PDA

View Full Version : Comcast sued over Web interference



Sporkman
November 15th, 2007, 04:22 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071115/ap_on_hi_te/comcast_data_discrimination_5


Comcast sued over Web interference

By JORDAN ROBERTSON, AP Technology Writer Thu Nov 15, 5:58 AM ET

SAN JOSE, Calif. - A San Francisco Bay area subscriber to Comcast Corp.'s high-speed Internet service has sued the company, alleging it engages in unfair business practices by interfering with subscribers' file sharing.

Subscriber Jon Hart based his claims on the results of an investigation by the Associated Press published last month that showed Philadelphia-based Comcast actively interferes with attempts some high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online.

Hart's lead lawyer, Mark N. Todzo of San Francisco, said his client suspected before reading the AP report that Comcast was interfering with his Internet traffic.

"What the AP report did was just confirm to him that it wasn't just him who was suffering from the problem," Todzo said. "There was this confluence of events where everyone seemed to reach the same conclusion, which was that Comcast was engaging in this activity."

Other users claimed they had seen interference with some file-sharing applications. Subsequent tests by the Electronic Frontier Foundation confirmed the AP's tests, which showed that Comcast is causing software on both ends of a file-sharing link to believe the connection has been dropped.

A coalition of consumer groups and legal scholars formally asked the Federal Communications Commission early this month to make Comcast stop interfering with file sharing. Two of the groups also asked the FCC to fine Comcast $195,000 for every affected subscriber.

Comcast is the country's largest cable company and second-largest Internet service provider with 12.9 million Internet subscribers.

The company denies it blocks file sharing. But it acknowledged after the AP report was published that it delays some of the traffic between computers that share files.

Comcast said the delays are designed to improve the Internet experience for its subscribers as a whole. A relatively small number of file sharers is enough to slow down a network.

Hart's lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, alleges Comcast misleads customers by promising "mind-blowing" speeds and "unfettered access" to the Internet in advertisements while hindering the use of certain applications such as peer-to-peer file sharing. It seeks unspecified money damages.

Todzo is seeking class action status for the lawsuit.

Comcast and its subsidiaries "intentionally and severely impede the use of certain Internet applications by their customers, slowing such applications to a mere crawl or stopping them altogether," the lawsuit reads. "This class action seeks to end (Comcast's) practice and seeks recovery of fees paid by customers who paid for services they did not receive."

A Comcast spokesman reached late Wednesday said the company hadn't been served with the lawsuit yet and could not comment.

n3tfury
November 15th, 2007, 05:06 PM
Even previous to this, Comcast has been rated one of the worst US ISP's. I feel bad for those that don't have a choice.

Polygon
November 17th, 2007, 05:46 AM
good riddence. Comcast has always been a good isp but dissallowing bittorent traffic (uploads) is uncalled for. They really should do it on a per person basis on limiting traffic if anything, i just want to see my torrent up to a 2.0 ratio and then i stop seeding...... but now i feel bad whenever i download a torrent because i cant seed back to the swarm...

toupeiro
November 17th, 2007, 06:28 AM
They were also doing QoS in the bay area of California to throttle Vonage traffic, as it was a competitor to their IP phone solution. Confirmed this with a Fluke Optiview tool.

AT&T will also charge the calling party a long distance charge to call a vonage customer, despite having the same area code, if the 3 digit prefix block of the actual numberis not a designated prefix for your immediate surrounding area. That is, of course, unless you pay AT&T for long distance service...

The level of ethics that big business in America displays is sickening...

Frak
November 17th, 2007, 07:38 AM
They were also doing QoS in the bay area of California to throttle Vonage traffic, as it was a competitor to their IP phone solution. Confirmed this with a Fluke Optiview tool.

AT&T will also charge the calling party a long distance charge to call a vonage customer, despite having the same area code, if the 3 digit prefix block of the actual numberis not a designated prefix for your immediate surrounding area. That is, of course, unless you pay AT&T for long distance service...

The level of ethics that big business in America displays is sickening...
I have AT&T also, due to it being the ONLY choice in my area. It is better than Comcast, but not by much. They still like to throttle torrent speeds (I have a 900KB/s download speed, but only 150KB/s on torrents). Blame congress for letting this little monopoly occur.

Also, as for torrents, they shouldn't know that you use them in the first place. It is ILLEGAL for any ISP to watch what moves through their own pipes; that includes bittorrent.

mivo
November 17th, 2007, 07:44 AM
Also, as for torrents, they shouldn't know that you use them in the first place. It is ILLEGAL for any ISP to watch what moves through their own pipes; that includes bittorrent.

Is this also happening if you use non-standard/random ports?

Tundro Walker
November 17th, 2007, 07:54 AM
Thank God. I'd hate for Comcast to get away with this and set some kind of precedence the telecommunications industry can use going forward. Today, they're regulating BitTorrent traffic, tomorrow, it'll be your porn, your movies/wav/mpeg's, etc, etc...it won't stop until they regulate different services...and then, the clencher...they'll start CHARGING you extra to make them stop limiting certain download types. This is how business works. They want to quietly set up barriers that get in your way, so they can later charge you to remove them, calling it "VIP" or "preferred" service. It's basically a well-orchestrated rip-off, and I'm glad folks are calling them out over it. I think Comcast was hoping they could sneak in on this by saying "hey, it's BitTorrent traffic only...and we all know THAT'S just used for illegal file sharing...boo-hiss! So we're doing everyone a FAVOR!"

Bull.

Frak
November 17th, 2007, 08:01 AM
Is this also happening if you use non-standard/random ports?
Whatever you use, your ISP isn't allowed to have a peek at it w/out your explicit permission.

mivo
November 17th, 2007, 08:02 AM
I think Comcast was hoping they could sneak in on this by saying "hey, it's BitTorrent traffic only...and we all know THAT'S just used for illegal file sharing...boo-hiss! So we're doing everyone a FAVOR!"

BT probably is mostly used for illegal file sharing. ;) But it's about the principle and freedom of telecommunication. It's like getting your snail mail snooped only because illegal materials could be included. (I know that there are many legal uses for BT, and I use it for music from Jamendo (http://www.jamendo.com/) and Linux ISOs -- it's a much better, more scalable system than the alternatives, for popular files.)

mivo
November 17th, 2007, 08:06 AM
Whatever you use, your ISP isn't allowed to have a peek at it w/out your explicit permission.

That's why I asked -- if they throttle commonly used BT ports, they are not peeking at your data, they just "assume" that these ports are used for BT traffic. In Deluge I just set it to "use random ports", which bypasses such measures and doesn't seem to have any downsides.

Frak
November 17th, 2007, 08:09 AM
That's why I asked -- if they throttle commonly used BT ports, they are not peeking at your data, they just "assume" that these ports are used for BT traffic. In Deluge I just set it to "use random ports", which bypasses such measures and doesn't seem to have any downsides.
That would work. They also are not allowed to assume either, since they cannot throttle your connection legally without affecting all other services with probable cause.