That means lets say a copyright expires in 2015 and in 2020 they change the law to extend it to 2025. People who used the copyrighted work between 2015-2020 can't be liable, but people who use it between 2020-2025 would be.
I think the CTO is right, they can't detect if the data coming from Youtube is video or not.
However, they can see you're connecting to Youtube, and they can just limit all Youtube traffic to a specific speed. Then the Google speed detector picks the 480p quality. You just don't notice being limited in speed when looking at lists etc.
Alternatively, they could use connection tracking to possibly see when a specific connection has lasted long enough that it's either a huge file download or a streamed video.
Really this is a difference without a distinction. It doesn't matter if they can detect video traffic or not if they can make a good enough guess to limit it.
I work for a small ISP, our bandwidth cost is based on the 95th percentile of all 5 min periods in a month.
While it's true that no single individual is going to have any real effect on Comcast's bandwith usage if they pay the same way, it's also almost certainly true they are paying more than they used as bandwidth usage keeps increase.
However, they could just charge a fair amount for bandwidth. Even just having customer buy 250GB blocks of data for say $5/month would be honestly a huge boon to them, but wouldn't feel too unfair to consumers.
(for the record we're planning on introducing daily caps* of 10GB for $30/month, 20GB for $40/month and 40GB for $60/month, and we offer a 1Gbps service)
*you actually get 3 "free" days per month and if you hit your cap on a 4th day we negotiate a solution with the customer (pay more or get throttled).
Have to be careful with the digital revenue breakdown. Most of that probably comes from the mobile space (cell phones). Where most games are free and *only* have fees for "extra content". It's also the most predatory market that exists for video games (seriously there are people who spend thousands of dollars on them).
This is also a separate market from "core gamers", so it wouldn't necessarily imply that pc/console gamers are buying that much DLC.
Also, I would have expected previously 100% of digital revenue to be extra content since EA was a little slow to the digital sales realm. You would have bought the game in a store then the DLC through some patchwork of xbox live/psn/website etc.
"Yikes. So, even if you set up a secure communication system, this judge says that you have to let the feds wiretap it."
That sounds reasonable to me. The government does need the right to wire tap potential criminals and threats to the US. What's not reasonable is them doing so without a warrant. That's where the checks and balances are. That's what's wrong with what the NSA is doing.
If law enforcement can show probably cause, they should be allowed to wiretap a "target".
What's scary about this case is that the Judge just let them wiretap 400k people for which they don't have warrants for.