[Infowarrior] - Comcast Sued Over BitTorrent Blocking

[Richard Forno]

Comcast Sued Over BitTorrent Blocking - UPDATED
By Ryan Singel EmailNovember 14, 2007 | 3:19:26 PMCategories: Copyrights and
Patents  

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov.html

California man filed suit in state court Tuesday against internet service
provider Comcast, arguing that the company's secret use of technology to
limit peer-to-peer applications such as BitTorrent violates federal computer
fraud laws, their user contracts and anti-fraudulent advertising statutes.

Plaintiff Jon Hart, represented by the Lexington Law Group, argues that
Comcast's promises of providing internet connections that let users
"Download at Crazy Fast Speeds" are false and misleading since Comcast
limits downloads by transmitting "unauthorized hidden messages to the
computers of customers" who use peer-to-peer file sharing software. Hart
wants the court to force Comcast to stop interfering with the traffic.

He also wants the court to certify the suit as a class action and force
Comcast to pay damages to himself and all other Comcast internet subscribers
in California

The suit (.pdf), which also claims the BitTorrent blocking is an unfair
business practice, was filed in California Superior Court in Alameda County.

    Defendants have disseminated and continues to disseminate advertising,
that they know or should reasonably know is false and misleading. This
conduct includes, but is not limited to, promoting and advertising the fast
speeds that apply to the Service without limitation, when, in fact,
Defendants severely limit the speed of the Service for certain applications.

    It further includes Defendant's misrepresentations that their customers
will enjoy "unfettered access" to all internet applications, when, in fact,
Defendants not only fetter certain applications, but completely block them.
Defendants know or reasonably should know that this advertising is false and
misleading.

In the suit, Hart says he upgraded to Comcast's Performance Plus service in
September specifically to use the "blocked applications," and that nothing
in the 22-page terms of agreement with Comcast indicated that the company
throttles traffic.

Though Comcast has yet to see the suit, Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas
pointed THREAT LEVEL to the company's FAQs about its traffic shaping and
issued the following statement

    Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any websites or online
applications, including peer-to-peer services. Our customers use the
Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos,
streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing numerous peer-to-peer
sites, VOIP applications like Vonage, and thousands of other applications
online.

    We have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good
Internet experience and we use the latest technologies to manage our network
so that they can continue to enjoy these applications.

Comcast refuses to plainly explain what it does to control BitTorrent
traffic, but independent analyses have shown that Comcast is severely
throttling internet traffic that is using the popular file sharing protocol
BitTorrent by sending fake "I'm finished" messages to users' BitTorrent
programs. Those fake packets are also alleged to affect users of the
mainstream business application Lotus Notes. The lawsuit charges those fake
packets violate the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The BitTorrent protocol is used for sharing large files -- from pirated
films to open-source OSs -- by having downloaders also serve as uploaders,
even when they have only downloaded a portion of the file. Though almost
nothing is publicly known about aggregate internet traffic, BitTorrent
protocol traffic is often estimated to constitute 35% to 40% of internet
traffic.

ISP discrimination against certain kinds of traffic also violates
established Federal Communications Commission policies on Net Neutrality,
the suit argues.

Comcast has yet to be served with the suit, according to Lexington Law Group
attorney Mark Todzo. The firm is waiting to get an official copy of the suit
back from the court and expects to serve Comcast later this week.

Comcast will then have 30 days to answer the complaint or seek dismissal of
the suit.

The case is Hart v. Comcast.

UPDATE: Comcast was working on an answer to THREAT LEVEL's questions when
the story was posted, and their response was added as soon as the company
got back to us.