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

Mon Jan 11 18:40:09 UTC 2016

> On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:31 , Jeremy Austin <jhaustin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto: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. 

That’s not a billing model… We were talking about billing models.

What’s your favorite billing model?

> 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.

Again, we are apparently talking apples and oranges. I’m talking about billing models and you’re talking about service delivery techniques.

> 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.

Meh, most useful threads wander significantly.

Owen