From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 764EF3B29D for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 14:33:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id BCA61B1; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 20:33:24 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1625078004; bh=gPGaIBHJzccvbZClrkDTbAFTcwL0TfEVblDQpcuA81c=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Qw8WL7gFV1At8eVKyCa0TBlQZPmYcjquY3y2/tmpL5/gxQF5qm/F4uCKG4mH4e3xY HwVbYLNdtclRAmFpdLSoT6TWRU2KQAynFOjFOBlURkk4bB8lAg3c5hMXTHd3nDCcz6 C3H/YkQpKESQCeFBfkoaZB994N5e6dXVfu2mRvno= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1FDAF; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 20:33:24 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 20:33:24 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht cc: David Lang , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <5E2A258B-4C5F-476E-A61D-1267993C50FB@teklibre.net> Message-ID: References: <85542036-9ff8-75d2-438e-c86cc0c105d8@sokolov.eu.org> <5E2A258B-4C5F-476E-A61D-1267993C50FB@teklibre.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="-137064504-252822117-1625078004=:13354" Subject: Re: [Starlink] 69,000 Users 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: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:33:26 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---137064504-252822117-1625078004=:13354 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Wed, 30 Jun 2021, Dave Taht wrote: > I don’t think data caps are needed. fairness is needed. LTE has pretty good airtime fairness (but FIFO per customer). Still doesn't work very well when there isn't enough airtime to satisfy demand. > I would prefer a solution that just billed for usage over a minimum. Well, data caps is similar to this. People generally don't like to get billed automatically upon higher usage, thus data caps can be used and people will have to go to some self-service page and "pay more" if they're over the cap, to get a higher cap. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se ---137064504-252822117-1625078004=:13354--