Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast Customers Urged To Opt-Out of Settlement

Posted by Soulskill on from the come-on-big-money-no-whammy-no-whammy-stop dept.

funchords writes "As a settlement to the class-action lawsuits over Comcast's blocking of users' Internet traffic, Comcast stands to pay 'up to' $16.00 to every subscriber who makes a claim at their settlement website and declares, under penalty of perjury, that their online activity was for a lawful purpose consistent with applicable copyright and other laws. Robb Topolski, the veteran networking engineer who kicked off the case when he discovered the blocking back in 2007, says that the proposed settlement doesn't make sense, especially after the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled this month that the US Federal Communications Commission didn't have the authority to enforce its Net neutrality principles on Comcast. 'You paid about $50 a month for the service, and the amount that Comcast stands to return is up to about 50c per month for each month that it blocked traffic,' he wrote. 'If that tiny amount of money is compensation, then there is no penalty to Comcast for interfering with its customers, for failing to disclose it, for repeatedly lying about it, and for taking so long to stop it.' The Associated Press and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in late 2007, each independently confirmed Topolski's reports that Comcast was blocking BitTorrent and some other traffic without telling its customers. Comcast first denied interfering with traffic, then finally said it throttled some applications only during times of peak congestion. However, studies from the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems in Germany eventually proved that Comcast slowed BitTorrent traffic around the clock."

9 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Here's my question by RingDev · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I get that the courts ruled that the FCC can't mandate how ISP route their traffic. They can't enforce net neutrality.

    But, in this case we had the ISP injecting packets to cause end user software to abort a communication. Last I checked, man in the middle attacks that interfere with network communications was worthy of felony hacking charges. So what is Comcast geting off so easy?

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:Here's my question by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is it just me, or is the whole class-action system designed to give corporations a chance to buy legal immunity? It seems pretty trivial to do something illegal, have a sock puppet sue you, have it designated a class action, settle for a pittance, and then remove the legal right to sue from anyone who doesn't remember to opt out in time.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Here's my question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What? Huh?

      Nice generalization, but you forgot that a majority of World of Warcraft's content is distributed via BitTorrent. That's hardly an illegitimate use of P2P.

      This case isn't murky at all. Opting out of a pathetic settlement is a collective statement that Comcast's legitimate, paying customers won't let them get away with fucking them over without some kind of due process. It also sends a message to other ISPs that they can't get away with this behavior without someone noticing.

    3. Re:Here's my question by Angeliqe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, they are a corporation, but there's more to it than that. If you accept this settlement, Comcast is NOT admitting guilt. They are still innocent in the eyes of the law. They are offering you a bribe to drop the suit. You can legally do this in any civil case when you are suing for damages. If the parties settle their differences out of court, the court really cannot say that Comcast did not pay enough if no one objects. The real winners in all this is the lawyers. $3 million to them. IANAL

    4. Re:Here's my question by Idiomatick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm a pot dealer that just got stabbed by a client. It goes to court. The courts decide that the client owes me for the cost of stitches. So long as I swear under punishment of pergery that I have never used illegal drugs.

      Clearly there are two fucked up issues here. How come he only has to pay me for stitches when the fucker just stabbed me? And secondly, what the fuck does it matter whether or not I've smoked drugs? The fucker stabbed me!

      You don't get off because you committed a crime against a criminal.

  2. Re:When you factor in the legal fees... by Aldenissin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That is why damages should be separate from legal fees. This would give incentive to settle early if you know you are going to settle. Since a corporation is a legal entity and if you sue me you can get damages plus legal fees, why do corporations get a free pass?

    --
    Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
  3. Here in lies the problem.... by RLU486983 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    By allowing ISP's to offer "Unlimited Internet Access" and then failing to hold them to that; verbatim from the very beginning, is what set the pace for them to dictate exactly how they want to define that phrase.

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

    Obviously, they've been allowed the use of an alternate-reality dictionary that has not been made available to the general public.

  4. Re:Am I the only one here... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Because there's a limited amount of bandwidth and you aren't the only one that wants to use it"

    No there is not! That is a lie. Korea and Europe do not have the same problems. The issue is these greedy monopolistic ISPs are keeping 10 year old routers and refusing to upgrade in order to boast their shareholder price for Goldman Sachs and others on wall street.

    I read on slashdot that 90% of all fiber is dark on purpose in order to limit availability and raise prices.

    If I pay $60 a month for x amount of bits to download a second then why can't I get the service I pay for. It doesn't matter if their business model is on averages. I refuse to sign any contract with capped downloads. Its a shame because I hate cable with a passion and prefer DSL but in rural Alaska I had to agree to caps. My wife plays wow and uses vent so she would exceed the cap in a matter of days.

    World of warcraft has constant disconnects from players with Comcast. Gee I wonder why? We are thinking of being a DSL only guild and this is rediculous. 3 players from comcast get disconnected and cause wiped in every and I mean every battle with a raid boss.

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
  5. Re:Am I the only one here... by he-sk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Meanwhile in Sweden and Finland, people enjoy their 10Mbit or 100Mbit connections straight to their homes. And their monthly bill is cheaper than what you're paying, too.

    --
    Free Manning, jail Obama.