Comcast Pays Out $16M In P2P Throttling Suit

Typical! by SirLoadALot · 2009-12-23 01:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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! by SirLoadALot · 2009-12-23 01:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

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! by Inda · 2009-12-23 01:31 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

--
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Re:Typical! by supersat · 2009-12-23 02:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

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! by elrous0 · 2009-12-23 02:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Typical! by xaxa · 2009-12-23 02:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

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! by PopeRatzo · 2009-12-23 02:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

$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?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Typical! by MBGMorden · 2009-12-23 02:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 :).

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Re:Typical! by jambarama · 2009-12-23 03:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

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! by shentino · 2009-12-23 03:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

That class action settlement means nothing without an injunction to stop Comcast from further meddling.
Re:Typical! by Uncle+Rummy · 2009-12-23 03:46 · Score: 3, Informative

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! by ppanon · 2009-12-23 04:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Page 3

--
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Re:Typical! by StuartHankins · 2009-12-23 04:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

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! by drew30319 · 2009-12-23 04:35 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
Re:Typical! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-23 05:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

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! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-23 06:03 · Score: 2, Informative

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! by drew30319 · 2009-12-23 06:10 · Score: 4, Informative

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

--
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
Re:Typical! by Gerald · 2009-12-23 06:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

$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! by Shagg · 2009-12-23 06:37 · Score: 2, Informative

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?

--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Re:Typical! by drew30319 · 2009-12-23 07:49 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
Re:Typical! by Carnildo · 2009-12-23 09:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Re:Typical! by fredklein · 2009-12-23 11:20 · Score: 2, Informative

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! by fredklein · 2009-12-23 11:43 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Gotta love it. by system1111 · 2009-12-23 01:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

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. by mcgrew · 2009-12-23 01:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
Free Martian Whores!

1%? by MikeD83 · 2009-12-23 01:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

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%? by Croakus · 2009-12-23 03:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

... 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.

Ummmm.. by natehoy · 2009-12-23 01:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

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."

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."

Re:Ummmm.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-23 01:47 · Score: 3, Funny

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:You won a boat! scam. by base3 · 2009-12-23 01:34 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.

Tell me by Dunbal · 2009-12-23 01:36 · Score: 3, Funny

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?

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Re:Tell me by jlarocco · 2009-12-23 03:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Maybe not

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !! by Inda · 2009-12-23 01:39 · Score: 3, Funny

We all have a right to steel and other metals.

--
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !! by natehoy · 2009-12-23 01:44 · Score: 3, Funny

You're right. It's not ferrous.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."

It's a trap! by Hognoxious · 2009-12-23 01:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !! by mrsurb · 2009-12-23 01:48 · Score: 4, Funny

Stop being ironic

They're still doing it. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-12-23 01:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Letter from my ex-wife. to comcast by Fished · 2009-12-23 01:55 · Score: 2, Funny

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

--
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1

Re:You won a boat! scam. by mcgrew · 2009-12-23 01:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Recycle the settlement by Darth_brooks · 2009-12-23 01:56 · Score: 2, Funny

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.

--
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.

Re:You won a boat! scam. by tepples · 2009-12-23 01:59 · Score: 2, Informative

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:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !! by natehoy · 2009-12-23 02:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Ore what?

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."

Re:Specific programs? That's a load of... by supersat · 2009-12-23 02:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Hasn't Stopped Comcast by bilturner · 2009-12-23 02:18 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2009-12-23 03:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by Belial6 · 2009-12-23 05:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

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 by GasparGMSwordsman · 2009-12-23 07:12 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Obviously by Ogive17 · 2009-12-23 03:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

--
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."

So hit them where it hurts their pocket book by Xphile101361 · 2009-12-23 03:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 by shentino · 2009-12-23 03:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Still going on? by Ornlu · 2009-12-23 03:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

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... by Spykk · 2009-12-23 04:05 · Score: 4, Funny

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

P2P for all updates by drew30319 · 2009-12-23 04:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

--
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.

Re:P2P for all updates by BitZtream · 2009-12-23 08:30 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Re:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !! by selven · 2009-12-23 09:28 · Score: 2, Funny

Ok, no more chemistry jokes. Period.

Slashdot Mirror

Comcast Pays Out $16M In P2P Throttling Suit

55 of 176 comments (clear)