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.
Comcast already does that (don't know about other providers). They are perfectly willing to provide you with a single standard definition cable box for free with your service.
ESPN is handling this in a semi-smart way. It's not quite direct to customer, but it's pretty close and keeps as much of their current revenue as they can.
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.
We're small enough for that not to be worth it. It's certainly something we'll look at the future though.
Regardless, at some point even a network as big as Comcast has to go outside to another network and their bandwidth is probably charged in a similar way.
You are right that they should be able to control their costs to a large degree.
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).
No one is demanding the Washington football team changes it's names. A number of fans have asked them to because they find it offensive, but this is a free country, you are allowed to ask for things.
The only thing that's changed is that Dan Snyder lost *protected* speech on an offensive term.
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.
Re: retroactive
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: I have an idea.
You did specify 'minimum'.
SlingTV was a tricky way to avoid the contracts
Detecting video in HTTPS is probably impossible
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.
Re: Re: How ISPs pay for bandwidth
Regardless, at some point even a network as big as Comcast has to go outside to another network and their bandwidth is probably charged in a similar way.
You are right that they should be able to control their costs to a large degree.
How ISPs pay for bandwidth
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).
No One Has to Change any Names
The only thing that's changed is that Dan Snyder lost *protected* speech on an offensive term.
Re: Paul
Re: Glenn
Infrastructure is actually quite expensive. We're rolling out fiber and we charge a $150 install up front that doesn't cover all our costs.
There is also significant maintenance and supports costs.
Not that cable companies aren't ripping you off. We're able to deliver gigabit for $30/month.
Digital Revenue Breakdown
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.
Re: Maybe.....
US law is not subject to treaties
I think it's more of a sign of hypocrisy and duplicitous-ness on the part of the US government than anything else.
(untitled comment)
Fuck this, I'm gonna patent silicon and own Intel!
Re: Re: Re: @ "What's the difference of defacing a website"
Dude what?
Re: Rikuo
Well they could probably get you for harassment. But that would probably just end with a restraining order and no fine.
Sounds reasonable
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.
So easy to forgot
Are the Israelis they're sharing raw data with Americans as well?
Re: SIDEWAYS, as usual. Definitely not right, not exactly wrong.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Thomas.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt