Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

Mon Jan 11 18:31:30 UTC 2016

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
>
>>
>>
> This is similar to Hughesnet's FAP (unfortunately named Fair Access
> Policy).
>
> I've had some consumer success with this model. There are other fairness
> models that can augment it, however; it's not my favorite.
>
>
> What is your favorite?
>

Does a dog have the Buddha nature?

My favorite is actually having enough bandwidth to meet demand. What a
concept. Ought to work for terrestrial; where we run out of
spectrum/bandwidth is in shared-medium last-mile.

Pre-Title II classification, I had excellent success with per-flow
equalization/fairness, but this is expensive and makes bandwidth guarantees
difficult to manage.

After, I've also had success with a) maintaining sane oversubscription
ratios and b) using per-customer-class fairness balancing, and c) some
experimentation with FQ-CODEL, although this is less neutral and still a
gray area — at least until I understand it better.

>
>
> However, as I said, I consider everything to the right of AYCE on your
> “continuum” to be simply variations of usage-based billing.
>
> Sure, to a consumer who stays within their usage tier, their tier looks
> like AYCE (until it doesn’t), but it certainly isn’t actually.
>

I agree.

>
>
>
> How much uncapped LTE spectrum is needed before we can hit that 2Mbps per
> customer referred to recently?
>
>
> I would assume quite a bit. There are 7 billion potential subscribers, so
> that’s 14 billion Mbps or 14 Petabits per second world wide.
>

Heh. Gary said it better — it's about user density. All 7 billion aren't on
one set of sectors.

The architecture for "repeaters", as Gary pointed out, is suboptimal, which
is why we rely so heavily on Wifi, and why the WISP world is up in arms
over LTE-U. Or so it seems to me.

And NYC is just now getting wifi in the tunnels?

I apologize if this has grown off-topic.