[huffmsa]

But if the higher latency traffic is asynchronous, like an email, then it simply doesn't need the same prioritization as the low-latency traffic.

And those FedEx planes could slow down the USPS traffic, more FedEx planes means more last mile trucks, more road congestion, FedEx buying more optimally located sorting centers, last mile carriers prioritizing FedEx pickup/drop-off over USPS, etc.

[joezydeco]

Like I said, net neutrality analogies are hard.

[salawat]

What you're trying to put your finger on is that we are beginning to hit utilization levels of network resources where the previous model of statistical multiplexing is starting to show signs of strain.

You used the FedEx plane as an analogously to new faster/higher bandwidth infrastructure. The USPS trucks contents may have been on one of those jets at one point (if the contents are considered to be packets, and the truck was a lower bandwidth link).

However, network operators nowadays, instead of building up infrastructure capable of ensuring all traffic gets similar QoS (which costs money), resort to traffic shaping, route analysis, and DPI (looking in the box to figure out what it is), to try to eke out that QoS is more congested links by making the losses at least explain away-able.

This is the opposite of the colloquial way of handling net neutrality, which is to faithfully deliver every packet regardless of content, and mind your business in terms of what it contains.

You don't lookatthe package. You don't shake it. You don't paw at it, poke it, or molest it. Just get it from A to B.

Or did I mess up?