Forum Moderators: open
A California Comcast subscriber filed suit against his Internet service provider claiming the company is engaging in unfair business practices because it limits download speeds of peer-to-peer file sharing programs such as BitTorrent.Jon Hart, the Comcast customer which the lawsuit was filed on the behalf of, bases his claim on an investigation by the Associated Press that reported, "Comcast actively interferes with attempts some high-speed Internet subscribers (make) to share files online." The Electronic Frontier Foundation conducted similar test on Comcast's network and came to the same conclusions. The EFF also outlines nicely how it believes Comcast "interferes" with user traffic and compares it to techniques used by Internet censors in China.
Comcast Gets Blocking Law Suit [blogs.pcworld.com]
Earlier stories
Comcast blocks some Internet traffic [webmasterworld.com]
Comcast says it Slows, Not Blocks, Net Traffic [webmasterworld.com]
What about more "legitimate" use of bitorrent technology such as video games updates (I think world of warcraft uses it) or upcoming video technologies set up by the mainstream movies industries to watch high quality movies through the internet?
Good point, you can't blame the object or in this case the software for how its used. You blame the person using it.
If Comcast wants to limit their service that's there right, however it should be clearly spelled out in the contract and they shouldn't be allowed to run those ads "Download movies and music 100X faster than". Those ads themselves are borderline in encouraging piracy and inaccurate if they are going limit P2P.
It's right on their site as well, [comcast.com...]
The PowerBoost speed enhancer makes it faster than ever to download software, games, music, photos, and videos. For example, with PowerBoost, Comcast's 6Meg customers can download three MP3 songs (approximately 10MB) in a quick 6.6 seconds – up to eight times faster than the 53 seconds required with a 1.5Mbps DSL connection. Downloading a 686MB game takes only 12 minutes on Comcast's 8Meg connection with PowerBoost – a time savings of up to 49 minutes compared to the 61 minutes it would take on 1.5MbpsDSL.
I think that pretty much sums it up, they are advertising one thing but not following through on their promises. You can also find similar information by clicking the Learn>High Speed Internet.
-----------edit------------
If Comcast wants to limit their service that's there right
Actually after reconsidering that I'm not so sure I agree with my own statement. In many cases comapanies like Comcast have a local monopoly (such as where I live) and you have no choice but to use their service. I'm a firm beleiver in net neutrality and I think this falls under that. They could for example squeeze out competitors to their own services by applying similar rules to those technologies, VOIP comes to mind.
Increasingly worried over Internet providers' behavior, a nonprofit has released software that helps determine whether online glitches are innocent hiccups or evidence of deliberate traffic tampering.The San Francisco-based digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation hopes the program, released Wednesday, will help uncover "data discrimination" — efforts by Internet providers to disrupt some uses of their services — in addition to the cases reported separately by EFF, The Associated Press and other sources.
I think that pretty much sums it up, they are advertising one thing but not following through on their promises. You can also find similar information by clicking the Learn>High Speed Internet.
You're mixing apples and oranges.
Comcast never said you could download movies and music using P2P networks!
Besides, if THAT's what they were advertising it would be a bold faced lie because the upstream is less than 400k so what you're saying makes no sense.
Let's take for example the text in the flash demo, its on their site if you click learn>high speed internet> ...... This brings up the flash, click the pure broadband speed>way faster than DSL .....
Imagine you're downloading a 20MB file with 5 MP3 songs...
Now let me ask you this, realistically speaking where else besides on P2P are you going to download a 20MB file with 5 MP3 songs in it? The major distributors don't even utilize MP3 because it doesn't support DRM, at best you might find a few independent bands offering such a download.
Besides, if THAT's what they were advertising it would be a bold faced lie...
It IS what they advertising, are you reading the same quote as me? You can argue about the nuances of the first quote I posted before but I think the second one is pretty clear as to what they are advertising.
For the record the upstream is listed as 768kbps and 1.4 mbps for the premium plan in my area. The premium plan consistently exceeds the 2.0mbps on any of the bandwidth tests I've done or large uploads I send to one of my sites via FTP.
The discussion is about Comcast throttling speeds.
The article I read says:
...that the company was blocking some peer-to-peer traffic on its network
P2P traffic, as has been discussed, isn't even permitted on the network if any of it's members are an end destination hosting files.
FWIW, I've been using Comcast before they bought out AT&T that bought out @Home, well over 10 years, and I've never seen them throttle speeds from an actual hosted server and I upload and download massive files all the time daily without a hitch.
They never advertised upload speeds of more than 400k in the first place so if you're running a P2P network, and if they happen to be throttling P2P traffic which is in violation of their AUP, then WAH WAH WAH...
For the record the upstream is listed as 768kbps and 1.4 mbps for the premium plan in my area.
It's 1/2 that in my area, lucky you, but that still doesn't make their claims any different as P2P hosted on their network is still against the AUP no matter how you argue that point.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 8:41 am (utc) on Nov. 29, 2007]
is still against the AUP no matter how you argue that point.
The advertising should reflect the AUP, when they promote "download a 20MB file with 5 MP3 songs" I think its pretty clear what the implication is. It's false and misleading advertising. You may not see it as that but your average user would, I'm sure a jury and judge will too.
Getting back to the upstream I don't think its luck, you're just getting the shaft. Every page I look at has those speeds listed on their site. I've even seen much higher speeds in other other areas listed by other subscribers.
actual hosted server and I upload and download massive files all the time daily without a hitch
Is that a residential plan, because if it's businbess website you're uploading and downloading too I'm sure somewhere in that AUP is rule you are breaking as well. Frankly I find it pretty hypocritical that you'd castigate P2P users for sucking up bandwidth and then do it yourself but through other means. I'll go back to how you mentioned how the network would come to standstill if everyone fired up a P2P application, the same can be said if they were all uploading and downloading large files from their business web servers constantly.
DOWNLOADING means downloading from a SERVICE or SERVER, which works very fast.
[edited by: lawman at 12:02 pm (utc) on Nov. 30, 2007]
They aren't misleading anyone because the term DOWNLOADING doesn't imply DOWNLOADING from another customer!DOWNLOADING means downloading from a SERVICE or SERVER, which works very fast.
I'd actually quibble with that - it doesn't matter where you're downloading from, it's still downloading. It's the uploading involved with bittorrent and similar that causes the problem.
But really, short of enforcing some sort of internet exam before letting people own a computer, how do you expect to teach the average non-technical person that.
It is far more reasonable to expect the company providing the service to advertise it honestly using terminology likely to be understood by their customers.
I make my living selling products. If I don't advertise them accurately, or I use terminology likely to be misinterpreted by my customers I get moaned at - and likely sued if I made this a standard business practice.
If I sold a widget that went down very reliably, but had problems going up, and I knew many of my customers were likely to expect to use the wigit in a situation where it would be expected to go up and down I would be required to warn potential customers of this, not just rabbit on about how wonderful my widget is at going down. I don't see why Comcast should be any different.
P2P traffic, as has been discussed, isn't even permitted on the network IF any of it's members are an end destination hosting files.
You made my point brilliantly.. unintentional as it was.
They don't know IF the end destination is re-hosting the files.... and if they aren't they aren't in violation of any terms.... kinda of a poor assumption to make...
Also you conveniently left out all the legitimate services that run downloads through P2P. What is the justification for that?
They aren't misleading anyone because the term DOWNLOADING doesn't imply DOWNLOADING from another customer!
To your average customer on the street it would, if you took ten people off the street and showed them that ad and asked them what they thought it meant I'd be willing to bet that at least 8/10 of them would say it meant downloading files over a P2P network.
They are intentionally misleading people IMO and just to add where they are throttling P2P connections or disrupting them all together they should be honest with the end user and make them aware of it. As was pointed out in a article when this first came about it's as if you're having a phone conversation and the operator breaks in and says, "sorry I have to go, bye"
This has net neutrality issues as well, you or I for example can use all the bandwidth we want over FTP yet those using another technology are left on the outside. If they want to limit the usage it should apply to everyone regardless of what they are using. I think the simplest solution is to provide a tiered service with the limits clearly spelled out. For example you get X amount of high bandwidth upload capacity each month and once that limit is reached it gets throttled, not just throttled for P2P but throttled for everything.
Comcast and other large providers have a monopoly in many of the areas they service, as such they shouldn't be allowed to to dictate how the service is used. If they need to throttle connections to provide that service so be it but at last the ned consumer knows exactly what they are purchasing.
This is just like the arguments in the AdSense forum when people get booted for violating the same T&Cs that I and many others read.
I'm sorry, I can't condone ignorance of the T&C's of service and that people don't understand what P2P means in that context as a way to misconstrue Comcast's intent of advertising as it's nothing more than a feeble excuse to be litigious out of ignorance.
-------------
If you can show me even one place on the entire Internet that provides a 20MB file with 5 MP3 songs in it that has even mediocre popularity compared to P2P I'll agree with you.
If you can show me even one place on the entire Internet that provides a 20MB file with 5 MP3 songs in it that has even mediocre popularity compared to P2P I'll agree with you.
Sorry, I can't show you any place like that because I use Yahoo music and don't make stealing music and movies a priority which is what people typically use the P2P networks for in the first place.
[edited by: thecoalman at 11:02 pm (utc) on Nov. 30, 2007]
Sorry, I can't show you any place like that because I use Yahoo music and don't make stealing music and movies a priority which is what people typically use the P2P networks for in the first place.
Glad to see your ignorance on this subject shine through with great brilliance.
Facts:
1) Using Peer To Peer software does not equate to "hosting a network" no matter how much you want it to
2) NO WHERE in the service agreements does it say you can't use or avail yourself of a Peer to Peer service. I am glad you make the obscure connection between a clause about hosting networks and downloading a file from a P2P client. We both know that was written before they started doing this and not even they use that as an excuse for their behavior. I don't know why you are. What I find curious is the clause you point to wants their customers to upgrade to a business account to allow them to "host a network".... Are you suggesting that after upgrading to a business account, which would by what you are saying make it so you aren't in violation, that they stop messing with your packets? Are you sure about that?
3) You can't steal anything from a P2P network, you can only infringe on the copyright of certain material.
4) Making an assumption that copyright infringement is the typical use of P2P is just that, an assumption, and is hardly justification for an ISP to pretend to be you and interfering with packets.
Honestly I ask.....
Do you think what they are doing is a good thing?
Or are you just so proud of yourself for coming across a few lines in a million lined TOS that is almost a valid argument for their actions?
The facts are using P2P is not against the TOS. If you call and ask them they will tell you the same.
You should also try adjusting your attitude about users of said service. It is a gross sweeping generalization.
Napster, Warcraft and many other legal and revenue based services use bit-torrent as a delivery method for digital goods. I guess they should just come up with new ways of delivering their digital goods.
[edited by: Demaestro at 11:05 pm (utc) on Nov. 30, 2007]
1) Using Peer To Peer software does not equate to "hosting a network" no matter how much you want it to
There's a reason it's called a Peer to Peer "NETWORK" and hosting an end destination of a P2P "NETWORK" is in violation of those T&Cs no matter how you slice it.
I am glad you make the obscure connection between a clause about hosting networks and downloading a file from a P2P client.
Did I say you couldn't run the client?
I said you can't be an end destination (aka hosting files) of the network.
3) You can't steal anything from a P2P network, you can only infringe on the copyright of certain material.
If you want to quibble semantics over copyright infringement vs "stealing" fine, it's still stealing no matter how you slice it, whether criminal or civil, if you take it without paying the license fee you stole it, oops, "infringed it" - big whoop, same thing unless your moral compass is broken.
4) Making an assumption that copyright infringement is the typical use of P2P is just that, an assumption, and is hardly justification for an ISP to pretend to be you and interfering with packets.
OK, so Napster, Kazaa and all the rest weren't just big music and movie swapping networks, no reason anyone would assume P2P isn't squeaky clean, oh noooo...
Show me a copyright infringement free P2P network and I'll show you an honest politician.
Show me a copyright infringement free P2P network and I'll show you an honest politician.
I don't know about the States, but I'm sure they're coming soon if they're no already out. It's a great way to push the costs of distribution onto the user, so I'm sure it will become more common.
As I posted above, in the UK BBC iPlayer and Channel 4's 4oD are examples of 100% legitimate major p2p networks.
Show me a copyright infringement free P2P network and I'll show you an honest politician.
But just about anything can be used to distribute copyrighted material, I have forum that allows file uploads and that could certainly be used to distribute copyrighted material as could many other things. Even one of the oldest fixtures on the internet Newsgroups" is used for distributing copyrighted material.
Just because it can be used for exchanging pirated material and is used for exchanging pirated material doesn't make it responsible. If it wasn't P2P it would be some other method that would be used, you're not going to stop piracy by excluding a technology.
----------
<puts on tin foil hat>
I think the real reason for the crackdown is because Comcast and other companies are realizing the potential revenue stream they are going to lose in the future. I'll point out that comcast offers its own service for sharing video through email, music downloads and video services. They simply don't want to be relegated to a service provider but want to be a content provider. Eliminating or severely hampering the ability of others to provide such services would be the first step in that direction.
