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