That's a bit pedantic - the poster would cleary be happy with something that worked 99.9% of the time, and there is no technical reason why our packet switched network can't suppot that in theory
For all the net-neutrality proponents: isn't this an argument against net neutrality? If ISPs could discriminate depending on traffic and apply better QoS priorities to sensitive content like video calls, reprioritizing downloads and p2p applications, we could have video conferencing that works, 99.9% of the time.
No. The FCC's 2015 open internet order had an exemption for "reasonable network management":
>A network management practice is a practice that has a primarily technical network
management justification, but does not include other business practices. A network
management practice is reasonable if it is primarily used for and tailored to achieving a
legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network
architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service.
Net neutrality has always been about leveling the playing field, not about preventing network operators from improving service for users. So, for example: QoS rules to make real-time communication work better in general? Great! QoS rules to prioritize Zoom over other real-time comms because the ISP has a deal with them? Nope.
Yet there's not one implementation that does work? I am not an expert on this, but I don't think current Internet-based solutions can compete with telephone/cellphone voice call on reliability, not without some drastic infrastructural change.