ISP QoS is fine as long as it's by type and not by source/destination. It's perfectly reasonable to expect all those people torrenting the latest Game of Thrones shouldn't impact other people's Skype calls.
This isn't a value judgement on anything, mind, it's all about what the application needs in order to work. A torrent can still download on a congested network. A VoIP call will have great difficulty on same.
If the ISP can't pipe the advertised bandwidth that's not the user's fault. The torrenter's absolutely should be allowed to fill up the pipes. As for torrenting, there's also a uTP which is supposed to help mitigate some issues at the ISP level.
That all said, if you don't agree that QoS should not be allowed at the ISP level than you don't agree with NN. It's really not complicated.
Advertised bandwidth is always an "up to" number, not a dedicated pipe. If you want that, you want business class service at a significant price premium.
>The torrenter's absolutely should be allowed to fill up the pipes.
And the Skypers should absolutely be allowed to have their calls. QoS ensures that everyone has a minimum usable level of service.
QoS and net neutrality are two different things, as previously mentioned. If you'd like to argue otherwise, you'll have to do better than simply gain-say my definition.
Again, you really fail to explain why you think packet prioritization based on type is the exact same thing as packet prioritization based on source and destination. The latter is always anticompetitive at the ISP level, the former can be, but needs to exist to operate a network of any decent size.
Please explain why it needs to exist? All my packets, no matter what they are, should have equal access to another person's packets on the same network.
I myself will employ QoS so that my packets are arranged how I like them in the bandwidth provided by my ISP.
If my ISP cannot give me sustained bandwidth, then I don't receive proper internet service where anything but browsing and maybe streaming will be great.
In that case, I expect to pay less, not to have the ISP implement some technology to decide my traffic isn't as important as my neighbor's skype chat.
The why is simple. Bandwidth is limited on a given time scale and load is unpredictable. QoS ensures that all of your customers receive a minimum usable level of service. If a bunch of people run off to download a given torrent simultaneously, blowing well past average projected usage and you're not packet shaping, anything that relies on real time packet transfers on that network is hosed.
It's that simple. It's ensuring that a minority of customers can't fuck up the service for the majority.
Everything you've mentioned so far is a lot of statement with no backup. You want "sustained bandwidth" - this is not a thing that most ISPs sell to normal customers at rates mere mortals can afford, and for good reason.
All my packets, no matter what they are, should have equal access to another person's packets on the same network.
QoS's entire raison d'etre is ensuring this equal access by making sure sudden high load does not negatively impact the service for everyone else. Would you prefer your call quality/game/video not get shitty when the latest GoT episode comes out? Or would you prefer a complete wild-west free for all where the "bandwidth hogs" can quite literally ruin a service for everyone?
And don't say "expand capacity", either. Nobody in the world, not even Google, has the ability to deliver their max advertised bandwidth to all subscribers simultaneously.
Please, for your own sanity, learn the difference between average speed and max speed.
Sustained bandwidth is not out of the ordinary. I consistently get the same bandwidth day after day, but I realize at times it could have issues, because I don't have a dedicated line.
When I don't use QoS, I can't download a large file and skype at the same time. If I use QoS on my network, it's no problem. Clearly this means my ISP is not doing anything particularly special with my data, and I get on just fine.
I go through Midcontinent Communications, one of the better ISPs in the US.
I am very, very jealous of you. I've got a coworker who used to live in that part of the states who tells me leaving that particular ISP was one of the hardest parts of moving here :)
That said, I bet they got out in front of projected growth so they have a large surplus of capacity. Still, I'd be willing to bet you large and ridiculous amounts of cash that the right combination of growth + popular event would result in contention.
