From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (rrcs-45-59-245-186.west.biz.rr.com [45.59.245.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3301D3CB37 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 08:44:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from dlang-mobile (unknown [10.2.2.69]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A4A1B807A; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 05:44:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 05:44:29 -0800 (PST) From: David Lang To: Alexandre Petrescu cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <86062ps2-on4p-s855-6ss9-pr475q32q752@ynat.uz> References: <13641F2C-B933-49AF-8289-7B8917667AAE@pch.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Starlink] [NNagain] one dish per household is silly. X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 13:44:31 -0000 On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote: >> There is no prohibition against sharing. The closest that document >> comes to it is: "The Standard Service Plan is designed for personal, >> family, or household use." > > And, the specs of Starlink WiFi Router say "Mesh - Compatible with up to > 3 Starlink Mesh nodes". Why 3 and not 4, one might wonder. > > Yet there are additional technical reasons as to why extending the WiFi > to others is inconvenient. For both IPv4 and IPv6 the other users would > be situated behind NATs, multiple levels of them. It would break > certain apps. given how many users live behing multiple layers of NAT now, I think there are fewer apps that would break than you think (and in terms of overall traffic, it's a very small percentage) I'm not a fan of wifi mesh, it can work in some conditions, but it breaks down quickly under load (aittime utilization, be it number of nodes, number of users, area covered, or bandwidth used). But setting up a structured distribution to a number of APs can scale well (I run the wireless network at the Scale conference and use simple APs (most over a decade old now) running openWRT to support >3500 geeks over a 100,000 sq ft facility) > This kind of WiFi sharing was tried and with some degree of success to > ground multi-ISP settings. My home ISP WiFi allows other users having > same ISP at their home. Some agreements exist between some ISPs to > expand that domain of allowance. that's still a guest mode on a bunch of separate uplink networks, not the same as sharing one uplink network with a wide group of people. > Here we talk about only one ISP. Starlink might want, as a first step, > to allow other users that have Starlink at their home. When more space > ISPs like this will appear, maybe some agreements might happen. I'm not understanding what you think Starlink is prohibiting here. each dish in an area imposes noticable overhead, beyond simply the bandwidth the user consumes, so it's better for the starlink system to have fewer dishes that distribute to the same number of users, with the same usage patterns. >> resale is prohibited. resale is prohibited, but cost sharing is not, and I don't even think that resale of the service to the community would be prohibited, just resale of the equipment, or setting yourself up as a distributer of starlink service and equipment. David Lang