RCN P2P Settlement Gives Net Neutrality Advocates New Arguments
Net neutrality advocates pointed to a class-action lawsuit settlement in Sabrina Chin v. RCN Corp. announced this week in which the cable operator agreed to stop manipulating its broadband subscribers’ peer-to-peer file transfers and be more transparent about network management practices. “This is yet another example showing why the Federal Communications Commission needs to be given the authority over Internet access service,” said President Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge. RCN denies it violated any laws and said it settled to avoid the cost of litigation. The episode will probably find its way into reply comments that net neutrality advocates plan to file with the FCC before Monday’s deadline.
"We are going to look and see exactly whether and how we can work RCN into our comments,” said Policy Counsel Chris Riley of Free Press: “I expect other groups to work it into their comment and” major telecom companies and their trade associations to “ignore it completely.”
RCN e-mailed subscribers Tuesday about the settlement, which was initially reached in July 2009 and amended earlier this year, to let subscribers join it. Under its terms, RCN agreed to stop all network management practices that affect P2P traffic for 18 months, retroactive to May 1, 2009. The company also agreed not to use network management tools that don’t target P2P transfers for the 18 months beginning April 1, 2008, and confirmed that it hasn’t used such tools since. A hearing for final approval of the agreement is set for June 4, court documents show.
That the settlement calls for the lead plaintiff to receive $3,000, the plaintiff’s attorneys to get $520,000 and RCN to temporarily halt its network management practices is a further example of why the FCC regulation is needed, Riley said. “That to me is on its face clearly not a resolution that’s adequate for consumers or for preserving the policies of open Internet,” he said. “There’s a clear red flag going up saying the courts aren’t equipped to protect consumers here, the FCC needs to be able to find a way to do this somehow.”
RCN didn’t violate any law, said Senior Vice President Richard Ramlall. “RCN settled in order to avoid the potentially significant legal expenses and distraction associated with class action litigation,” he said. “RCN is committed to the settlement agreement it entered into in the Chin case, believes that it is a fair and adequate resolution of the claims asserted on behalf of the plaintiff class members, and looks forward to its approval by the court at the hearing in June.”