From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pj1-x1032.google.com (mail-pj1-x1032.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1032]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAA9D3CB37; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 10:11:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1032.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2809a824bbbso1821487a91.3; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 07:11:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1699629066; x=1700233866; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=LxOh/9H2btX73jPzm1AvDgQMdaqEm4i8P2xopIk+DVI=; b=Z5zYpeIZ/IgPoAvbf+fIaI68MidUFRnm6vGvLz5LOF/b1x9Spc7XBLsFQ+XlvggUpI Rd6PKYxjo8pCa/WmQRKt9JO5XUJE/7gOuhDDlD4jPfbwq7TooYBBneAR5o4fCfTH5/hz ePhqYPq1wVkCELECQusV5R8kZSLdaZZyG3HfP9MZ7sQoUnVHv0htWnspYOG9OwOVYxII P3fOF7v7VzlTn++fnXH8zcqcUn+jJ6rt9y5XU9SvUMou7Nfrqt6BuVqGTnSgzl/W1cg+ bdAY+63O0tflbPKTf3JImDtriP/uTYNIvP5G+fciaoPoF2p9uzdY82Rtl62eg6xt/oWy 7sSw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1699629066; x=1700233866; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=LxOh/9H2btX73jPzm1AvDgQMdaqEm4i8P2xopIk+DVI=; b=DNXyX8mdhG73B/XyEnFLQu15iZrqdmjMZv14Xuz/9nftuNYG8H1NfFkxQ6EeCfJJQP kIJoEqL2vESxV0LbAOMUp14t1BIZvcGxz1L+a7Tyqy4M0JpcLTzMGU2FAbcKtksH3rRX ZE4bwJIW1LrYUzUuXOdM30xbFMYw+6rC+oxm72I+D1phzo0Tv57DQCWKrtXX+v8E1Mzz 0zFQVW6UZncL+wHG2mWzGhoYbkdiq74ntmGhZyIbwvvKPKNAkgXTxJsWsh917ewmLMvL HRPIh+Zb1AumYtMMNIFKRmDiuaNqEJLeg/IPNj1ZtzoOG+xzV9b8TbqEBeveVgplGA1S XujA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz9BXtVZPvPRF1qMr9KeUeufFkwgUp6+dSiZypjk/SjwRUUX1Q8 W09AQmYe5M/k48b46yW3AbjsUC88bjki34LAFTH0y1rq X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEGEVvuknu6U0SC0OHeilt8dpRrSnfUDpB0AFZD8dpUHX+Nx/i0WYfx27AgWseXRoacCvdr8g12DoTFwHneR/o= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:2243:b0:280:1d6c:a6a8 with SMTP id hk3-20020a17090b224300b002801d6ca6a8mr5217762pjb.23.1699629065688; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 07:11:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <13641F2C-B933-49AF-8289-7B8917667AAE@pch.net> <86062ps2-on4p-s855-6ss9-pr475q32q752@ynat.uz> In-Reply-To: <86062ps2-on4p-s855-6ss9-pr475q32q752@ynat.uz> From: Dave Taht Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 10:10:52 -0500 Message-ID: To: David Lang Cc: Alexandre Petrescu , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net, =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back=21_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspect?= =?UTF-8?Q?s_heard_this_time=21?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 15:11:06 -0000 On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 8:44=E2=80=AFAM David Lang via Starlink wrote: > > 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 t= o > > 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 woul= d > > 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 ther= e are > fewer apps that would break than you think (and in terms of overall traff= ic, > 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 distributio= n to a > number of APs can scale well (I run the wireless network at the Scale con= ference > and use simple APs (most over a decade old now) running openWRT to suppor= t >3500 > geeks over a 100,000 sq ft facility) I would really like to see your "vintage" wndr3800s benchmarked against the latest cisco meraki product, in that kind of environment, which is also derived from a recent openwrt but for wifi6. The really bothersome thing about that product is that if you stop paying for the license, they turn them off. > > 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 bandwi= dth > the user consumes, so it's better for the starlink system to have fewer d= ishes > that distribute to the same number of users, with the same usage patterns= . Exactly! Most wireless services benefit from some sort of concentrator and then spreading out the internet via some other method, be it wifi, or wired. Less (and better) antennas =3D less interference, more effective user multiplexing. I am quite grumpy at seeing 160mhz channels or bigger being the default for 6ghz wifi. 40Mhz gives more range and less interference. How to somehow shift the public conversation from "bandwidth" to "more range and less interference"? > >> resale is prohibited. > > resale is prohibited, but cost sharing is not, and I don't even think tha= t > resale of the service to the community would be prohibited, just resale o= f the > equipment, or setting yourself up as a distributer of starlink service an= d > equipment. Well they have signed up distributors like home depo of the gear. I have not much clue as to how they handle sales worldwide. > > David Lang > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink --=20 Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.htm= l Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos