Deprioritized packets = inferior quality usage to what one would otherwise have received at the time.
Wrong. When there is no congestion, priority doesn't have any effect and it doesn't matter of you're at the front of the queue or the back. However, when there is congestion, if left unmanaged it causes packet loss as more packets try to fit through the "pipe" than can actually fit, which leads to retransmits; that is, everyone's talking and trying to be heard, bot nobody can really hear anyone else, so everyone keeps repeating themselves. All of this just exacerbates the congestion, as more and more packets are dropped and begin the re-send cycle. It's a snowball effect, at first it's just one dropped packet being resent, so that packet has now been sent twice, but in that time 10 more packets were dropped and must be re-sent; and some of those re-sent packets will get dropped, so they'll have to be sent a 3rd time, maybe a 4th or a 5th, until you've got so many packets not making it through that the bulk of your traffic is retransmits. Eventually, those retransmits will exceed the available bandwidth (on top of new traffic which is already exceeding that physical limit) and the majority of those will be dropped, as well.
In that situation, once the snowball has gotten itself rolling, nobody gets any of their data until everyone shuts up and lets the noise die down. And nobody is coordinating to allow that to happen, so it never does unless network management is applied, to force the issue.
By queuing the packets of some users, you prevent this contention for bandwidth and avoid the dropped packets and eventual retransmit storm.
To be clear: left unmanaged, heavy users get nothing (just like everyone else) on a congested node; managed, they get the data they request.
Did you, after I've explained it several times, honestly not understand that? Or are you attempting to claim an unusable connection is of superior quality to one that is stable and usable?
And even if everyone's usage suffers during periods of high congestion, nobody suffers during periods of lower congestion, so it is genuinely possible for companies to offer unlimited packages if they wanted.
Whereas, with properly implemented QoS, as we have here, nobody's usage suffers during periods of high or low congestion.
I'm done trying to educate you, though; you simply do not want to learn, because to do so would require you to admit you were wrong. Peruse my posting history and see what that looks like.
What you seem to be missing is that deprioritization of users who have already downloaded more than some threshold in the current billing cycle is still a *limit* on the level of service that those heavy users pay for.
I'm not missing that at all, actually. As I've stated previously, deprioritization increases the overall available bandwidth by eliminating retransmits caused be contention; that is, it stops people from having to talk over each other and repeat themselves, so everyone can talk, hear, and be heard. Without it, when there is congestion, throughout quickly approaches zero, for everyone; with it, everyone gets their data.
It's a logical fact that some (and I mean explicitly some, not all) users must be deprioritized when there is contention over limited available bandwidth (e.g. congestion) in order for the network to remain usable. If you deprioritize every user equally, you may as well have done nothing, the contention remains, and nobody can use the resource.
You suggest that deprioritization increases your ability to use the service, but it does so by explicitly *limiting* the amount that you are allowed to use the service without deprioritization.
And, without it, you're limited to only being able to use the service in the absence of contention over bandwidth.
That is a limit. Properly implemented QoS, which is what T-Mobile has here, is a workaround for that limit.
You very clearly aren't capable of understanding this. Again, I don't fault you for that, it's not something that's obvious (or, really, believable) unless you've actually seen it in action as I have. I'd say we should just agree to disagree, but I can't do that with someone whose opinion is based on a factually incorrect understanding.
It appears we're at an impasse, here.
If you've never implemented proper QoS on a congested network and seen the immediate impact it had on the traffic flow, this isn't something that is obvious to most people, so i fully understand how you might think it's a limit of sorts, but the reality is that it enables all users to effectively get their data instead of flooding the data with retransmitted packets as everyone attempts to talk over everyone else.
It's literally the opposite of a limit; it enables everyone to use more data. Period.
when they do, in fact, set some limit on how much someone can actually utilize
Funny, I routinely hit 50+GB and have never run into an imposed limit. The limit is that of the network itself, a physical one, minus everyone else's traffic. Implementing some form of contention control ensures that I'm consistently able to access what many people refuse to accept as a scarce resource.
It's not like wireline or fiber, where you just run more cables and everything is good; wireless bandwidth is, really and truly, a scarce resource. Network management is not limiting usage, it's enabling it. That some ISPs *cough*Comcast*cough*AT&T*cough*Time Warner*cough* implement usage limits and hard throttling and call it network management does not make it so.
The reality is that T-Mobile queues the packets of heavier users behind those of lighter users, but it does not drop or refuse those packets (not that would be a limit), and it does deliver them before connections time out (save for network issues, where they would time out regardless of priority).
I get what you're saying, though. I do. It's just logically impossible. You want everyone to be deprioritized equally when there's congestion and, well, if everyone starts out at the highest priority and they, simultaneously, all drop to the lowest priority, they're all still the same priority, there is no hierarchy, everyone's still equal, there's still contention and everyone is still trying to talk over everyone else and the network is still completely unusable.
I'm sure there are providers who do this. Go find one, switch to them, and tell me you still want that.
When speculation has done its worst, two plus two still equals four. -- S. Johnson