Remember the whole Comcast blocking Lotus Notes thing? A couple of years ago, Kevin Kanarski and other Lotus customers reported that there was something going on where they couldn't use Lotus Notes via Comcast broadband connections in the US. It took a while, but once I got involved and to the right person, Comcast indicated the issue with Notes, whatever it was, was resolved.
I hadn't thought much about this recently (and I've recently switched away from Comcast broadband myself), but one of my google alerts today lead me to a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against Comcast, which says:
The claim verifies that you are a current or former Comcast High-Speed Internet service account holder who is eligible to make a claim because you either:I find this fascinating, because honestly I'm amazed that it got to a proposed settlement without me hearing from someone's lawyers. It's also interesting because it shows that, well, they might not be admitting wrongdoing, but for a period of six months, Comcast customers using Lotus Notes were affected -- and oh, not any other similar product. Unintended consequences, I guess, but ouch.
Used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008 and were unable to share files or have reason to believe that the speed at which files were shared was impaired; and/or
Attempted but were unable to use Comcast service to use Lotus Notes to send emails any time from March 26, 2007 to October 3, 2007.
Anyway, the proposed settlement has US$16 million in funding; it seems some of those Notes customers affected should probably file claims. Update: Thanks to Roy Rumaner for pointing out that the maximum individual settlement is US$16...ah, American class-action lawsuits, the lawyers are usually the ones to benefit the most. At any rate, the link to submit a claim says "Submit a Claim Online is under construction" (I went there because, well, I was a Comcast customer using Lotus Notes at the time...). The printed form says it will be available after January 4, 2010).
Maybe, in a twist of irony, we should offer to build them a Notes application to manage the claims.
Post a Comment
- 2
MarvinK | 1/6/2010 12:49:35 PM
It seems kind of ironic that Notes is the sidenote at the bottom, but the main thing they seem concerned about was P2P software. ISPs can't win when it comes to file sharing!
In any case, Notes should have worked fine over the web or most VPNs.
- 3
Charles Robinson http://www.cubert.net | 1/6/2010 2:35:10 PM
@2 - Notes and VPN's would not work because Comcast was blocking ports higher than 1024.
- 4
Sean | 3/10/2010 3:26:46 PM
I just received my Comcast statement in the mail and information regarding this lawsuit was included.
I have been using Comcast for years now, and am a frequent user of P2P programs. I started with Napster before it crumbled, then moved on to Kazaa, and now use the Bittorrent protocol. Under this settlement I would be eligible for my $16 rebate on my Comcast bill because I downloaded millions of dollars in copy righted material that Comcast tried to block.
I am by no means a fan of Comcast and the tactics they employee as a business. If they are going to publicly offer a download and upload speed, then they are obligated to adhere to that advertised speed. But, how in the hell is justice served by paying $16,000,000.00 to internet users that were, in all likelihood, downloading copyrighted material?!?
$16 off my next bill is worthless to me and I will not be signing onto the suit. I also plan on filing a statement, and will try to attend the hearing in Philadelphia since I live only an hour away. The lawyers for this suit will be seeking $3,000,000.00 for costs associated with litigation, and the class of plaintiffs will get a max $16. This is easily one of the grossest applications of justice I have seen recently.
I know that as a person who downloads and uploads copyrighted music, videos, software, books, audio books, pictures, games, etc. I am not supposed to talk about it. But, if no one talks about the obvious and actually admits it and points out what a sham this case is, then nothing will be done.
I attended a seminar in my 1st semester of Law School on Intellectual Copyright law, and the speaker was partner at a IC firm. I asked his take on internet P2P software and copyrighted material, and whether there was a solution to the issue. I made the comment that it was likely a majority of the students in the room had at some point downloaded a song illegally using this method....and when I looked around the room no one would even look at me. These are 20+ yr olds who grew up when Napster was a hit. But, no one will admit breaking a law that so many people break everyday. The speaker's response was that he didn't have an answer and that maybe one day the law would catch up with the times. Seems like a horrible response since by the time the law catches up, the times will have changed and again, be ahead of the law.
See Brian! I TOLD you Domino was working just fine back then. NOW do you believe me?
Alas, no matter the source of the problem, they always blame Notes.