Jon Hart, represented by the San Francisco-based Lexington Law Firm, filed the suit in state court, asking for the court to stop Comcast's bandwidth-shaping policies and for compensatory and punitive damages.

The case stems from an Associated Press report that documented that Comcast was interfering with users uploading files via BitTorrent and other applications. The AP report showed that Comcast was interrupting uploads by essentially impersonating users and "hanging up" their connections.

The story unleashed a firestorm of protest, including a formal complaint to the FCC by the public policy groups Public Knowledge and Free Press, and a letter to FCC Chair Kevin Martin by Hands Off the Internet, a telecom-funded group against network neutrality.

Accusations of Deceptive Business

Comcast initially denied it was shaping bandwidth in any way. A document on the company's Web site states, "We do not block access to any Web site or applications, including BitTorrent. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files ... and thousands of other applications online."

Hart begs to differ. The complaint quoted numerous Comcast advertising messages, such as, "Stop crawling around the Web and start burning rubber with our Performance service" and "Way faster than DSL." Hart said that Comcast's 22-page-long terms of service document references specific performance levels but never mentions that Comcast will "impede, limit, discontinue, block, or otherwise impair" BitTorrent or other blocked applications.

Hart said that he specifically upgraded to Comcast's Performance Plus service to get faster speeds for the "blocked applications." The complaint charged Comcast with bad faith business practices, alleging the company "schemed to impede use" of peer-to-peer applications, failed to notify customers of the practice, engaged in fraudulent business practices, false advertising, and conduct that is "immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and injurious to consumers."

Return of Net Neutrality Debate

Harold Feld, senior vice president at the Media Access Project, which participated in a formal complaint against Comcast, said in a telephone interview that while the lawsuit is commendable, the situation requires a policy-level response. "While I'm glad there's a Comcast subscriber willing to take this on, I don't think consumer protection should have to depend on subscribers spending their time, effort, and money," he said. "We need something that's a broader solution for everyone."

"At the very least, the FCC should make it clear that this is not appropriate," he said, adding that advocacy groups may also take their complaints to the Federal Trade Commission. Comcast's actions prove the need for network neutrality legislation, he said. If legislation is passed, "broadband providers will stop trying to mess with traffic," Feld concluded.

Net neutrality opponents say that in constrained cable networks, such legislation would mean poor service for the vast majority of users, while P2P file sharers use more than their fair share. "If the network were entirely neutral, file sharing would overwhelm all other traffic, not only choking the average consumers' access to the Web and e-mail, but also depriving hospitals and schools," Daniel Ballon of the Pacific Research Institute wrote in an op-ed piece for The Hill newspaper.

Antitrust laws are sufficient to deal with situations where a gatekeeper ISP is impeding traffic from competitors, Ballon wrote, adding that "Comcast's rivals could file a complaint under existing laws." But to Feld, this is where the debate gets silly. "At this point we're just in denial," Feld concluded. "We have the largest broadband provider messing with traffic and lying about it!"