Comcast Settles Throttling Class Action $16 million for packet forgery shenanigans Tipped by caco 
As our users were the first to discover back in 2007, Comcast had been forging user packets to throttle upstream P2P traffic for all users 24/7, despite spending a lot of time claiming otherwise. The news resulted in an FCC investigation and a meaningless FCC sanction, though Comcast ultimately wound up shifting to a throttling solution that only targets high consumption users on heavily congested nodes. Comcast also faced a class action lawsuit, which they've now settled for $16 million according to a statement by the class action's law firm. According to the firm, users may be able to get a refund from Comcast if you tried (and failed) to use a major P2P program or Lotus Notes (which you'll recall was also impacted by the packet forgery practice) anytime between April 1 2006 to December 31 2008.
|
  gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
 ·Suddenlink
| LOL "Users maybe able to get a refund"
$16 million... Here come the price hikes..
Who really wins?
I realize, we need some way to punish ISPs who abuse their users, but is the answer fines like this? I for one don't know.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
|  | | | Re: LOL Lol, the refund will end up being like $1.50 credit per customer. I wonder what the payout for losses will be?
--
"The relationship between what we see and what we know is never settled..." | |
| | | | | Re: LOL actually says it will not exceed $16 to it's possible to get more then $1.50 | |
|
|  nerdburgPremium
join:2009-08-20
Schuylkill Haven, PA
kudos:1 | The Class Action Law Firm wins.
--
[Insert Comcast employee disclaimer here.] | |
| | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| said by gatorkram:"Users maybe able to get a refund" $16 million... Here come the price hikes.. Who really wins? I realize, we need some way to punish ISPs who abuse their users, but is the answer fines like this? I for one don't know. $16M is chump change for comcast. and they don't need a reason to hike rates - this fine is meaningless with regard to price hikes.
now a $1B fine would make them pay attention - and for sure cause rates to rise. | |
| |  Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | As if Comcast needed excuses to take massive increases every year. | |
| | quatrixPremium
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
kudos:2 | $16 million? So now we're PAYING the pirates to steal? | |
| | | Tairei
join:2009-07-01
Beaverton, OR | Re: LOL Yes? | |
| | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Yeah, cause everyone using Lotus Notes or BT is a pirate. /sarcasm. | |
| | | | | | Re: LOL I bet there were more p2p scum than lotus notes. | |
| | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: LOL So? | |
|
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | said by gatorkram:"Users maybe able to get a refund" $16 million... Here come the price hikes.. Who really wins? I realize, we need some way to punish ISPs who abuse their users, but is the answer fines like this? I for one don't know. ROFL! What? a 9 cent credit on the bill?
only ones who make out on class actions is the lawyers.
-
cable companies don't have a magic money tree, when they get fined it filters back down on your bill in one way or another.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| | | | | Re: LOL There seems to be relatively irrational belief among many conservatives that corporate taxes are simply passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. It leaves out the obvious - if companies felt they could simply raise prices, they'd do it whether there were taxes or not. After all, why leave money on the table? Conversely, if they feel the consumer is already paying as much as the consumer is willing to bear, they'll be very careful about passing on any increases in their own costs, and if there are any new costs (including taxes) they'll probably absorb the bulk of them. Put another way - he who is desperate pays, and he who is more desperate pays more. If the seller's supply curve is more inelastic than the buyer's demand curve, the seller will absorb more of the taxes - even taxes on the buyer. If the buyer's demand curve is more inelastic, the buyer will absorb of taxes, including corporate taxes. | |
|
| | | said by gatorkram:"Users maybe able to get a refund" $16 million... Here come the price hikes.. Who really wins? I realize, we need some way to punish ISPs who abuse their users, but is the answer fines like this? I for one don't know. There seems to be relatively irrational belief among many conservatives that corporate taxes are simply passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. It leaves out the obvious - if companies felt they could simply raise prices, they'd do it whether there were taxes or not. After all, why leave money on the table? Conversely, if they feel the consumer is already paying as much as the consumer is willing to bear, they'll be very careful about passing on any increases in their own costs, and if there are any new costs (including taxes) they'll probably absorb the bulk of them. Put another way - he who is desperate pays, and he who is more desperate pays more. If the seller's supply curve is more inelastic than the buyer's demand curve, the seller will absorb more of the taxes - even taxes on the buyer. If the buyer's demand curve is more inelastic, the buyer will absorb of taxes, including corporate taxes. | |
| | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
4 edits | Re: LOL Wrong. When corporate taxes increase, all of them pass it on just as all gas stations pass on the higher costs of wholesale gasoline. There is no competitive force compelling restraint.
Consumers pay for everything. All you do when you raise corporate taxes is make goods cost more and where there is inelasticity they just send manufacturing jobs elsewhere to preserve margins. Not only do you lose that corporate tax revenue, you lose the local tax revenue, the tax revenue of all the employees they fired and the local impact those those employees. These companies just make the stuff in another country and import it. How about liberals just forego their thievery and pet projects?
No country has ever taxed itself into prosperity. Socialism is an epic failure. It only works on the Smurfs. Thankfully the Pelosi Politburo will get an ass kicking come November. | |
|
| | | | Re: Only had to Admit Next thing we know they'll have an ETF and use this as one of the reasons... | |
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | What more do you need than $10? Were you personally impacted? Are you a P2P person....? ... and like others said, are you willing to put on paper that you were?
Further... and I'm being serious, many people don't realize what a class action is to the full extent. You put nothing into it.. you lose not a dime.. you don't have to do any work, yet you get a check for at least something (to which you will most likely wind up paying back in your own bill, and then some) ....
.. but my point is, if someone was seriously harmed by the alleged actions (because it was settled, not fought, it's still alleged by law) then that someone needs to hire an attorney and duke it out in court. But, the reason no one does is because they usually themselves have no money to do so, OR, it's not worth the cost to take themselves. AND, as much as people like to rant, bitch, and want to change things, they're never willing to put their own money where their mouth is, for such an "important cause"....
So.. we have class actions... while they may not be perfect, they do put SOMETHING in your pocket, and OFTEN people who were not affected directly get paid too. In the end, it does bring about change.. the only problem is, the change that they bring usually doesn't favor the individuals either. Often, the company sued winds up changing things that often LESS favor the consumer anyway..
Basically, in this case, and in the end, Comcast spent 16 million dollars, which is chump change to them, and WILL ultimately win in the end... this is the very thing they will end up spring-boarding off it which will change the industry in the U.S. to billing by the byte models, which we know many people don't want.
So... who really won here? | |
|
 TordekMake the outages go awayPremium
join:2009-09-07
Great White
kudos:2
1 edit | why The question that i have to ask is, Why shouldn't a provider be allowed to throttle? Supercar makers Govern's their cars even though you still pay 100+ thousand(s) of dollars for them.
If a company chooses to implement congestion management and/or throttling high end users to make things fair for other clients on their networks then they should absolutly do so, and more power to them.
People would be very quick to complain if their node was being saturated by a few users who are downloading all they can and having users complaining because they aren't getting their speed.
IMO all ISP's should have a fixed cap of XX(X) gb/mth if you exceed that then there should be a overusage charge applied to your account. As said by a member of this site,
"Your provider seeks to maximize its profits.
Your mother seeks to maximize your happiness in life.
Don't confuse the two." | |
| |
1 edit | Re: why said by Tordek:People would be very quick to complain if their node was being saturated by a few users who are downloading all they can and having users complaining because they aren't getting their speed. So even though I pay them for a connection, it's MY job to make sure they have enough capacity for everyone? I don't think so. They take in enough money to keep up with demand, they would just rather spend it on themselves. If we had actual competition, then we could simply do business with someone else, but since we don't we have to use policy, lawsuits and news reels to keep them in line.
It's pretty easy to spot markets that don't have competition, they're the ones where people go batshit insane over high prices. Milk has gotten expensive about the same way gas has, but you don't see people complaining all day about milk prices. Thanks OPEC! | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: why You're TOTALLY missing the point on several things..
Just because you pay for a connection doesn't mean you are given open access to eat all you can. ANY business has a right to impose usage rules. This argument that "it's mine and I'll do what I want" generally stems from a 'spoiled-brat-raised' mentality... I'm sorry if that is harsh, but there is nothing that says you can do as you please. You have to follow MANY rules when using an internet connection, and many of those come from the very government that everyone wants to be there to help! (think about that)
You talk about "taking in enough money".. I'm going to put that on hold and jump to your next point - competition. Competition is both good AND bad for the consumer. People confuse and think that competition will ultimately drive costs down and give more to the consumer - wrong.
There is only so much room for an internet provider in this country for the single family dwelling unit. It cost a lot of money to operate an ISP of the scale that we use today. When you have all this competition, they spend much of the money they make from you one-upping the others, and guess what, that costs money.. Remember, "there's a map for that!" I can tell you that little campaign of Verizon's cost millions to deliver.. money that could very well just go into their networks, right?
People say there will be no true competition with only 2 or 3 providers.. and they're right.. and wrong. Again, it costs money. There are places where multiple providers pop up, and they cut rate to gain customers.. that cut rate comes at a price.. usually poor customer service, often times poor speeds, capacity, or the eventual pulling back on the reigns because they realize they actually DO have to charge more for their service to survive.. ultimately, those competitive providers wind up either going dark, or being eaten up by the big boys.
People keep crying all the time.. "I want comcast to die" or "I wish ATT would go to hell".. well, remove that provider, what happens, the other one starts to raise prices because they know the threat is gone. THIS is an example of both good AND bad competition at play.. there's a big message in what I just said.. however, competition always comes in waves.. the consumer needs to be able to stay on their feet and ride those waves, and too, people just don't want to do that.
So, taking in enough money.. well, that's their profits and they're allowed to make them.. there is no laws that prohibit that. In most cases, and the case of Comast or cable, I can tell you, there is plenty of capacity. What you're not realizing is that many of the issues are on the node level as has been discussed. When you have a few bandwidth hogs, running servers which has ALWAYS been unacceptable, that creates problems for other users. The system was designed WITH OUT servers in mind. NORMAL RESIDENTIAL USAGE (oh my god, there's that term again) ACTUALLY means something. It MEANS that they built the node capacity keeping in mind that people were not going to be placing a server on the node so that the whole world can download 30 minute shows of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.. It means that when the network is used AS DESIGNED, the capacity should be normal.. this hasn't and always hasn't been the case.
So, should cable, and even phone operators (which have CO problems of their own) spend their money to increase capacity for isolated issues of abuse, so that people can blatantly disregard the very TOS agreements they agreed to be held by? .. I find that TOTALLY unreasonable. For this, I agree with Cable in the sense they boot you off.. you don't want to follow the rules, you pay a price in this country, as it should be. boohoo if people lose their internet.
We've seen MANY cases of people crying, even our resident video blogger who was going full swing at comcast back in 2007/2008, claiming he was just working from home.. um, I work from home, I have 8 servers, and I don't use hardly as much as he did.. he was sharing crap and got caught red handed and he paid the price.. just as did many of the other "I was just downloading linux distros"... riiiiiiight.
But.. "competition" alone isn't going to come close to solving any and all of the problems that you think it will.. not even by a mile.. it's a combination of factors, that believe it or not even involve the consumer's own mentality and expectations. 
anyway.. oh, on a funny note... Milk is down to about $2.00 a gallon.. maybe that's why people aren't complaining.. either that, or they like calcium deficiencies.. | |
| | | |  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Re: why said by fiberguy:Just because you pay for a connection doesn't mean you are given open access to eat all you can. OK, then don't *ever* advertise "unlimited".
Thanks! | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: why Ummmm.... are we REALLY going down this road again?
They haven't advertised (comcast) "unlimited" since, what..? ,.... 2003? 2004? What year is it now?
Are you one of those people that believes that once you have something, you're always entitled to it? I'm asking a serious question, not being a dick.
I've had my phone service discontinued before and told they no longer offered it and to convert to another service. I've had cell phone plans discontinued, I've been told that my cable package was no longer available.. etc. Things change.
IF you signed up when they were selling "unlimited access" then I hope you enjoyed it while it lasted.. currently there are no laws, outside of an actual contract, that says you're entitled to keep the same level of service so long as you continue to subscribe... right? | |
| | | | | | SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Re: why No one informed me that my service has changed. Not that I've seen, anyway. | |
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: why said by SLD:No one informed me that my service has changed. Not that I've seen, anyway. Umm... since we're on the topic of Comcast, I'd have to say, "yes they did"... it's been said many times... its in your TOS, its been communicated through bill inserts, etc.
I'm sorry, but most people spend so much time trying to avoid communications from their vendors that they end up ignoring the communications that relate to service level changes.. that's your and every other consumer's fault.
I can tell you a story.. I was out on a job many years ago.. called "non-responder boxes".. meaning, there's something in the home causing a box not to talk back to the system. 3 letters were sent to the customer.. I showed up.. stated why I was there.. their box was even finally shut down the day I showed.. they SWORE they never were told that there was a need for a call.. well.. guess what.. here comes the wife.. "Honey.. there are a few letters from Comcast here, I wonder if this is anything to do with why he's here..."... open up the letters and OH MY GOD.. guess what...?! "Dear customer, we have detected a problem in your home.. it may not noticeably affect your service, however, we must have you contact us to set up an appointment for one of our technicians to resolve an issue with your equipment.. " bla bla bla...
So, sorry to say, I don't agree that you've not been told.. that's the excuse of so many people saying they weren't informed. I can tell you that companies spend millions on noticed to customers many times over and most of them are tossed aside only later for the consumer to say "I was never told"... It happens all the time.
Not to mention, I see you've been on this site since 4-17-2002... this very topic has been discussed numerous times over and over regarding the fact that it's not an "unlimited service" any more. | |
| | | | | | | | SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
2 edits | Re: why I don't consider tiny text somewhere on the back of the bill to be an acceptable notice. And heresay on DSLReports isn't a bonifide way to notify customers, is it?
But honestly, don't waste your time trying to challenge these points because I'm only making a semantic point here. | |
| | | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: why said by SLD:I don't consider tiny text somewhere on the back of the bill to be an acceptable notice. And heresay on DSLReports isn't a bonifide way to notify customers, is it? But honestly, don't waste your time trying to challenge these points because I'm only making a semantic point here. Tiny text is acceptable to the law, which is all that matters.. it's up to you to read it.... you were told. | |
| | | | | | | | | | SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
1 edit | Re: why No I wasn't. If I didn't read it, no one told me.
I don't even get a bill, the payment is withdrawn directly from my account. | |
| | | | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: why said by SLD:No I wasn't. If I didn't read it, no one told me. I don't even get a bill, the payment is withdrawn directly from my account. Oi... You get a bill one way or another.. everyone does..lol.
You either get a paper bill or an online version which has all the same information on it. HOW you pay is not relevant to how you get your bill.
either way.. this has been fun.. later. | |
|
| | | | | You need to get off your soapbox for a second so you can figure out which side of the fence you're on.
Competition is good AND bad for the consumer? really?
There is both competition AND no competition with 2 or 3 providers?
What about those with one provider?
Or those with two providers, one of which has no interest in improving facilities? | |
|
|  EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9 | said by Tordek:The question that i have to ask is, Why shouldn't a provider be allowed to throttle? They were targeting a specific protocol..
--
Happy holidays to all ! | |
| | Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·AT&T Southeast
| They do? So you are saying you have driven said supercars and can confirm they are governed? Interesting, I'll have to tell F430, 997, Veyron and Audi R8 owners that.
Fair? Good lord, there is that word again. If Concast really cared they wouldn't oversell the node as much. They would see there are high end users on it and address the situation accordingly, not work their ass off to put some horse shit fake packet garbage that hurts all traffic and not just the P2P.
Not sure how interjecting packets would help the situation in the slightest. Sure it slows the download but doesn't stop it, customer is still using their full bandwidth whether it be to actually download something or to deal with Concasts fake packets.
So if I under utilize the connection does that mean i get it cheaper? I somehow doubt it. If I am gaming I may be not using much bandwidth but after awhile the data adds up, am I one of these evil users? What if I do my downloads at 2AM when very little traffic is taking place, am I a bad person? By your logic I would be no matter the scenario, just for going over some number. What if I have someone continuously pinging me with 1K packets, will that count against my data usage? What if I'm using Concasts supplied online backup service which I pay for (assuming I want to past the 2GB level)? I would be a bad person because I actually used the service Concast provided? If Concast doesn't want the bandwidth used then why provide it? What about the content providers and game manufacturers who provide the online service? If all ISP's limited bandwidth wouldn't it hurt them? | |
| | | EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9 | Re: why said by NOCTech75:Fair? Good lord, there is that word again. If Concast really cared they wouldn't oversell the node as much. They would see there are high end users on it and address the situation accordingly, not work their ass off to put some horse shit fake packet garbage that hurts all traffic and not just the P2P. Not sure how interjecting packets would help the situation in the slightest. Sure it slows the download but doesn't stop it, customer is still using their full bandwidth whether it be to actually download something or to deal with Concasts fake packets. To my understanding, their latest system no longer "interjects" rogue packets..
--
Happy holidays to all ! | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: why said by EG:said by NOCTech75:Fair? Good lord, there is that word again. If Concast really cared they wouldn't oversell the node as much. They would see there are high end users on it and address the situation accordingly, not work their ass off to put some horse shit fake packet garbage that hurts all traffic and not just the P2P. Not sure how interjecting packets would help the situation in the slightest. Sure it slows the download but doesn't stop it, customer is still using their full bandwidth whether it be to actually download something or to deal with Concasts fake packets. To my understanding, their latest system no longer "interjects" rogue packets.. Not the latest system but this subject is the system they used that is being discussed in this class action lawsuit. | |
| | | | | EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9 | Re: why O/k, fair enough, but to me your post kinda' sounded like it was based in the present tense..
--
Happy holidays to all ! | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: why said by EG:O/k, fair enough, but to me your post kinda' sounded like it was based in the present tense.. Yeah, see what you are saying... kinda had to be 'cause OP went off tangent with asinine garbage. Some was past, some was present. | |
|
|  SSX4lifeHello WorldPremium
join:2004-02-13
kudos:2
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by Tordek:The question that i have to ask is, Why shouldn't a provider be allowed to throttle? Supercar makers Govern's their cars even though you still pay 100+ thousand(s) of dollars for them. If a company chooses to implement congestion management and/or throttling high end users to make things fair for other clients on their networks then they should absolutly do so, and more power to them. I stopped reading right about there. Total BS if you ask me.
Don't promote something as "unlimited" or all you can eat, only to restrict it on the back end. It's black and white. There is no gray area here. | |
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: why said by SSX4life:Don't promote something as "unlimited" or all you can eat Does Comcast promote its HSI offering as unlimited? | |
| | |  ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4
 ·VOIPo
| said by SSX4life:said by Tordek:The question that i have to ask is, Why shouldn't a provider be allowed to throttle? Supercar makers Govern's their cars even though you still pay 100+ thousand(s) of dollars for them. If a company chooses to implement congestion management and/or throttling high end users to make things fair for other clients on their networks then they should absolutly do so, and more power to them. I stopped reading right about there. Total BS if you ask me. Don't promote something as "unlimited" or all you can eat, only to restrict it on the back end. It's black and white. There is no gray area here. Could you point me to where on Comcast's page it says unlimited? I may not be their biggest fan but it does not exist.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
| | | | Tairei
join:2009-07-01
Beaverton, OR | Re: why *sigh* I personally don't even use all that much bandwidth. On a lower end connection(1.5/350) I can still pull massive gigs if I was downloading constantly. Now that I have a high end 'actual' broadband speeds I find I download alot less than I used to.
How's that for ironic? | |
| | | | | ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
·VOIPo
| Re: why said by Tairei:*sigh* I personally don't even use all that much bandwidth. On a lower end connection(1.5/350) I can still pull massive gigs if I was downloading constantly. Now that I have a high end 'actual' broadband speeds I find I download alot less than I used to. How's that for ironic? I think that is in line with quite a few people. Just because people get faster speeds it doesn't mean that their consumption will increase at the same rate.
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org | |
|
| | | | | said by ptrowski:said by SSX4life:said by Tordek:The question that i have to ask is, Why shouldn't a provider be allowed to throttle? Supercar makers Govern's their cars even though you still pay 100+ thousand(s) of dollars for them. If a company chooses to implement congestion management and/or throttling high end users to make things fair for other clients on their networks then they should absolutly do so, and more power to them. I stopped reading right about there. Total BS if you ask me. Don't promote something as "unlimited" or all you can eat, only to restrict it on the back end. It's black and white. There is no gray area here. Could you point me to where on Comcast's page it says unlimited? I may not be their biggest fan but it does not exist. Since Comcast does not face significant competition, they are not free to do whatever they want. | |
|
| | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: why Perhaps sheep or wolves would be better 
Sheep are considered meek and cows are generally acknowledged as extremely dumb. | |
| | | | | | Re: why lol i will clarify sheep = fleeced cows=milked | |
| | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: why Got it. I thought you were posing a question as to whether customers were going to roll over and take it or do something about it. That's why I was puzzled by sheep and cows because I would not associate either of those animals with dissension. I don't recall either having a major role in Animal Farm. The pigs stole the show. | |
|
| jus10
join:2009-08-04
Sterling, VA Reviews:
·Comcast
| They weren't throttling; they were inserting RST packets. That's not cool.
The issue is largely over. Comcast changed how they manage their network and while people are not fans of it, it seems to be working well enough. The whole thing is water under the bridge. | |
| |  JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5
·Optimum Online
| said by Tordek:IMO all ISP's should have a fixed cap of XX(X) gb/mth if you exceed that then there should be a overusage charge applied to your account. As said by a member of this site, OK, what about the months I DON'T use my "allotment", do I get a refund, or can I carry that "extra" forward to a month where I do happen to exceed that limit??
Your idea is asinine in that there is no incentive for an ISP to "do right" by their customers...
BTW, it has already been posted here that there are no "hogs" on the networks, just poorly designed networks, or poorly maintained networks...
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
| | axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Because the majority of people don't want them to? Taken to the extreme, why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to pay computer manufacturers to block out competitors applications? If society (or a democracy) says that something should be prohibited, then we can make rules prohibiting it. The majority isn't always right, but when we're wrong things can be changed back. | |
|
| | Submit a Claim Online is under construction. Submit a Claim Online is under construction.
I tried to submit a claim! | |
| |  BabyBearKeep wise ...with Nite-Owl
join:2007-01-11 | Re: Submit a Claim Online is under construction. Maybe you should start a class action!   | |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | $16 m for claimants; $3 m for lawyers So you can get up to $16 if 1,000,000 or less make claims. If more than 1 million make claims, the award goes down. But the lawyers suing Comcast get $3 million for their trouble. | |
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Heh quote:
According to the firm, users may be able to get a refund from Comcast if you tried (and failed) to use a major P2P program or Lotus Notes (which you'll recall was also impacted by the packet forgery practice) anytime between April 1 2006 to December 31 2008.
Then watch these people get sued for potentially infringing copyrights. 
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
| | | The problem with fines The problem with fining a megacorp, is that they will just raise their rates, and effectively not be punished for breaking the law? I am very concerned, because this means that every megacorp is free to break any law they want, get fined, raise rates, and continue. Why do we even HAVE laws that affect a corporation, at the moment, there is NO WAY to punish them. Please, someone, come up with a GOOD way to punish a corporation that does NOT only include fines, but causes JAIL TIME for those responsible. As long as there is no jail time, or to put it another way, as long as there is no loss of freedom, what's to stop them from doing it again and again? The reason PEOPLE stop doing something bad, is because they lose their freedom. If corporations want the same rights that people have, then they should have the same 'loss of freedom' responsibilities that people have too.
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. | |
| |
See 26 replies to this post | |
 jack bGone FishingPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-08
Cape Cod
kudos:1 | $16.00 IS the class settlement proceeds That is After the lawyers get their $15,999,984.00 settlement costs payday. | |
| | SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Re: $16.00 IS the class settlement proceeds LOL! | |
| | | | And as a class member, you get to pay your share of the income taxes on that $15,999,984.00.
Merry Christmas! | |
|
1 edit | Comcast did nothing wrong, but settlement is good for it Comcast did nothing wrong by throttling back bandwidth hogs. And a $6 million class action settlement is a great deal for it, because it will head off any future nuisance lawsuits. So, this is a wonderful development. | |
| |  drewAutomaticPremium
join:2002-07-10
Port Orchard, WA
kudos:6 | Re: Comcast did nothing wrong, but settlement is good for it You're an ISP. You aren't allowed to even have an opinion on this. | |
| | | | said by SuperWISP:Comcast did nothing wrong by throttling back bandwidth hogs. And a $6 million class action settlement is a great deal for it, because it will head off any future nuisance lawsuits. So, this is a wonderful development. You can say that when Comcast has legitimate competition. Until then, anything the company does that prevents it from using its own profits to expand its network is anti-csonumer. | |
|
 xdeadhead220, 221, Whatever It Takes.Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA | lol that's couch change. | |
|
| |
|
|
