee?) says "Coffee might be brewed at 200 degrees, but coffee isn't served at 200 degrees. It is too hot to drink about about 180F. 190F will cause first and second degree burns." and that "Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!" "If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit."... which is right where McDonlds had it.

So, either the National Coffee Association is giving out bad directions for it's own product, or McDonalds did nothing wrong.

Re:Typical!

[fredklein]

OOPS.

The National Coffee Association (and who better knows coffee?) says "Coffee might be brewed at 200 degrees, but coffee isn't served at 200 degrees. It is too hot to drink about about 180F. 190F will cause first and second degree burns."

Should be

The National Coffee Association (and who better knows coffee?) says "Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction."

Re:Typical!

[Carnildo]

That's the reservoir -- the water that's being heated prior to using it to brew coffee. Once you've trickled it through room-temperature grounds and dripped it through room-temperature air, it's a good bit cooler when it hits the bottom of the pot.

Re:Typical!

[fredklein]

Not really. The grounds don't have a very high mass, so their cooling effect is small. Also, many coffee pots have the coffee leave the basket and drip right into the carafe, thus no "dripped it through room-temperature air". And many carafes are insulated.

The national Coffee Association says

"Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction"

and

"Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!"

but

"If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit. " ...which is right where McDonalds had it!

Oh, and many coffee makers have a feature such as this:

"Pause ‘n Serve – Allows you up to 30 seconds to pour a cup of coffee while the coffeemaker is
still brewing. Carefully remove the decanter and the Pause ’n Serve feature will be automatically
activated, temporarily stopping the flow of coffee into the decanter." ... where you can pour a cup as it is still brewing, therefore allowing no time for it to cool.

So....

[Bicx]

$2000 to make up for years of slow ISO downloads,
$15,998,000 to punch deep enough to hit Comcast's pain receptors.

Re:So....

[Bicx]

And.... this makes no sense. Shame on me for posting before my morning coffee.

Re:So....

[shentino]

I think that you're talking about punitive damages.

You won a boat! scam.

[splatter]

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:You won a boat! scam.

[base3]

I predict a sudden and marked increase in the reported userbase of Lotus Notes from between March 26, 2007 and October 3, 2007.

Re:You won a boat! scam.

[slaughterhause]

Well, a boat's a boat, but the $16 could buy you anything. It could even buy you a (toy) boat! You know how much we've wanted one of those.

Re:You won a boat! scam.

[natehoy]

"I used Lotus Notes!"
"No, I used Lotus Notes!"
"Ni, **I** used Lotus Notes!"

(with apologies to "Spartacus") :)

Re:You won a boat! scam.

[mcgrew]

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:You won a boat! scam.

[tepples]

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 (free software for Windows) and give it to whoever would give me the check.

Re:You won a boat! scam.

[The Grassy Knoll]

"Ni"
I think that should be "apologies to Monty Python" there

.

Re:You won a boat! scam.

[StuartHankins]

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:You won a boat! scam.

[causality]

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?

I for one welcome...

[tyroneking]

... 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.

[system1111]

Got love how everyday people will get sued by corporations for many times their annual income ( $80,000 a song) but when it comes to corporations getting sued it equates to a far lower ratio. Any one else think its kind of silly.

Re:Gotta love it.

[mcgrew]

I don't think it's silly, I think it's a damned shame.

Re:Gotta love it.

[jellomizer]

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 Play a song without rights to play it, It wouldn't kill the radio station however for a small station it could really hit its profits. But the ability to "accidentally" do such a crime is so much easier that anyone can do it. But the laws are written in a way that the fine could seriously bankrupt a person who made a mistake.

Re:Gotta love it.

[StuartHankins]

Yes. Unfortunately U.S. laws are usually written to favor corporations at the expense of individuals.

Re:Gotta love it.

[Anonymous Coward]

How much of a fine is enough? I kinda think that they won't accept any less of a profit, so the only place the money can come from is to decrease the level of service they have (or not roll out new things such as faster, more competitive internet access), or by raising rates. Facing those two possibilities, I'd rather a lower fine and come up with some other non-monetary punishment that will benefit their customers.

Re:Gotta love it.

[ImYourVirus]

You *actually* believe that they would " ... roll out new things such as faster, more competitive internet access ... " you must not know how they have made their money thus far.

Re:Gotta love it.

[dkf]

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:Gotta love it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's volume baby, that's how you brake the law and only pay a penitence. What you're doing wrong is not a high enough volume of crime.

Re:Gotta love it.

[causality]

How much of a fine is enough?

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.

Re:Gotta love it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't say they need to change anything per-se, but just correct the ratios to be equivilant.

$80,000 = say... 2 years gross income for a person for the sake of argument

So, for a corporation, make the punishment equal to the corporations 2 years gross income.

Problem solved, of sorts. The system is still ridiculously broken, and people will still have to declare bankrupcy the second they're even accused of anything, but at least odds are so will the corporations.

Ideally, they should fix the entire damn thing, but that'll never happen. And in actuality, neither will the above :\

1%?

[MikeD83]

Assuming someone paid for only internet access at $35 per month during the time Comcast was infringing their rights they would have paid Comcast $1,155. Comcast is only required to pay damages of 1%? Wow... that's Comcastic!

Re:1%?

[Croakus]

... 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.

Re:1%?

[selven]

Comcast granted them the right to receive a service through their contract and failed to honor it.

Re:1%?

[Croakus]

Haven't heard it used that way, but OK. I would have said that Comcast agreed to provide a service through their contract and failed to honor it.

Six or a half dozen?

Either way, Comcast did what they always do. Screwed their customers and got off with a small payout. They haven't seen a penny of my money in a year and they never will again.

Re:Seriously,

[Anonymous Coward]

it's full of Italians and thieves.

You forgot Americains.

GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!

[Anonymous Coward]

And Happy Christmass to ANY !!!!

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!

[Inda]

We all have a right to steel and other metals.

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!

[natehoy]

You're right. It's not ferrous.

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!

[mrsurb]

Stop being ironic

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!

[RivenAleem]

What have we done that you punish us so?

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!

[natehoy]

Ore what?

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!

[StuartHankins]

It's a test of his metal (mettle).

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!

[natehoy]

How vein.

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!

[need4mospd]

Maybe if he were more noble...

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!

[CelticWhisper]

He has to overcome his inertia first.

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!

[selven]

Ok, no more chemistry jokes. Period.

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's quite the rustic expression.

Ummmm..

[natehoy]

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:Ummmm..

[base3]

I was trying to use Lotus Notes and was throttled. Darn inconvenient. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Re:Ummmm..

[natehoy]

Let me know how that works out for you, assuming they allow you access to slashdot from prison. If you send me an address, I'll see if I can find a non-ferrous file and bake it in a cake for you.

Say "Hi" to Bubba. He goes easier on people who are nice to him. :)

Re:Ummmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Ummmm..

[ImYourVirus]

"Goddammit, I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd do any good!"

hm p2p?

[Anonymous Coward]

so anyone who ran one of those p2p apps, and their download was slowed b/c their peer had comcast as their ISP, was damaged by comcast, right?

Tell me

[Dunbal]

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:Tell me

[natehoy]

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 more than I would the people who WILL be getting them.

Re:Tell me

[Aldenissin]

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 every minute and a half or so to attempt to thwart my surfing being interrupted. It isn't perfect, but I notice a difference. It's just ridiculous, and so is a $16 settlement!

The lawyers working this (I know, almost all of them) should be ashamed. How about this, in a class action lawsuit, instead of the lawyers getting the unclaimed payouts, everyone gets mailed a check at the same time for the their equal share out of the whole pot. More people would bother to claim, and fairer payouts would be had. Thoughts? Let make the politicos vote on this! (Yes we can? And if not, let us show them!)

Re:Tell me

[natehoy]

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 cause.

They saw an opportunity to look righteous and good and just and make $6+ million for filing a suit and settling quickly. Skip the "righteous and good and just" bit, come to think of it. They saw a bunch of people angry and upset about something, and bought off a judge to form a class so they could claim to represent people who had been wronged. Now that they've won, they'll dole out the money they need to and pocket the difference plus their 40%.

As a bonus, it saves them from all those exhaust fumes from chasing ambulances.

They SHOULD be ashamed, but they've learned to live with it. A few million a year in settlements will buy a LOT of shiny toys to distract people from their shame.

As far as the politicos voting on it, politicos are lawyers who have taken class-action and ambulance chasing to a high art. Sharks don't bite sharks. Professional courtesy.

Re:Tell me

[MBGMorden]

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:Tell me

[jlarocco]

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:Tell me

[Dunbal]

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 hurt.

      Oh wait, but you know everything. Surely you thought of THAT.

It's a trap!

[Hognoxious]

used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols

They'll give you 16 bucks, and the RIAA will take 20 grand!

They're still doing it.

[Anonymous Coward]

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 problems, It is completely obvious that it's heavy bittorrent usage that 'causes' this.

Really makes me wonder who the hell "Comcast Extreme 50" is for. I see those signs all the time around here and can't figure out who they are expecting to buy those. Who the hell needs 50mbps downloads except bittorrent users... and Comcast has made it clear they will do everything possible to discourage bittorrent usage, they just keep changing the tactic. now it's 'connection quality' issues.

Re:They're still doing it.

[tepples]

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:They're still doing it.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It's definatly the connection from comcast to the modem causing my issue, as resetting the modem, not the router, is what fixes the issue, and I've been using this same router for 4 or 5 years, bittorrent for a good portion of that, and this problem just started in the past 6 months or so. Additionally, when I limit the bandwidth on the connect, I don't limit the total connections at all. Instead of a dozen active transfers at 200kbps each, I've got a dozen at 12kbps each. Addtionally, I'm pretty sure that I've removed the router from the loop to run a direct line from the modem to my torrent machine at some point near the begining of this, to see the same problem.

That's because you have only one connection open at once.

Not at all. An ubuntu update manager session when I havn't run it in awhile may be pulling from a half dozen different repositories. Granted it's no 200peer torrent download, but my point was that it is not a bandwidth throttling issue. It is a bandwidth-while-torrenting-for-long-periods-of-time issue. I use encrypted packets on a non standard port, just like any torrenter with a brain does, but I'm sure that even a simple packet trend scanner at comcast's local office can figure out what I'm probably doing and limit me accordingly.

Businesses, multi-family residences, and people watching HDTV streams.

Can't run a business on one of their residential lines (which extreme 50 is), they'll shut you down if they catch you. I can watch HDTV streams on my regular connection just fine, and while a multi-family residence may require more bandwidth than usual, I submit that almost nobody is using 50mbps on anything like a regular basis except torrenters. Sure anybody can burst up to maximum now and then, but the difference between 15-20 seconds at 50mbps and 45 seconds to a minute at at 10-20mbps (the standard connection) isn't going to be noticable to most people most of the time. The people who really care are the ones who look at the connection and say "i'm looking at the difference between downloading this torrent in 8 hours and 3 hours". 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). 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, and that the majority of the people who'd actually make good use of that connection, are the exact people comcast doesn't want using it.

Re:They're still doing it.

[tepples]

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), those users will become less few and less far between.

Re:They're still doing it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Note: I work in the cable industry, I work on the data and voice provisioning side of things. I came from phone support and have seen a million problems.

In your case, what's most likely going on if your modem is flapping and causing the router to lock up. If there is an RF issue going to that modem, or an SNR issue on the blade your connected to, it'll drop a few packets and cause the modem to flap. For some reason, when this happens a lot of routers tend to freeze up on the Wan side. Lan activity appears normal but you can't hit the cloud. Power cycling usually fixes this, I just wish I knew what caused it. I would test it without the router in place and see if dropoffs occur. If they do, call your cable op and tell them you're having dropoffs of service and speed issues. They'll most likely see the signal issue and set up a TC. If it doesn't happen with a direct connection to the modem, pin reset the router and set it up to test again.

I've never had any of the issues I experienced doing phone support, but they happened enough to show there were issues besides user ignorance.

Re:They're still doing it.

[tepples]

Lan activity appears normal but you can't hit the cloud.

When the router is working, I can visit http://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?

Re:They're still doing it.

[Carnildo]

Use a sacrificial computer. I keep an older computer around for just this purpose (tech-support types can't handle anything that isn't Windows), and when I'm done, I re-image the computer's hard drive.

Letter from my ex-wife. to comcast

[Fished]

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

[Darth_brooks]

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...

[Yvan256]

used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols

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:Specific programs? That's a load of...

[supersat]

protocol != client. The Blizzard updater uses the BitTorrent protocol.

Re:Specific programs? That's a load of...

[Yvan256]

Oh yeah, my mistake.

So, is there any commercial program out there which uses P2P?

Re:Specific programs? That's a load of...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Blizzard updater is an implementation of the BitTorrent protocol.

Re:Specific programs? That's a load of...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of the Mitch Hedburg joke: "At the doctor, they tried to trick me with all these yes or no questions. Have you ever tried sugar? ... or PCP?"

Re:Specific programs? That's a load of...

[anamin]

Oh yeah, my mistake.

So, is there any commercial program out there which uses P2P?

Please re-read. The Bizzard updater uses the BT protocol, which means the updater for a piece of commercial software uses P2P.

Re:Specific programs? That's a load of...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Blizzard uploader uses bit torrent. It's Blizzard's method of distributing patches for World of Warcraft.

Re:Specific programs? That's a load of...

[skeeto]

As someone else said, BitTorrent is a protocol. You can actually extract the .torrent file from the Blizzard updater and use your favorite BitTorrent client to download the patch.

Comcast is in the MPAA

[tepples]

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.

Hasn't Stopped Comcast

[bilturner]

I'm a Comcast user, and as soon as I fire up bit-torrent my cable-modem starts resetting every 2 minutes or so. That has to be Comcast. Takes my cable-modem a minute to cycle through the reset sequence, during which time I'm offline. This tactic seems more egregious, though. Before, they were just interfering with packets. Now they're interrupting my service. Turn off bit-torrent, cable modem and service runs like a charm. Mysterious, isn't it....

Re:Hasn't Stopped Comcast

[PPalmgren]

Not that I'm backing up Comcast or anything, but try taking your router out of the loop for a few days. A lot of consumer grade routers have reduced their standard onboard memory to a paltry 2MB and BT clients will cause them to crash repeatedly. If this is the problem, get a router with 4MB+ of memory (WRT54GL comes to mind). If that doesn't work, complain until you get a new cable modem.

Re:Hasn't Stopped Comcast

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

PPalmgren's suggestion is certainly worth investigating, but have you tried throttling your upload speed on your client? I had some serious problems until I cut way back on my upload speed and that made things calm down. I have no issues with downloading as fast as possible, but things start to get very bad for me if I allow the default unlimited speed on uploads. I have AT&T and not Comcast, but maybe you might look into that and see if it makes any difference.

Re:Hasn't Stopped Comcast

[Belial6]

I had that problem. I use Comcast Business. I found that when they upgraded my speed from 6mbps to 12mbps my WRT54G router would crash if I used bittorrent. It turns out they are giving me 20mbps with it reaching 30mbps at times. I upgraded my router to an AR670W (not the best choice, but it was cheap) and my problems just went away. There was no question that the router was the problem.

Re:Hasn't Stopped Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it can't cope with the number of connections to be forwarded or whatever.
The provider doesn't have to reset the modem to throttle or kill p2p connections.

I've once been sharing a slow asymmetric connection in a living community as a student and p2p applications made gaming and any low latency applications impossible to use, so I set up our linux router for p2p traffic shaping, especially important was shaping the uploads, because if the upload channel is saturated and there is no traffic shaping, it also kills the effective download speed, because important ACK packages get thrown away in the upstream bottleneck. At that time I thought p2p was like the plague, because it took me a lot of time until everything was running that I got a decent ping under heavy load.

Re:Hasn't Stopped Comcast

[GasparGMSwordsman]

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 location you are more likely to get a non-defective modem.

Re:Hasn't Stopped Comcast

[Anonymous Coward]

Same things with AT&T (SBC) DSL, although my broken ethernet card might play a role too.

Uh yeah, World of Warcraft

[Anonymous Coward]

So, is there any commercial program out there which uses P2P?

Yeah, World of Warcraft, made by Blizzard, who runs a software updater (using BitTorrent, see your parent) whenever it connects to Battle.net. For WoW, that means "whenever you play".

(Now, the software updater probably goes "if (my_version >= newest_version) return; else download_with_bit_torrent(newest_version)", so it won't be running bittorrent every time you play.)

(Anonymous because I moderated)

SWEET!

[HideyoshiJP]

$16.00! I can finally get that steak I've been craving!

Obviously

[Ogive17]

Obviously Comcast's reaction to this news will be to increase their fees to each consumer by $17.

So hit them where it hurts their pocket book

[Xphile101361]

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, getting a settlement of 16 million isn't going to hurt anyone. They'll make that amount back from a "customer" in a few months. So if you disagree with a company's practicies... don't use that company. Give up your cable modem or switch to another provider. It makes no sense that you are willing to continue to pay a company which you are suing, and thus financing their legal defense against your claim. Having 1 million subscribers choose to drop Comcast would do tons more than paying each one 16$.

Re:So hit them where it hurts their pocket book

[Anonymous Coward]

Switching ISPs is a great idea, except in my case where i have two options for internet:

1) Comcast
2) Dial-up

So yeah, leaving Comcast isn't even an option (We are due for FIOS lines by end of 2013, originally it was 2009 so i'll believe it in 4 years if it actually happens.)

Re:So hit them where it hurts their pocket book

[shentino]

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?

World of Warcraft

[Hobbiticus]

Illegally downloading music and movies is not the only use for BitTorrent. For example, Blizzard distributes all of their WoW patches using the BitTorrent protocol. So, if you played WoW between those dates (and you were a Comcast customer), then you are theoretically eligible for compensation.

its a trap

[jambarama]

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

I knew it.

[Xupa]

This is fantastic. I had Comcast from 2005-2007 and during the last few months my connection went to shit. Basic diagnostics proved I was being throttled and when I asked my local branch they swore hell no. They were real nice, they came and checked my wires, but I knew. It was fine until I started up a torrent. I had practically no service the last three weeks I lived in that area and when I got my last bill I sent it back to them with a nice note explaining that I hadn't received any service and had no intentions of paying for it. They keep sending me a bill for $80. I keep printing the same note. Now I'm gonna get my $16 and what the hell, I'll pay them the other $64. Just as long as somewhere a judge told them that was wrong and I don't gotta pay for all of it.

Re:I knew it.

[Overzeetop]

They usually remove your note when they forward the lack of payment to the three credit agencies as a delinquency.

Still going on?

[Ornlu]

Oddly enough, I'm moving to Houston in a week, so I need to sign up for an ISP. Comcast is the only cable provider in the whole city, so they've got the market cornered on speed. I did the whole "chat now" thing that popped up when checking availability. I asked about bandwidth caps and P2P throttling. They referred me to a tech hotline. Here's the gist of the conversation with the CS tech rep: I've got 3 questions, 1) To your knowledge, does Comcast throttle P2P traffic? 2) To your knowledge, does Comcast cap the monthly bandwidth for connections? 3) To your knowledge, does Comcast block any incoming/outgoing ports? They replied: "I've never heard of throttling or 'bandwidth'. What do you mean by those?" I then had to explain what bandwidth was... to a cable co tech support "guru". I'm definitely not signing up with this incompetent & abusive company that feels no obligation to actually meet its TOS. A couple questions come do to my mind however: Are they still blocking P2P? Would they admit to further throttling if they are doing it?

Hmm...

[Spykk]

Hmm, I'm not sure about all this. I'm going to have to check with admiral Ackbar on this one.

Re:Seriously,

[Anonymous Coward]

it's full of Italians and thieves.

Brought to you by the department of redundancy department and the letter "Soprano"

P2P for all updates

[drew30319]

I've wondered for some time (and often aloud, but nobody has ever responded) as to why more software updates aren't done via P2P?

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:P2P for all updates

[zzsmirkzz]

One word, Trust. You must implicitly trust all peers hosting the update are not spammers or virus/malware writers looking for any opening to infect your machine.

Re:P2P for all updates

[eltaco]

I totally agree, but when we look at the big economic picture, essentially what this practice does is transfer the cost of bandwidth / traffic from the companies offering the downloads to the isps.
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 what they're paid to do is one of the arguments against net-neutrality.

it makes sense for companies offering updates. I can only imagine they don't want to use torrent tech because of the "bad" image it has in the public - thanks to the lying and misleading media.

Re:P2P for all updates

[iammani]

The torrent file contains Hashes to makes sure that never happens. You can trust a file downloaded through torrents to be more authentic than files obtained through http/ftp.

Re:P2P for all updates

[eltaco]

-1 disinformative
that's what the hash checks are for.

Re:P2P for all updates

[BitZtream]

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 without SSL I have a pretty good chance of knowing I'm connecting to the site I trust.

With P2P I am most certainly connecting to hundreds of people that I don't trust one bit and it only takes one of them to find a payload that can match the hash and cause damage.

Re:P2P for all updates

[DMUTPeregrine]

You have to have a good method of code signing in place, and still have to have a central server to distribute the keys/signatures. P2P lets any of the peers start influencing the communication and possibly insert malicious code. Simple checksums aren't enough, and MITM attacks become very easy. It's perfectly possible, just a bit more work.

Re:P2P for all updates

[the_one(2)]

You will hear about it when a well known hash algorithm is broken... If they manage to brute force a hash they probably deserve to pwn you.

Re:P2P for all updates

[petermgreen]

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?
Not really, generating a pair of blocks of data that hash to the same value (acomplished for md5, not yet for sha1) is FAR FAR easier than generating data that matches an exiting hash.

CRTC & Bell

[Paspanique]

16 millions might not be much for a big company like comcast and 16$ per user might not be much for 1 to receive, but at least your FCC didn't give it's blessing to full throttling like our CRTC gave to Bell. Bell owns the majority of infrastructure and if you are using any one company using DSL, you're being !&*^@ over by the monopoly Bell is...

Turn BitTorrent back on.

[pclminion]

Throttling? Comcast apparently blocks BitTorrent period, at least in my district. It stopped working about 6 months ago. Thanks for doing me a favor and preventing me from "infringing" by downloading an Ubuntu disc. Assholes.

Trial-court-level proceedings DO NOT SET PRECEDENT

[LonghornXtreme]

How many times will an inane Slashdot summary bitch about a case settling before trial because it "does not set precedent"?

The trial-court level does NOT set precedent. The intermediate appeals court and the court of last resort are the courts that set precedent.

Examples:

Precedent = trial court rules one way on Issue X, ruling is appealed, appellate court affirms the ruling = all future trial courts that are underneath this specific appeals court must rule according to the appellate court's opinion

Not Precedent = trial court rules one way on issue Y, ruling is not appealed, new plaintiff brings new case in trial court regarding issue Y, trial judge is still free to rule as trial judge sees fit = no binding etc.

Claim Applications not being accepted quite yet

[kenjay]

"Claim Forms will be available after January 4, 2010"

My legit uses for BT

[jroysdon]

Fedora and CentOS has had plenty of releases from April 1, 2006 - December 31, 2008.

I'm pretty sure I didn't jump to FC5 right away after release, so it was most likely downloaded during this time. FC6, F7, F9, F10 were all downloaded during this time via BT. C4.6, C5, C5.1, C5.2 were all downloaded during this time via BT. Various other distros and LiveCDs were tried out during this time and also downloaded via BT.

I don't do warez. I don't have time for it and the possible hassle in court. I'd rather not try it, but I'd bet I'd come out on top with a countersuit for damages to my home business should any PCs be taken and there isn't a shred of proprietary crud on them. The only exception is the TV shows I legally encode with my own capture cards or music files for all CDs I own which I personally ripped. Again, I don't want to try it out in court, but I think I'd win pretty slam dunk easy.

Re:Seriously,

[Anonymous Coward]

No they didn't, it's the second group mentioned, right after Italians.