Comcast Sued for Blocking P2P Sites
Hart filed suit in Alameda County Superior Court Tuesday, accusing Comcast of blocking customer access to peer-to-peer sites like BitTorrent and Gnutella via software that surreptitiously cancels file-sharing connections.
Comcast sends "hidden messages to computers that are running file
Comcast had not yet seen Hart's lawsuit and declined to comment directly on the case, according to a spokesman.
Comcast has repeatedly denied that it blocks access to any Web sites. In the interest of "network management," the company has delayed certain P2P networks during high traffic periods, but file transfers are always completed, according to a spokeswoman.
"Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any websites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services," Comcast said in a statement. "We have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience and we use the latest
News reports speculated that one of the technologies Comcast used to manage traffic was from Sandvine Inc., but Comcast would only say that it works with hundreds of vendors on a variety of network issues.
Reports of P2P blocking were first reported by the Associated Press, which tested the network of an Oregon Comcast user. In April, Comcast acknowledged
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) replicated the AP test with the Oregon user and another in San Francisco. EFF tried to download files from the Comcast connections on BitTorrent using Wireshark, a packet capture tool. EFF reached the same conclusion as the Associated Press.
Comcast said that the tests conducted by AP and the EFF had too narrow a focus. The nature of P2P networks are such that they pull information from a variety of networks and providers, so focusing solely on one customer and one network is not indicative of normal P2P activity, according to Comcast.
Hart upgraded to Comcast's high-speed Internet Performance Plus package in September 2007. The service is available to video customers and promises up to 12 Mbps for downloading large files like videos and games, according to Comcast's Web site. It runs between $33 per month to $67 per month depending on the level of service. One of the main reasons Hart upgraded to Performance Plus was to use file-sharing networks, according to the suit. He claims that Comcast's terms of service do not mention the company's ability to impede or block P2P services.
Hart makes several requests in his lawsuit. First, he wants it to be declared a class action, because, he claims, it is the most efficient method for a fair resolution and will assist those who might not be able to afford a lawsuit on their own.
The suit also requests that Comcast stop blocking file-sharing Web sites, modify its advertising campaign and basically apologize for failing to deliver on its promise of high speeds and unfettered access, contact all customers and give them an opportunity to retain restitution, return money obtained illegally, and pay damages and legal fees.
"While Comcast pays lip service to the concept of 'net neutrality' by promising its customers unrestricted access to the Internet, Comcast severely and covertly restricts its customers' access to certain Internet applications in violation of state and
Todzo, who works for San Francisco's Lexington Law Group, said he has "heard from many Comcast customers complaining of the same experience our client had."
Net neutrality concerns have made this issue a hot topic on Capitol Hill.
On Wednesday, Palo Alto-based Vuze, which uses BitTorrent to distribute content, filed a petition with the FCC asking the commission to issue rules that would prevent phone and cable companies from blocking Internet applications.
Earlier this month, the SavetheInternet.com coalition and several academics filed a complaint with the FCC calling on the commission to stop Comcast from violating customer rights in the wake of reports that the ISP is cutting off service to file-sharing services.
No comments:
Post a Comment