Comcast Pays Out $16M In P2P Throttling Suit

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast Pays Out $16M In P2P Throttling Suit

Posted by kdawson on Wednesday December 23, 2009 @01:13AM from the bad-money-after-good dept.

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."

25 of 176 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
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.
1. 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: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: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."
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:GOD DAMM RIGHT IT MY RIGHT TO STEEL !! by mrsurb · 2009-12-23 01:48 · Score: 4, Funny

Stop being ironic
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!
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....
1. 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.
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.