dslreports logo
Comcast P2P Throttling Settlement Nets Users "Up To" $16
Though it also netted them a much better Comcast throttling system

As we mentioned last December, Comcast has settled a class action over the whole throttling kerfuffle you might recall began right here in the forums at Broadband Reports back in 2007. Our users discovered that Comcast was throttling all upstream subscriber P2P traffic by forging user TCP reset packets, though Comcast repeatedly denied the practice to consumers, regulators and the press. Ultimately the news resulted in an FCC investigation and a meaningless FCC sanction, though Comcast eventually wound up shifting to a throttling solution that only targets high consumption users on heavily congested nodes.

Click for full size
The suit itself was settled for $16 million, and users who signed up for their settlement money are now being sent information on their share of the settlement in a notice included in user bills (page 1, page 2). According to the notice, the user share of the settlement money is "not to exceed $16." We're guessing the class action attorneys involved in the case did a little better for themselves.

Cliche lawyer whining aside (and there will be plenty of that), for most users this was never about the money, it was about carriers being transparent with users about what type of connection they're buying. While Comcast has settled the case without admitting any fault, they're still fighting with the FCC in court, arguing that the agency lacks the authority to dictate how Comcast manages its network.

The outcome of that case drastically impacts the authority the FCC has over broadband ISPs. Consumer-focused policy folks like Art Brodsky and Harold Feld this week have been highlighting the carriers' one/two punch effort to strip the FCC of all authority moving forward. Should the FCC find itself on the losing end of that scenario, carriers in the future could simply ignore your complaints over heavy-handed throttling practices. So enjoy that sixteen bucks.
view:
topics flat nest 

SirMeowmix_I
@windstream.net

SirMeowmix_I

Anon

Good stuff.

Companies respond best with their profits are in danger. While class-action lawyers and the compensation they receive is ludicrous compared to those that are afflicted it's a necessary evil. It brings about necessary reform and serves as a warning for companies who would choose to emulate the same behavior in the future.

$16 may not be much but go buy a 12 pack and fire up a legal torrent.

Z80A
Premium Member
join:2009-11-23

1 recommendation

Z80A

Premium Member

Followed by

Class Action Lawsuit Recovery Fee

ReformCRTC
Support Your Independent ISP
join:2004-03-07
Canada

ReformCRTC

Member

Re: Followed by

Lawyers' Maserati Refuelling Fee.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to Z80A

Premium Member

to Z80A
said by Z80A:

Class Action Lawsuit Recovery Fee
And that won't be an "up to" amount, everyone will get the max there.
when will people get it: these big corps don't have a magic money tree, lawsuits ALWAYS filter back down to the subs bill!

SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

SLD

Premium Member

Re: Followed by

Except when there is competition. In a competitive market, the corp would have to eat the loss of the settlement, or eat the lost of subscribers when they migrate from the price increase. Of course, there is no *real* competition in much of Comcast territory.

Z80A
Premium Member
join:2009-11-23

2 edits

Z80A

Premium Member

Re: Followed by

As we have seen from many of Karl Bode See Profile's reports, competition hasn't brought down prices unless you measure it by the Mb but those prices were coming down in the absence of competition.

Telco_Tech
join:2009-05-18
Toledo, OH

1 recommendation

Telco_Tech

Member

Beautiful!

I'm all in favor of ISP's exercising their right to manage the resources they're responsible for but only when it's done completely transparently. All it would take is a teeny little disclaimer explaining which protocols they block or throttle to get my seal of approval. That way, customers know exactly what they're paying for.

- Tate

Alcohol
Premium Member
join:2003-05-26
Climax, MI

Alcohol

Premium Member

Re: Beautiful!

said by Telco_Tech:

I'm all in favor of ISP's exercising their right to manage the resources they're responsible for but only when it's done completely transparently. All it would take is a teeny little disclaimer explaining which protocols they block or throttle to get my seal of approval. That way, customers know exactly what they're paying for.

- Tate

So you're fine with throttling instead of them expanding their capabilities?

zalternate
join:2007-02-22
freedom land

zalternate to Telco_Tech

Member

to Telco_Tech
'Hacking' the users data stream is not network management.

But when are the Comcrap executives gong to jail for hacking users data streams?
Too bad the lawsuit did not bother that that little technicality.

To many ISP's throttle without full disclosure on how slow your Torrents can go. And legitimate torrents too.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Adjust that headline, Karl.

"The suit itself was settled for $16 million, and users who signed up for their settlement money are now being sent information on their share of the settlement in a notice included in user bills (page 1, page 2). According to the notice, the user share of the settlement money is "not to exceed $16." We're guessing the class action attorneys involved in the case did a little better for themselves."
Headline should read "MAXIMUM of $16" ...after 10 million (some whom were not actually effected file) you'll get, maybe $2 or less.
As to the lawyers fees, (generally) the court must approve their billing (Judge= lawyer + understands the high billing rate on SUCESSFUL suits)

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: Adjust that headline, Karl.

Point taken. Fixed.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Screw The Plaintiffs

In a perfect world, Comcast would just raise the rates of the plaintiffs bringing this lawsuit. Thanks to them we now have the hard 250GB cap and another rate hike to pay for the leeches' lawyers' fees.

Thanks jerks.

Z80A
Premium Member
join:2009-11-23

Z80A

Premium Member

Re: Screw The Plaintiffs

Yeah because cable never raised HSI rates before BT. /sarcasm

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Screw The Plaintiffs

True... I just find most class action lawsuits to be pointless. The plaintiffs receive token, laughable "rewards" which almost always require them to spend money on a product/service offered for sale by the company they just sued, and of course the lawyers make out like bandits. Rarely if ever do things change as a result of these lawsuits.

Of course I personally believe that every lawsuit should be presumed to be 100% frivolous and phony unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be otherwise.

Z80A
Premium Member
join:2009-11-23

3 edits

1 recommendation

Z80A

Premium Member

Re: Screw The Plaintiffs

Of course it is pointless. The only ones who benefit are the bloodsucking waste of skin lawyers who should save the nation by setting themselves on fire. Class Actions should be opt in instead of opt out but that is what you get when the Trial Lawyers types like Fmr Sen and current adulterer Edwards bribe Congress. Of course we should all feel good about paying our high insurance premiums so that these worthless whores can build their two Americas starting with their own 23,000 sqft houses. However, bloodsucking leech shitheads or not, Comcast will continue to abuse their market position and throttle people with regular 3X inflation price increases. They don't need lawyers to give them any excuse. Brian Roberts' video walls, 5th Ave Apple Store stairs in his office and his shiny new ivory tower are all the excuse they need.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

True... I just find most class action lawsuits to be pointless.

All lawsuits are pointless... Unless you are the injured party, and unable to get the person/entity at fault to pay a "reasonable settlement" for your damages
said by pnh102:

The plaintiffs receive token, laughable "rewards"
Of course I personally believe that every lawsuit should be presumed to be 100% frivolous and phony unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be otherwise.
The advantatge of "class" action, is greater weight/shared legal cost for the planitifs, the downside is everyone in the class receives an "Average" settlement rather than the most damaged receiving the most, and the barely damaged receiving very little.
The overall award is intended to be punitive againist the offender, but currently the courts reduce MOST judgements, below any true financial punishment (given the delays/interest/etc) the main cost now is the PR value (nil to out of business COs, little to major corp's )who spend more on a single "feel good about us" ad then they pay for a typical settlement.
every lawsuit/legal challange should stand on its merits, not the size of the class/corp/parties sueing/defending.

Z80A
Premium Member
join:2009-11-23

Z80A

Premium Member

Re: Screw The Plaintiffs

Sure, because the injured party (if there even is one) is awesomely compensated with $2.

goofy01
join:2004-02-05
Hammond, IN

goofy01 to Z80A

Member

to Z80A
Actually, Comcast has been good in the past about not raising the rates of HSI. Now their rates for Cable TV, that is a whole different subject.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

Re: Screw The Plaintiffs

said by goofy01:

Actually, Comcast has been good in the past about not raising the rates of HSI. Now their rates for Cable TV, that is a whole different subject.
And guess what subsidizes *fair* HSI rates!
thats why everyone has caps, to prevent cord cutting because VIDEO is what keeps hsi affordable.

Z80A
Premium Member
join:2009-11-23

Z80A to goofy01

Premium Member

to goofy01
Depends on what you call a price increase. Comcast in my area when they took over from ATTb implemented a bundling penalty for those who didn't have CATV (only HSI). The rates for those people went from I believe it was $45 to $60, a 33% price increase.

Bill Neilson
Premium Member
join:2009-07-08
Alexandria, VA

Bill Neilson

Premium Member

So basically Comcast wants to do whatever they

want and if they don't want to give the consumer the speeds they are paying for...ah, tough ****....nobody can stop them?

cableguy0
Premium Member
join:2009-01-20

cableguy0

Premium Member

So Comcast users get $16 and a price increase..

Yea i sound like a nut but.. I have a problem with goverment getting involved in free enterprise. And yes, i know they're a monopoly. But, You squeeze a balloon on one side and it always pops out on the other side. The customer eventually get screwed at the end of the day with a price increase after everyone between gets their piece of the pie. Government and the lawyers will gladly control every aspect of our lives until one day we'll wonder what happened..

edward1956
@comcast.net

edward1956

Anon

Comcast ISP Service

According to »www.speedtest.net I'm downloading 10.26
MPS on the present $19.99 per month promotion & use the internet a lot & for now, I feel I'm getting what I pay for, until
May, when my Economy Internet jumps to $34.99. Then I might go shopping for a new ISP.

linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium Member
join:2002-12-03
United State

linicx

Premium Member

The lawyers are right

FCC has no official authority. They do Congressional bidding. The consumer usually wins in small complaints because it is cheaper than the company lawyer. I filed a complaint and when I proved my case to a highly positioned suit - which was very easy -- I worked with the top engineer of a major telco for nine months - and I won. Luckily my ISP was patient and as interested in solving the problem as I was. Data does not always flow as well as expected or as promised.