Subscribe
Comcast has agreed to settle a $16 million dollar class action lawsuit filed on behalf of broadband customers who experienced slowed speeds while using peer to peer applications. The original lawsuit, Hart v. Comcast, accused the company of advertising broadband speeds that were unavailable to customers when using certain applications the company allegedly impaired from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008. As part of the proposed settlement, Comcast denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to modify its “network management” policies and feels further litigation over the matter would not be in the company’s best interests.
Customers are eligible for a settlement up to $16:
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 e-mail any time from March 26, 2007 to October 3, 2007.
Starting January 5, 2010 affected customers can file a claim online or by mail for their share of the settlement. Additional information is available on the settlement website P2PCongestionSettlement.com.
BitTorrent's peer to peer protocol was impacted by Comcast's speed throttle
The Comcast throttling incident helped make the case for Net Neutrality proponents that broadband providers would, in certain instances, be willing to impede traffic it deemed undesirable or burdensome. Peer to peer traffic has been blamed by several providers for creating congestion problems on their broadband networks, particularly those that share a limited amount of bandwidth among hundreds of customers. Unlike typical file transfers, which originate in one location and deliver content to consumers, peer-to-peer relies on groups of people sharing individual pieces of files with one another until everyone obtains the complete file. Because many peer to peer networks consider it good etiquette to share as much as one receives, upstream bandwidth is consumed at a much higher than average rate.
For consumers who leave file sharing applications running 24/7, the amount of traffic can build to considerable levels. Many providers consider such traffic a nuisance that clogs their networks, and some have sought to artificially reduce the speed of such traffic.
Other stories of interest:
- Let’s Dialogue: Coping With Peer-2-Peer & Video Usage On Broadband Networks
- One Year After Imposing 250GB Cap, Comcast Customers Still In The Dark About Their Usage
- Irony Department: Canadian Opinion Piece Opposes ‘Throttling the Net’ By Advocating Throttling
- Mozy On Through Your Usage Allowance With Comcast ‘Secure Backup & Share’
- Wall Street Journal Says Net Neutrality A Boon To Bandwidth Hogging, Ignores Industry’s Own Self-Interest
“Up to $16″, like “up to 3Mbs”? Something tells me there won’t be very much money handed out.
While the attorney helps him self to (up to) $3,000,000. Guess who ends up paying for this lawsuit in the end? …. Comcast customers, of course.