The downloading of movies and music is not a time and latency sensitive application like gaming and VOIP is. Enter QOS. This pragmatic approach makes sense, but only if QOS is fairly applied...e.g I hope COX also prioritizes their video on demand lower than gaming and VOIP... :) But, it's a hard nut to crack. Who keeps track of what ports games are running on nowadays? And won't malware start using those ports for their communication? Is deep packet inspection feasible in a low-latency environment?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Will Hill <[email protected]> wrote: > Shame on you for insults and false choices. What is a false choice? I expect Cox to allocate bandwith > for the job, not invest in filters that degrade service. Infrastructure costs a bunch of money. You and I are probably paying 600 dollars a year (41.95 for 12mb down, 1mb up) for internet service which costs tens of thousands a year for businesses to have the same level of bandwidth. Besides, even if endless fat pipes were thrown at the problem, endless greedy lusers would suck all that up on downloading 'Finding Nemo'... and gasp... UBUNTU ISOs. QOS ensures those with latency sensitive applications get their small data packets to arrive first. > I also expect Cox to > do their part in shutting down W32 botnets. Absolutely no argument here. But what to look for? > I want Japanese network quality > and pricing. That way, I get my video phone and my neighbor gets his > movie. You also get the same socialistic system of the JIAA (sic) telling people what they can and can't download. There's no magik solution, Will. http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/03/15/japanese-isps-to-ban-file-sharers/ > > What I'm getting instead looks more like dial up every day because of > problems inflicted by M$ and the MAFIAA. People who use and recommend > Windows don't have a right to complain about bandwith. > So, to ensure that I'm reading this right, I'm less of a person because I use Windows? > > > On Thursday 29 January 2009, Dustin Puryear wrote: > > I think both of you have a valid point here. > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >
_______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
