If you want to observe this effect then try turning QoS on or off on your router during your wife's Netflix session while you're playing a multi-player RPG.
Dedicated bandwidth is also what pays for new cables being placed between nations or continents. A new cable can often promise a small improvement in latency compared to the existing ones, which for a stock broker means a major advantage over competitors who use the old ones. The highest paying customers moves to the new one, which result in space being made available in the old cables, which tickles down to lower paying customers until its no longer worth selling dedicated bandwidth (which is normally in the from of separate wavelengths), which at that point it get used by multiple customers at the same time and people start to talk about QoS to artificially increase the number of possible customers on the same available bandwidth.
QoS is about selling bandwidth so it can pass over 100% usage. Dedicated bandwidth is about reliable network with fast latency. QoS is a way to increase the revenue of old cables and increase their lifetime. Dedicated bandwidth is what pays for new cables being placed in the ground or on the bottom of the sea.
> If you want to observe this effect then try turning QoS on or off on your router during your wife's Netflix session while you're playing a multi-player RPG.
That's because the network is congested and Netflix keeps trying to push as many packets as possible, hence your game packets may not reach on time. But, placing a simple bandwidth limit on other devices is enough to ensure proper ping for your game.
QoS only helps if the network is congested.
Yes we know that big ISPs regularly raise examples like this as a reason why they shouldn't have to provide neutral service, but that is manifestly self-serving on their part.
Net neutrality only prevents your provider from making this decision on your behalf.
I currently run Samsung's Smartthings hub at home(and I love it), I would like the video feed and other notifications be available to me at real time speeds (don't ask why), you're suggesting that I upgrade my whole line for that?
Wouldn't it be preferable that when I use Netflix, the video goes on a deprioritized network, and when I use Skype, it goes on priority network without me having to upgrade the whole service.
The point is, from the consumer's point of view, the services he uses are a mixed bag of priority vs non-priority data. On the other hand, from the content provider's POV, the services they use are either priority, or non-priority (or a mixture, for instance paid subscribers are run through a faster network, etc etc).
Net Neutrality prevents that, not because the conversations I am having in this thread with people is what happens in every NN debate.
You mean, like governments in capitalistic nations like the US running at the mercy of some say a 100 billionaires. I don't believe that is a viable model to follow in a egalitarian society of the internet. Currently, internet is the best example to prove in a different sense that anarchists (virtual)society can survive, lead and guide people to their goals. When people try to build establishment on top of this, thing take a different route altogether.
Internet is like Marx's virtual economy ;)