Comcast Sued Over BitTorrent Traffic Interference
Written by Ernesto on November 14, 2007It was to be expected, yesterday, a Comcast subscriber from California filed a suit against Comcast in which he calls upon the ISP to stop interfering with his BitTorrent traffic.
We first reported that Comcast was actively disconnecting BitTorrent seeds back in August. Comcast of course denied our allegations, even though we had proof, and they continued to do so.
Jon Hart, a Comcast subscriber from California couldn’t take it anymore and decided to take legal action. He filed a class-action lawsuit on Tuesday and demands that Comcast stops the BitTorrent traffic interference. In addition he wants Comcast to pay him, and all other Comcast customers in California, damages for not giving him the “crazy fast speeds” they advertised.
Threat Level asked Comcast for a response to this news, but the spokesman put them off with his default response: “Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any websites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services”. Semantically speaking they are totally right, they don’t block any applications or websites, they do however, actively disconnect peer-to-peer connections, making it impossible for many users to seed files on BitTorrent.
Hart is not the only one taking action against Comcast, the people behind SaveTheInternet have also formed a coalition and plan to demand $195,000 for all the customers who are affected.
Comcast is using an application from the broadband management company Sandvine to throttle BitTorrent traffic. The application is installed at the cable modem termination system and breaks every (seed) connection with new peers after a few seconds. This means that Comcast is not simply slowing down connections, they actually disconnect peer-to-peer transfers.
We wish Jon all the best, let’s hope justice will be served. In the meantime, here’s an article that explains how to bypass Comcast’s BitTorrent interference.
Previously: Anti-Piracy Outfit Threatens ShareConnector Admin at his Front Door
Next: Police Charge Man in Movie Camming Crackdown
72 Responses (Add yours or TrackBack)
Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All
I saw this coming. However, I still don’t understand why they’re being sued over this when they’ve been capping Usenet traffic since I signed-up. Not to mention that when I found out there was a cap, they suggested a pay for service provider.
i run a website that has complete album mp3s shared over bit torrent.. but the catch is that i get permission (along with pressing info and images) from the artists, and its a big success. theres tons of out of print 7 inches and demos that you would never know about if you were from out of town and the internet didn’t exist.
that being said, it seems like linux distros is the #1 defense of bit torrent traffic.. i think there needs to be a bit more variety in the arguments to make it a usually-”legal” protocol instead of “well between downloading major label music i also seeded a 100M open source file”.
Warning this site is full of comcast dogs & employee… give them hell too.
[quote comment="214622"]So what? Nothing will change.
Comcast will put a $5 credit on a few people’s bills, and in 6 months they’ll just add another service option/level for $25 more a month.
“You want to do P2P? Pay us more money!”
Just my estimate.
Its all going to turn into this right here.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e110/keithdrone/netnuetrality5z6vt4n.jpg/quote
That link you gave is exactly what’s going to happen…Check http://www.savetheinternet.com an d read what theyve been sayin for the past couple of years….Its just starting to happen because ppl come here to bitch rather than going to congress or members of parliament(depending where you live)
Just noticed something else new…Why do my comments here have to be moderated all of a sudden?? They never were before..Things that make you go hmmmmmmm
“Hart is not the only one taking action against Comcast, the people behind SaveTheInternet have also formed a coalition and plan to demand $195,000 for all the customers who are affected.”
I lol’ed at this. Why would Comcast PAY the customers who are affected?
GTFO scrubs.
Not that I support this type of bullshit from any ISP, but as long as the contract doesn’t state exactly what he gets as service, Comcast has every right to do as they please with their service that they provide. I don’t like it, but it’s their service they’re selling.
Ok legitimate BitTorrent downloads this guy could have been using. Downloading the latest version of OpenOffice, many Linux distros, some freeware/opensource games, research data for a university project (yep they share the data via BT sometimes). Some commercially produced BT seeds.
We don’t necessarily know Jon, so we can’t assume he’s using BT for the purpose of downloading the newest movies or music illegally.
[quote comment="cheesesoda"]…as long as the contract doesn’t state exactly what he gets as service, Comcast has every right to do as they please with their service that they provide.[/quote]
I disagree. Suppose they disabled HTTP instead? Or maybe just FTP? These are ALL designed to transfer files. Customers have certain expectations when they pay for service, and those expectations clearly aren’t being met.
They promised that “Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any…online applications”, in direct response to questions about Bittorrent. It sounds like they are committing fraud. There are 1) material false statements that they offer ‘unfettered access to all the internet has to offer’, 2) customers who relied on these statements when buying service, and 3) actual damages. That would certainly expose them to civil liability.
As for the “$195,000 for all the customers who are affected”, Free Press and Public Knowledge are asking the FCC to fine Comcast $195,000 for _each_ harmed subscriber. You can read the reasoning on pages 37-38 of the complaint:
http://www.freepress.net/docs/fp_pk_comcast_complaint.pdf
I assume the FCC would keep these forfeitures… maybe I’m wrong? Their reasoning for the huge fine included the “huge negative externalities on application-providers, content-providers, and all consumers”, including “undermining the future of Internet innovation”. This clearly goes beyond Comcast customers, and it shouldn’t be confused with the class-action lawsuit - they are not the same thing.
Interesting developments to say the least. You can bet other ISPs are watching. :)
Sorry, I meant to quote you cheesesoda. :P
Comcast is up to even more shit. http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=58005
America is going to hell in a hand basket. Corporate Baldheads and their greedy fuckin cronies are runing this country faster then you can say Sandvine.
Just watching a movie like sicko(which is just a tiny fraction of the greedy, heartless, and dictatorship’esk bullshit going on this country) makes you realize this country is soon to be run by corporations, if it isnt already.
Sadly, this guy doesnt stand a chance. You cant even depend on justice being served in this country anymore. You know the judges will be paid off in some slimy way, and freedom as you know it.. will soon be dead. Were fucked guys.. seriously fucked.. Im movin to canada. Fuck all this shit. America has turned into “me, me, me and my shit” You see it on the highways, You see it when You see everywhere around here. Its everywhere. It’s fuckin sad! Nobody cares about anybody but themseleves in this day and age. And how can you blame them when your government keeps people demoralized and scarred out of their minds.
We should be called Scamerica! Cause thats what its turned into! everyone scamming everyone else, and then lying about it! Just like Comcast!
Sandvine was killing me, I noticed a huge drop in speed. My friend told me he had the same problem and went with a VPN provider. There are quite a few out there, just google it. I currently use http://www.strongvpn.com . Their speeds are excellent and it’s a regular hosting company ( reliablehosting.com ) so their staff is always there and know what they are doing.
It’s useful for other reasons too so I don’t mind the extra $15 a month on my budget.
Check this out!
http://mashable.com/2008/01/08/fcc-may-fine-comcast-up-to-177-trillion/
i agree
On Comcast’s terms of use pages, it says:
[quote]
Comcast reserves the right to refuse to transmit or post, and to remove or block, any information or materials, in whole or in part, that it, in its sole discretion, deems to be in violation of the “Content and information restrictions” section above in this Policy, harmful to its network or customers using the Service, negatively affecting its network or customers using the Service, or otherwise inappropriate, regardless of whether this material or its dissemination is unlawful. Neither Comcast nor any of its affiliates, suppliers, or agents have any obligation to monitor transmissions or postings (including, but not limited to, e-mail, file transfer, newsgroup, and instant message transmissions as well as materials available on the Personal Web Pages and Online Storage features) made on the Service. However, Comcast and its affiliates, suppliers, and agents have the right to monitor these transmissions and postings from time to time for violations of this Policy and to disclose, block, or remove them in accordance with this Policy and the Subscriber Agreement.
[/quote]
Referring to its prohibition to
[quote]upload, post, publish, transmit, reproduce, create derivative works of, or distribute in any way information, software or other material obtained through the Service or otherwise that is protected by copyright or other proprietary right, without obtaining permission of the owner;[/quote]
So as much as i’d like to see them sued, it looks tricky.
Also
[quote]Comcast reserves the right to suspend or terminate Service accounts where bandwidth consumption is not characteristic of a typical residential user of the Service as determined by the company in its sole discretion. Common activities that may cause excessive bandwidth consumption in violation of this Policy include, but are not limited to, numerous or continuous bulk transfers of files and other high capacity traffic using (i) file transfer protocol (”FTP”), (ii) peer-to-peer applications, and (iii) newsgroups, whether provided by Comcast or a third party. You must also ensure that your use of the Service does not restrict, inhibit, interfere with, or degrade any other person’s use of the Service, nor represent (as determined by Comcast in its sole discretion) an overly large burden on the network. In addition, you must ensure that your use of the Service does not limit or interfere with Comcast’s ability to deliver and monitor the Service or any part of its network.[/quote]
They are being sued for impersonating users computers and sending false “I’m finished” or “complete” packets to peers, causing the connections to reset, which is seriously illegal in most states. They aren’t being sued for throttling or anything like that. It’s about impersonation for Comcast’s benefit and gain; i.e. not having to improve their network for this new popular form of legal file transfer.
Thats why I call them Vomitcast!
3 references to this post
Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All
Add your response