Should You Take That Comcast P2P Settlement Money? Critic who discovered Comcast's behavior says no... We recently noted that Comcast had settled a class action against the company for their decision to throttle upstream P2P traffic for all users (and then lie about it). As is usually the case in such settlements -- while the suit did help prod Comcast in the general direction of more transparency -- lawyers were the real victors. The suit was settled for $16 million, though users can expect to net anywhere from $1-$16 from the settlement. That's if they agree to it. Robb Topolski, who was the first person to discover Comcast's behavior here in our forums in 2007, says Comcast users should opt out of the settlement: •You paid about $50 a month for the service, and the amount that Comcast stands to return is up to about 50¢ per month for each month that it blocked traffic -- just 1 cent on the dollar! That doesn’t begin to compensate for the value of the service that Comcast secretly took back.
•If that tiny amount of money is compensation, then there is no penalty to Comcast for interfering with its customers, for failing to disclose it, for repeatedly lying about it, and for taking so long to stop it.
•The settlement was reached under the assumption that the FCC would still oversee Comcast. With Comcast’s victory over the FCC's authority, there is nothing to stop Comcast or any other ISP from again interfering with your Internet communications. While Comcast claims that they'll stay on their best behavior despite the FCC's recent court loss, Topolski's right in that currently -- there's absolutely nothing ensuring that they do (or preventing even less transparent ISPs from obscuring the kind of connection you're buying). Topolski's discovery of Comcast's practices rocketed the former Intel engineer to networking stardom and front and center of the network neutrality debate -- and Robb now is employed at the New American Foundation as their chief technology evangelist.
|
  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Lose-Lose
I'd really like to thank kick the people who brought this lawsuit. Thanks to them, instead of Comcast being able to single out the few yutzes who ruin the Internet for everyone, we ALL get to put up with a 250GB cap.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|  | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | Re: Lose-Lose Thanks to them, instead of Comcast being able to single out the few yutzes who ruin the Internet for everyone Not true, and technically the complete opposite. The pressure on Comcast (including FCC pressure, pressure from the Florida Attorney General, and class actions) resulted in Comcast using more intelligent networking technology that does now only target heavy users on heavy nodes. In contrast to before, where they were just throttling all users' upstream speeds.
Also, that 250 GB cap is at least now clear -- whereas before Comcast employed invisible caps and would just boot people from the network without telling them what they believed was reasonable. | |
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Lose-Lose said by Karl Bode:In contrast to before, where they were just throttling all users' upstream speeds. That happened after the initial whining by the heavy users who were kicked off. It was Comcast's initial idea of "fairness."
said by Karl Bode:Also, that 250 GB cap is at least now clear -- whereas before Comcast employed invisible caps and would just boot people from the network without telling them what they believed was reasonable. While I don't mind that they make the cap known, I just don't see it as a major issue because of the small number of abusers who were affected. We got very lucky that a "high" cap was chosen. This won't affect too many people. Of course though, we've seen ISPs implement ridiculously low caps as a result of being "empowered" by complaints like these.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
| | | | | | Re: Lose-Lose said by pnh102:said by Karl Bode:In contrast to before, where they were just throttling all users' upstream speeds. That happened after the initial whining by the heavy users who were kicked off. It was Comcast's initial idea of "fairness." said by Karl Bode:Also, that 250 GB cap is at least now clear -- whereas before Comcast employed invisible caps and would just boot people from the network without telling them what they believed was reasonable. While I don't mind that they make the cap known, I just don't see it as a major issue because of the small number of abusers who were affected. We got very lucky that a "high" cap was chosen. This won't affect too many people. Of course though, we've seen ISPs implement ridiculously low caps as a result of being "empowered" by complaints like these. If you do not mind the cap to be known and it does affect a small number of people, especially not affecting you, maybe you should not call names the people that worked hard to prove these abusive practices and bring an end to them. | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | But PRIOR to that cap, people were able to go FAR beyond 250gb a month. If a node could handle it and people went over 250gb, it was for the most part over looked. However, those that did go over were warned; they didn't just "boot" people as you said. Where I WILL agree is that at that time of being booted on the second warning/notice, they SHOULD have been able to tell them what was considered reasonable use.
But, now, everyone gets a solid, firm, 250gb cap which has in fact affected enough people to notice. | |
| | | | PittsPghPremium
join:2003-08-21
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1 | Re: Lose-Lose said by fiberguy:But PRIOR to that cap, people were able to go FAR beyond 250gb a month. If a node could handle it and people went over 250gb, it was for the most part over looked. However, those that did go over were warned; they didn't just "boot" people as you said. Where I WILL agree is that at that time of being booted on the second warning/notice, they SHOULD have been able to tell them what was considered reasonable use. But, now, everyone gets a solid, firm, 250gb cap which has in fact affected enough people to notice. The problem before was people were getting cutoff notices at too much a random rate. I might be a high user in my block here in Troy Hill (NorthSide of Pgh). But I'd be a low end user if I was across the river in Oakland section of Pgh were all the college boys are. Comcast was cutting people off and would not say how much they used or how much was too much. It was varying too much in different areas. You've been around here long enough to read the forums to know what I am talkng about. Nothing was set in stone. Comcast was doing what ever it felt like. It could be 200GBs or even as high 6ooGBs per month. That was the problem!!!! No one user knew what the limit was. I never went anywhere near any limit. But I sure would like to know. Especially back when I signed on they USE to advertise "Unlimited Internet" 2004 maybe. I was on local dialup before that, they never limited me as too how long I was connected or downloaded. I was always online. Only way to get stuff for my old CoCo3 back in the days! lol
Paul
been online connected since spring 1986 @ 300baud
My gosh 24 feaking years now
LOL
yes I was saving/loading programs on cassette tapes! LOL | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Lose-Lose You pretty much repeated what I just said.. but I thank you for agreeing with me. | |
|
| | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by fiberguy:But, now, everyone gets a solid, firm, 250gb cap which has in fact affected enough people to notice. This is inaccurate. As Comcast has said many times, the only thing that has changed is that 250gb is now designated as excessive use.
However, the process before was to warn, then boot the top 1,000 users.
The process now is to warn, then boot the top 1,000 users.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Lose-Lose Not inaccurate at all. "EVERYONE" is subject to a 250gb cap period.
When the company uses that as their measurement of what the service offers, monthly, they have definitely defined at what point they take actions. The difference is IF they take action or not.
However, no matter if they are loose about it or not, the point is that you can't say that "they don't boot people at 250 becuase they don't regularly do it".. the point is, someone WILL go over the 250 and they will get booted and people will only complain that it's not done on a regular basis.
250 is in fact their "cap" and since it's defined as 250, it's that point people have to respect as what they will act on. There is NOTHING written on paper that says they work on the top 1,000 users; in fact, that's more of the geek's story.. I've never, in all my time around, seen any piece of paper that says "top 1,000 users"..
The problem that I have with your reply is that you're going by what some spokesperson has said, which to be honest, means squat. In reality, the ONLY thing that matters is the TOS/AUP agreements., nothing more. To think anything different would be the same as the White House Press Secretary making a statement that people take for "law" when the ONLY thing that matters is what the President signs with those three pens. People here OFTEN look to the wrong sources when seeking information. They look at advertisements as "binding agreements".. they look at an interview as a "binding agreement".. etc. Advertisements still tell people that the service is subject to terms and agreements and have to read them. (Yes, there is a fine line between ads and the truth) and then spokespeople can always retract their statements, depending, as being mis-informed and release a correction.
Again, it's ALL about the TOS - nothing more. | |
| | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Lose-Lose said by fiberguy:Not inaccurate at all. "EVERYONE" is subject to a 250gb cap period. When the company uses that as their measurement of what the service offers, monthly, they have definitely defined at what point they take actions. The difference is IF they take action or not. However, no matter if they are loose about it or not, the point is that you can't say that "they don't boot people at 250 becuase they don't regularly do it".. the point is, someone WILL go over the 250 and they will get booted and people will only complain that it's not done on a regular basis. 250 is in fact their "cap" and since it's defined as 250, it's that point people have to respect as what they will act on. There is NOTHING written on paper that says they work on the top 1,000 users; in fact, that's more of the geek's story.. I've never, in all my time around, seen any piece of paper that says "top 1,000 users".. It's all laid out in the Florida Attorney General's agreement with Comcast. Comcast has also stressed that nothing has changed, except for naming 250 GB as excessive use.
»myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/···tAVC.pdf
The settlement later couples both the old, vague, disclosure (“top 1,000 bandwidth users,” told to customers asking Comcast to specify) and the new threshold, “Comcast may continue to notify any residential high speed Internet service subscriber whose bandwidth usage use exceeds the Threshold (as determined by Comcast in its sole discretion) that the subscriber’s service may be, or will be, terminated as the result of excessive use. However, no residential high speed Internet service subscriber shall be notified of a breach of Comcast’s excessive use restrictions unless the subscriber’s bandwidth usage exceeds the previously disclosed Threshold.”
It's right there. The only thing added was the naming of a number that is low enough to always fall outside of the top 1,000 users -- useful as a guide. I asked Comcast as late as last month if they've changed this, and they still have not.
said by fiberguy:The problem that I have with your reply is that you're going by what some spokesperson has said, which to be honest, means squat. In reality, the ONLY thing that matters is the TOS/AUP agreements., nothing more. To think anything different would be the same as the White House Press Secretary making a statement that people take for "law" when the ONLY thing that matters is what the President signs with those three pens. People here OFTEN look to the wrong sources when seeking information. They look at advertisements as "binding agreements".. they look at an interview as a "binding agreement".. etc. Advertisements still tell people that the service is subject to terms and agreements and have to read them. (Yes, there is a fine line between ads and the truth) and then spokespeople can always retract their statements, depending, as being mis-informed and release a correction. Again, it's ALL about the TOS - nothing more. I disagree with you, but I wish you were right. Look, AT&T Mobility is probably the TOS/AUP to look at as a glaring example of non-neutrality, but I can't use it as the basis of a complaint because AT&T doesn't actually follow their own TOS/AUP in managing their network. If the network really did prohibit the stuff that the TOS/AUP says it does, we'd have a FCC policy-statement case (pre-court decision, of course).
I'm frustrated that you're not right in this case. I think the TOS/AUP should be accurate and not some kind of con game.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
|
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by pnh102:Thanks to them, instead of Comcast being able to single out the few yutzes who ruin the Internet for everyone, we ALL get to put up with a 250GB cap. So many things wrong here.
1. This has little or nothing to do with the "cap." What you can MAYBE blame me for is Comcast's "FairShare" technique that actually goes after the actual heaviest users on actually busy nodes. If you're the less than 1% that actually gets caught by that system, then they prioritize your traffic below those that are consuming less. If you do blame me for that, keep in mind that I would have engineered it differently. You can avoid it completely by never transferring faster than 70% of your subscription rate.
2. How was I ruining the Internet for you? I was uploading a few small files using limited bandwidth and being responsive to signs of congestion. Comcast was blocking me 100% of the time on one protocol, and much of the time on others.
3. None of us signed up for Internet service that allowed Comcast to pick and choose what traffic it would carry. While we did agree (both implicitly and explicitly) not to do anything harmful to the network, Comcast's secret and unsupported technique harmed folks that weren't harming the network at all.
4. And if Comcast's network was soooooo busy that it had to resort to such shenanigans, then how did it add Comcast Digital Voice and grow it to become the 3rd largest telco in America ON THE SAME RF CHANNELS handing the Internet? They took from Internet to give to Voice and Sandvine helped them do that. They only began serious network upgrades when it became clear that their jig was up.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Lose-Lose Correction. Comcast Digital Voice does NOT touch the Internet. The RF Channel it uses is completely separate from the Internet and they will tell you that. All cable provides will tell you that. You do not need HSI from Comcast to get CDV nor do you need CDV to get the 'net.
That is how they managed that. CDV is completely on its own and not related to their HSI side of the system.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
| | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Lose-Lose said by hottboiinnc:Correction. Comcast Digital Voice does NOT touch the Internet. The RF Channel it uses is completely separate from the Internet and they will tell you that. All cable provides will tell you that. You do not need HSI from Comcast to get CDV nor do you need CDV to get the 'net. That is how they managed that. CDV is completely on its own and not related to their HSI side of the system. I have confirmation from the highest technical levels at Comcast. It's not a secret, either, you can see it in the diagnostics of any MTA/CableModem hardware.
You are 100% incorrect.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: Lose-Lose Yep. CDV definitely takes bandwidth away from the internet bandwidth pool. Both operate in the same DOCSIS channel, CDV is prioritized higher so internet speeds will slow and CDV will be flawless. If CDV stops being flawless, it means your internet is now slower than dialup since CDV traffic took up so much capacity in that 38mbit DOCSIS channel. | |
| | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Lose-Lose said by patcat88:If CDV stops being flawless, it means your internet is now slower than dialup since CDV traffic took up so much capacity in that 38mbit DOCSIS channel. That's a lot of phone calls! 
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| That is not the way it is set up. Comcast can tell you that all they want. They most likely don't you want to try and another class action or any other lawsuit against them.
Hell i wouldn't even talk to you if you did that to my company.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
| | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Lose-Lose Let me put this to rest being that I know first hand, I've seen it, my hands have been on it on a professional level, etc. CDV does in fact use the very same HSI channels. If you lose internet, you lose CDV - period.
I don't know where some of you guys get your information from but when Comcast says that "CDV doesn't use the "internet".. they don't mean that it doesn't use their HSI service... they simply mean that it's different becuase they do not send their VoIP service over the "general, un-managed internet lines as any old traffic"... they do have complete control over the CDV from your home to their servers over their network and up to the point of the PSTN. That's it.. nothing more.
Don't know how else to say this, again, but if your internet service goes out for lack of sync or noise issues, etc... your CDV goes right along with it.. be it on the eMTA for both, or if you have a separate cable modem/eMta. | |
|
| | Move on Vote with your dollar....if there's another ISP who you like better, then go with them. At the end of the day, that's the simplest solution. What's done is done and this class action settlement is no different than any other.....when the "class" is thousands of people, this is what you get.
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1. | |
| | | | Re: Move on said by fishacura:Vote with your dollar....if there's another ISP who you like better, then go with them. At the end of the day, that's the simplest solution. What's done is done and this class action settlement is no different than any other.....when the "class" is thousands of people, this is what you get. For many the "vote w/ your dollar" cliche is not possible due to lack of alternatives brought by lobbying and the FTC not doing its job to apply anti trust legislation. | |
| | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Move on Not true. Lobbying does NOTHING to keep out another ISP from coming to your area. Texas for one; go to the State pay the fees and become lay your own cables and offer fiber. That would compete with Cable and Telco services. How about starting a WISP, that would compete with the telcos as well. You would have the network and with no actual hardlines to maintain making your services less expensive in terms of mainence in the field.
And if you don't like the cable company; go to the telcos.
as far as Anti-Trust? that does NOT apply when a company refuses to service your area with HSI.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·voip.ms
 ·America Online
 ·Dish Network
| Re: Move on said by hottboiinnc:Not true. Lobbying does NOTHING to keep out another ISP from coming to your area. Texas for one; go to the State pay the fees and become lay your own cables and offer fiber. That would compete with Cable and Telco services. How about starting a WISP, that would compete with the telcos as well. You would have the network and with no actual hardlines to maintain making your services less expensive in terms of mainence in the field. And if you don't like the cable company; go to the telcos. as far as Anti-Trust? that does NOT apply when a company refuses to service your area with HSI. The problem with this is large ISP have sued local state & town government to prevent them from doing just that (and won). Many of the new agreements that an ISP (Comcast for example) clearly state that the towns are not allowed to take that step or allow a 2nd large ISP to provide service.....
So why do these towns agree to this? Partly because of money (mostly)... A lot of towns do not have the funds you speak of to start up a large self powered ISP & a lot of people who are elected into office often have their own "price tag" (they're bought off).
The system we have in place... Isn't working & we need change.
--
I often find it complexing that people feel that you've reached a level of maturity and responsibility if you can accept being riped off or taken advantage of for someone else's gain or enjoyment
Independent TV | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: Move on I never said anything about Local towns. You started to put words out that I never said.
I said YOUR OWN. Which tells the poster to go build out on his own. NOT to have the town to do it for him.
If they're not happy with who he has and not willing to build out or pay for a higher service of internet; one should move.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
|
| |
1 edit | said by WernerSchutz:For many the "vote w/ your dollar" cliche is not possible due to lack of alternatives brought by lobbying and the FTC not doing its job to apply anti trust legislation. Yes but "uncapped internet" is hardly a "right". If that's what the company decides to sell as their product, so be it. Now I won't defend the lies but somewhere along the line people lost site and are equating un-capped internet to some sort of basic human right that they all deserve...not IMO The people who are really that concerned are probably spending too much time online anyway
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1. | |
|
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by fishacura:Vote with your dollar....if there's another ISP who you like better, then go with them. At the end of the day, that's the simplest solution. What's done is done and this class action settlement is no different than any other.....when the "class" is thousands of people, this is what you get. Yes Robb should move on here. The moment is past - it is over. Comcast beat the FCC in court. And they got off with a minimal cost in the civil lawsuit. Trying to drag this out further is futile and a waste of everyone's time. Dragging this out further just keeps some lawyers happy and no one else. | |
| | | Reviews:
·Comcast
·voip.ms
·America Online
·Dish Network
| Re: Move on said by Romney2012:said by fishacura:Vote with your dollar....if there's another ISP who you like better, then go with them. At the end of the day, that's the simplest solution. What's done is done and this class action settlement is no different than any other.....when the "class" is thousands of people, this is what you get. Yes Robb should move on here. The moment is past - it is over. Comcast beat the FCC in court. And they got off with a minimal cost in the civil lawsuit. Trying to drag this out further is futile and a waste of everyone's time. Dragging this out further just keeps some lawyers happy and no one else. Turning a blind eye, often is a sign of consent.
--
I often find it complexing that people feel that you've reached a level of maturity and responsibility if you can accept being riped off or taken advantage of for someone else's gain or enjoyment
Independent TV | |
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | said by Romney2012:Yes Robb should move on here. The moment is past - it is over. Comcast beat the FCC in court. And they got off with a minimal cost in the civil lawsuit. Trying to drag this out further is futile and a waste of everyone's time. Dragging this out further just keeps some lawyers happy and no one else. Obviously, I'm not just keeping some lawyers happy. I'd be happy to accept an outcome that...
- takes care of compensating those who got less than they bought (compensation)
- takes care of the deceptive practices practiced upon customers (punishment)
- takes care of our future freedoms (strong disincentive to do it again)
...refunding 1¢ on the dollar and limiting the awards to those that will swear, under penalty of perjury, that they're a file-sharer, just doesn't do any one of those things, let alone all three. In fact, it looks like Comcast proposed this deal in a way that makes sure that they'll pay very little at all.
EVEN IF THEY PAY THE MAX of $16 million for 30 months of this interference, it amounts to about 0.0007 (0.07%) of 30 months of Internet revenue -- in other words, it's not even a rounding error!
I'm not fighting for the lawyers. What I care about are consumers and our net freedoms. Now that the FCC is powerless, it's more important than ever that we win a strong result in this case.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Move on said by funchords: it's more important than ever that we win a strong result in this case. It is NEVER going to happen. Very, very few will opt-out and of those who do, it is also very unlikely a judge will a 2nd time certify another class action lawsuit on the same issue. SO, the only thing left will be individual suits. What lawyer(s) is(are) going to take on individual lawsuits with little to no chance of success? | |
| | | | |  koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14 | Re: Move on said by Romney2012:Very, very few will opt-out and of those who do, it is also very unlikely a judge will a 2nd time certify another class action lawsuit on the same issue. I opted out for a couple different reasons, some alike to the reasons funchords  already listed on his site. Do I plan on suing Comcast on my own behalf? Nope. So why did I opt out?
1) I'd have chosen to object to the Settlement claims, but that requires you remain a member of the Settlement. I disagree with that; I'd prefer to object but not remain a member of the Settlement. The Summary of Rights states the following:
11. What is the difference between objecting to the Settlement and excluding myself?
You object to the Settlement when you wish to remain a Class Member and be subject to the Settlement, but disagree with some aspect of the Settlement. An objection allows your views to be heard in Court.
In contrast, exclusion means that you are no longer a Class Member and ultimately do not want to be subject to terms and conditions of the Settlement. Once excluded, you lose any right to object to any aspect of the Settlement because the case no longer affects you. Do you see where I'm coming from? If not, oh well. If so, cool.
2) I disagree with the overall Settlement as a whole (same reasons funchords does). The reimbursement is a joke (both financially and conceptually); Comcast has learned from the situation, but legally and responsibility-wise has learned very little.
What you need to understand is that a good number of us on the west coast + Pacific Northwest don't have alternate ISPs to choose from. Yes, there are lots of ISPs, but there are only two major players -- everyone else is reseller or doesn't offer service that provides reliable/decent latency (satellite), high speed, or -- and this is the worst one -- any sort of upgrade path (whether it be due to the technology used or other reasons).
If you think I'm talking shit, I'll be more than happy to talk about my experiences with Speakeasy's SDSL (business-class) service -- which uses AT&T (at the time SBC) copper -- or DSLExtreme's consumer service -- again, using AT&T copper.
The reason I go with Comcast is because AT&T has abysmal speeds here, and because the copper layout in my area (meaning how the copper is actually run from abodes to the CO) is a complete joke (5000-6000 feet from the CO physically, but electrically 12000+ feet). Comcast is pretty much the only choice that offers an upgrade path.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. | |
| | | | | PittsPghPremium
join:2003-08-21
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1 | said by Romney2012:said by funchords: it's more important than ever that we win a strong result in this case. It is NEVER going to happen. Very, very few will opt-out and of those who do, it is also very unlikely a judge will a 2nd time certify another class action lawsuit on the same issue. SO, the only thing left will be individual suits. What lawyer(s) is(are) going to take on individual lawsuits with little to no chance of success? If you read my other post in here. You will see why very very few will opt out. You have to OPT OUT by Snail Mail.
and I just screwed up using the online form! 
I just went back through here and was surprised noone else mentioned that point.
Paul
| |
|
| | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| takes away from freedom? Who's? Uncapped/unfiltered internet is NOT a freedom. You pay for what the company wants to give you. If you don't like it, build your own or move to another provider.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
|
| funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by fishacura:Vote with your dollar....if there's another ISP who you like better, then go with them. My broadband wireline choices likely are
DSL at 3 Mbps
Cablemodem at 12 Mbps
That's not really a choice. That's two different very classes of service. 3 Mbps is rapidly becoming irrelevant.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | | Reviews:
·Comcast
·voip.ms
·America Online
·Dish Network
| Re: Move on said by funchords:said by fishacura:Vote with your dollar....if there's another ISP who you like better, then go with them. My broadband wireline choices likely are DSL at 3 Mbps Cablemodem at 12 Mbps That's not really a choice. That's two different very classes of service. 3 Mbps is rapidly becoming irrelevant. Broadband is braodband is broadband... It doesn't matter if it's via fiber, cable, or copper... If it offers high speed, its a choice.
Many people do not have that options.. They have Cable, nothing else. OR they have DSL, nothing else. OR... what every the option and nothing else.
I believe in full competition in both service and technology.
--
I often find it complexing that people feel that you've reached a level of maturity and responsibility if you can accept being riped off or taken advantage of for someone else's gain or enjoyment
Independent TV | |
| | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Move on Fair enough message, but let me gently take an issue with one point...
said by OldschoolDSL:Broadband is braodband is broadband... It doesn't matter if it's via fiber, cable, or copper... If it offers high speed, its a choice. I think there's a big difference betwee 1 Mbps service and 107 Mbps service, don't you?
There is zero product differentiation in a perfectly competitive market.
When the market gets fragmented by product differentiation, there becomes the possibility of monopoly power being an influence. Be careful here -- that products are different isn't an evil. That advertisements point out those differences isn't evil, either. What needs to be considered is whether customers are getting rooked over as a result, since a competitive market can no longer protect them.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Comcast
·voip.ms
·America Online
·Dish Network
| Re: Move on said by funchords: Fair enough message, but let me gently take an issue with one point... said by OldschoolDSL:Broadband is braodband is broadband... It doesn't matter if it's via fiber, cable, or copper... If it offers high speed, its a choice. I think there's a big difference betwee 1 Mbps service and 107 Mbps service, don't you? There is zero product differentiation in a perfectly competitive market. When the market gets fragmented by product differentiation, there becomes the possibility of monopoly power being an influence. Be careful here -- that products are different isn't an evil. That advertisements point out those differences isn't evil, either. What needs to be considered is whether customers are getting rooked over as a result, since a competitive market can no longer protect them. I do not believe in monopolies and for this reason, I am for competition... Yes, there is a difference between 1MB & 107MB, but it is still a choice if you have the option.
I disagree with there being a zero product differentiation in a competitive market. Cable can compete with Fiber, both can be viewed as "different products", but they both offer the same service in a High Speed Market... High Speed Internet.
--
I often find it complexing that people feel that you've reached a level of maturity and responsibility if you can accept being riped off or taken advantage of for someone else's gain or enjoyment
Independent TV | |
|
| | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| you say are "likely" you have no clue what you're even able to get do you? And 2 options from 2 different companies are better than nothing now right? So yes; you do have a choice. It's not anyone else's fault you moved into a place with only those options.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
| | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Move on likely was a typo. I know these are my choices at my next address. Again, that's not an evil thing, it's just a fact that helps describe the market environment, and it is pervasive through most of the U.S. (less in area and more in population)
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
|
|  ShadowMastrMaster Of All Shadows
join:2001-09-01
Fort Pierce, FL | I did vote with my dollars. I went with att dsl which was a lot slower than what I was getting with comcrap, but for less money too.... since the triple play went away and all I get is internet, and who the hell needs 200 channels of crap tv..... hulu and sidereel ftw.....
said by fishacura:Vote with your dollar....if there's another ISP who you like better, then go with them. At the end of the day, that's the simplest solution. What's done is done and this class action settlement is no different than any other.....when the "class" is thousands of people, this is what you get. --
Follow Your Bliss -- Joseph Cambell
I reject your Reality and substitute my own! -- Adam Savage, Mythbuster | |
|
| | meh Either way if you take the money or don't, Comcast is raising prices in the comings months on everything except your first CDV line (2nd lines going up). Cable's going up $2-4/mo, chsi going up $2/mo and all boxes now $7.95/mo. | |
| | | | Re: meh said by TrudyWiegel :
Either way if you take the money or don't, Comcast is raising prices in the comings months on everything except your first CDV line (2nd lines going up). Cable's going up $2-4/mo, chsi going up $2/mo and all boxes now $7.95/mo.
+ HD fee and + DVR fee.
also we will move sports over flow feed off of the DTA's so you need to run a full cable box as well.
and we want to take nbc of sat tv.
And the only thing hold use back from doing the same thing with CSN CHI is the teams that own the network | |
| | | | | Re: meh They are raising their rates to pay for this settlement, so comcast will not be paying the settlement, but all of its customers will, and in the end, comcast makes MORE money than it did before because it has a monopoly in many markets. | |
| | | | | | Re: meh I'm positive these rate increases were in the works well before the settlement. Comcast would never use this as an excuse, the real reason rates are going up is to, 'upgrade our networks to provide the most superior customer experience....' duh!! | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
| Re: meh and they are upgarding their networks. So why not pay for the upgrade? Customer's want more speed so why not pay for it? You don't get anything for free.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! | |
|
 Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | These suits should be opt-IN, not opt-OUT But so long as the trial lawyers bribe legislators (and become legislators) they will continue their greed and corruption unabated. | |
|
1 edit | Comcast did nothing wrong. You shouldn't even take the money Comcast was managing its network in a way that -- as the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit confirmed -- was completely legal and good for its customers (except for the pirates and bandwidth hogs). Just because it happened to tick off Rob Topolski -- who now works for a Google lobbying outfit called the "New America Foundation" -- is no reason for the rest of us to go along. Myself, I support Comcast's throttling of the bandwidth hogs and pirates. It means better Internet for those of us who honor our contracts and obey the law. | |
| |
1 edit | Re: Comcast did nothing wrong. You shouldn't even take the money I believe CC was mismanaging on purpose the network, Brett, in order to not provide what the customers bought.
I am watching German TV using TVU. It is legal and it uses a P2P delivery method. I am not clogging the network, not breaking the law. CC's reset packets disrupt my Internet "experience" that I paid for.
Is that how you would treat your paying customers, Brett ? | |
| | | | don't forget he also works for "Free Press". | |
|
PittsPghPremium
join:2003-08-21
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1 | Well I screwed it up
I filled out the online form for the class action lawsuit. THINKING It would give me an option to "Exclude" or "Object" to the suit.
NOT!!
That has to get done by snail mail.
Should have read the FAQ's I guess before hand.
6. How do I file a claim?
You must properly submit a Claim Form online by going to www.P2PCongestionSettlement.com. If you cannot submit a claim online, you can download a Claim Form from the website and print it, or contact the Claims Administrator, using the toll-free number, and request a copy. You must mail the completed paper Claim Form to the Claims Administrator.
9. How do I exclude myself from the Settlement Class?
If you do not wish to be a Settlement Class Member, you may exclude yourself by writing to the Claims Administrator. You must provide your full name and address, state that you want to opt out of the Settlement, and deliver your request by mail, hand, or overnight delivery service to the P2P Congestion Settlement Claims Administrator, c/o Rust Consulting, P.O. Box 9454, Minneapolis, MN 55440-9454. Your request must be postmarked no later than May 13, 2010.
10. How do I object to the Settlement?
The Court will hold a fairness hearing to determine if the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and to consider a motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses on June 15, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6A, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106. If you remain a member of the Settlement Class, you or your counsel has the right to appear before the Court and object to the Settlement.
To object to the Settlement, you must (1) provide your full name and address; (2) include all arguments, citations, and evidence supporting your objection; and (3) specify who, if anyone, will attend the hearing to make your objection. You must file your Request for Objection with the Clerk of Court by May 13, 2010 at the following address:
I kept looking for a check box for the options as I filled it out. Never was one. Online form is ONLY to get you money for the suit.
I want Out!
Paul
Waiting for FIOS. Soon I hope | |
|
| |
|
|
·
Actually Comcast chose to limit all subscribers speed (throttled) for certain classes of traffic. You pay more for higher speed connections. That is what the whole network neutrality debate is all about. CAPS are a whole other issue.
