Starting November 1, Internet service provider RCN can resume its discriminatory traffic management policies against peer-to-peer protocols—so long as it offers advance notice to customers.

Many of those involved in the debate over network neutrality appear to believe that ISPs simply don't engage in widespread traffic discrimination, and that the only possible example net neutrality supporters can dredge up involve Comcast and Madison River. Judging by their filings to the FCC, many DC lobbyists subscribe to this view. Take Charter, for instance, which told the FCC:

Years of study and scrutiny of broadband provider conduct by vigilant net neutrality proponents and federal agencies, as well as the Commission’s concern that improper conduct was “occurring in the marketplace,” have turned up nothing beyond the two isolated cases Madison River and Comcast/BitTorrent - both promptly resolved under the current regulatory regime. There is no evidence of broadband provider behavior harming consumers, of any market failure, or for that matter of any problem that actually needs fixing.

In fact, numerous class action lawsuits over traffic management have been filed against American ISPs over the last several years. Sabrina Chin brought her case against RCN back in 2008, alleging that the company identified and then throttled P2P traffic, rather than engaging in neutral congestion management practices.

Last week, a federal judge finally signed off on a settlement in the case. As New York District Judge Richard Sullivan noted, RCN "stopped using P2P targeted network management practices as a result of this lawsuit" back on May 1, 2009. RCN did not admit anything, though it "has represented that it stopped its throttling practices as a direct result of Plaintiff's lawsuit."

What do the 446,657 class members get from the settlement? Not much. RCN agreed to stop targeting P2P for 18 months after May 1, 2009, and it further agreed to stop all non-P2P traffic management for 18 months staring April 1, 2008.

Astute readers will note that the second exclusion period has already ended; the first will expire on November 1 of this year, less than two months after the settlement was signed. Mark Lyon, an Ars reader and a lawyer, filed one of six objections to the settlement.

"This case is interesting because the injunctive relief (stopping the blocking) happened before the class members were aware that it had taken place," he tells Ars. "When they got the notice, it was not clear that the blocking would resume within just a few months from when the notice was sent... It seems fundamentally unfair that RCN would get credit for unblocking their service during a period of time when customers had no reason to believe that action was related to litigation."

The judge heard the objections this summer, but ultimately concluded the settlement was fair. That's in part due to Comcast, which sued the FCC (and won) over just this issue. "At the time, the FCC had declared throttling of the type RCN engaged in an unlawful practice," wrote the judge, "the DC Circuit has since concluded that the FCC lacks the authority to make such a determination."

If the settlement were not approved and the case actually went to trial, the plaintiffs might very well do even worse, or lose altogether.

So that's it. The lawyers get $540,000, billing at a blended rate of $605 an hour. Sabrina Chin gets a token $3,000 for leading the charge. And RCN can do whatever it wants to do come November 1—though it has agreed to tell customers in advance about changes to its traffic management policies.

As for RCN's current practice, all that its "High Speed Internet Service Addendum" will say is that "RCN will undertake reasonable efforts at network management, traffic analysis, operational procedures and user policies that ensure appropriate bandwidth at all times for as many customers as possible."