Talk:Hart v. Comcast Corp.

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Latency (engineering)#Communication latency|latency]] The anchor (#Communication latency) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

skip the long tirade on

Comcast's services section (looks like it was written as a advertisement/PR move actually if you read the tone) and only include relevant information (or better yet, just say, according to their terms of use and omit the technical details, unnecessary to the case. Noian (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording of article

Although the second part is better than the first in relevancy to the subject, the article really needs to be revamped and reworded as there's overlaps and such between the two and too many excess information.

Also, I'd like to challenge to Comcast RST google, cause in the very same dslreport thread (3rd page, down), there is speculation its not comcast's fault, but higher up/ a DNS error. Can someone verify the fact? See: [1] for a detailed explanation of why it could be DNS reasons. Noian (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was this case decided?

I think this may be the case I need details about for an article I am editing.

Here's the exact text of a newspaper article I am using as a source:

The case centered on the company's behavior in 2007 when it interfered with subscribers using the online file-sharing service BitTorrent, which lets people swap movies and other big files. Comcast said the service was clogging its network, but public interest groups maintained that the company saw the swapping of video files as a threat to its cable business.
The FCC, then led by Republican Kevin Martin, ordered Comcast to stop blocking subscribers from using BitTorrent and based its decision on net neutrality principles it had adopted in 2005.
Comcast challenged the order in court. It argued that the order was illegal because the agency was seeking to enforce principles and not regulations or laws. That is one reason that Genachowski is now pushing the FCC to adopt formal net neutrality rules that would apply across the industry.
Comcast also had argued that the FCC lacks authority to mandate net neutrality because it had deregulated broadband by classifying it as an information service under the Bush administration. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005. Now Genachowski's next move could reverse course on that approach.

I know it's silly, but at home I avoid going to most web sites. That's how I keep my computer running smoothly.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comcast credit on my bill!!!

The entry on the bill is: Hart V. Comcast payment - Adjustment 04/14 $16.00

There was absolutly no other information provided.

The information I was really wanting...

The filing date, when it was settled, and what court. This is nowhere to be found in the article. Not exactly easy to find online, either. 128.83.206.217 (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)GP Incorrect answers seem to be (for the appeal of a totally different lawsuit with a person with just the same last name): 2009-10-15, 2009-11-05, and United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCOURTS-ca5-09-20238/USCOURTS-ca5-09-20238-0[reply]

Also, when was the settlements website parked? 128.83.206.217 (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)GP[reply]

http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-to-compensate-throttled-bittorrent-users-091222/ An article with information but from a news agency and not a primary source. May or may not be reliable, however it seems that the 2009-2010 timeframe is obviously correct since they're not in a habit of changing publishing dates on their articles. (Duh) 2601:1:9280:155:412E:EB34:E60A:B742 (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]