Comcast has agreed to pay $16 million to settle a peer-to-peer "throttling" lawsuit.  The lawsuit was one of seven suits filed against Comcast, all of which alleged that Comcast slowed or impeded peer-to-peer (a/k/a "P2P") transmissions sent using Comcast's broadband high-speed Internet service without telling its subscribers—despite the fact that Comcast advertised "unfettered" access to P2P networks.  You can read the text of the proposed settlement HERE.

According to the proposed settlement, which was preliminarily approved by a federal court in Pennsylvania last month, Comcast will put $16 million into a settlement fund, and certain people impacted by Comcast's actions will be able to apply for a one-time credit of up to $16, payable from the fund.

Who, you may ask, are the "certain people" entitled to a $16 refund?  According to the proposed settlement, the settlement class consists of:
            "all persons with accounts for Internet service from affiliates and subsidiaries 
             of Comcast Corporation in any U.S. state or territory in which Comcast offers
             high-speed Internet service and who either:
                    (a)     used or attempted to use the Comcast service in order to use the 
                              Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at
                              any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008; or
                    (b)     used or attempted to use the Comcast service in order to use Lotus
                              Notes to send emails at any time from March 26, 2007 to 
                              October 3, 2007."

A final determination of whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable will take place on April 15, 2010. 

And what will stop Comcast from doing this type of thing again?  It's simple: Comcast said it won't.  (I'm serious—you can't make that kind of thing up). 

Once Comcast was caught in the act and stopped its improper activity, the FCC conducted its own investigation.  During that investigation, Comcast claimed that it stopped its improper behavior and said that it wouldn't do it again.  Largely on that basis, the Court refrained from issuing an Order enjoining Comcast from violating Net Neutrality directives from the FCC, as well as state law and (believe it or not) Comcast's own terms of service.

I think the Court's unwillingness to issue an injunction is, in a word, inexcusable.  Wait, I have another word: inexplicable.  So let me get this straight: Comcast sold a service which used hidden computer codes to interrupt subscribers' ability to enjoy P2P networks.  Comcast purposely didn't tell its subscribers of this situation.  When confronted, Comcast initially (and publicly) denied that it was interfering with P2P networks over its broadband lines.  Only after the issue was brought to light by the Associated Press and the Electronic Frontier Foundation did Comcast admit to its wrongdoing. 

And despite all that, the court wasn't moved to issue (or require) an injunction as part of the settlement?

Somebody tell me what I'm missing here....