Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Cox is generally "good" (Score 1) 282

by cale (#26647225) Attached to: Cox Communications and "Congestion Management"

I'm going to have to agree with this, though also from the Virginia Beach area.

I live in a neighborhood that sees a lot of seasonal visitors and until I went out and got an 802.11n router my internet was faster than my wireless lan. I realize this won't be the case one the summer comes and most of the houses around me are filled and using their connections. However, this is something I know and understand.
When the network is congested I expect that Cox will ensure that time sensitive applications, such as my VoIP and Skype calls abroad, will still work correctly.

QoS isn't bad. It isn't necessarily a slippery slope, and it isn't even necessarily a sign of poor network design. P2P file sharing is not a latency dependent application and I expect it to get treated as such.

"Necessity is the mother of invention" is a silly proverb. "Necessity is the mother of futile dodges" is much nearer the truth. -- Alfred North Whitehead