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 9F09A3CB37 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 11:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from dlang-mobile (unknown [10.2.2.69]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 672471B80E8; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 08:40:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 08:40:26 -0800 (PST) From: David Lang To: Alexandre Petrescu cc: David Lang , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <5df2b2b9-fc8a-4147-8a53-5b7baf268339@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <13641F2C-B933-49AF-8289-7B8917667AAE@pch.net> <86062ps2-on4p-s855-6ss9-pr475q32q752@ynat.uz> <5df2b2b9-fc8a-4147-8a53-5b7baf268339@gmail.com> 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 16:40:27 -0000 On Fri, 10 Nov 2023, Alexandre Petrescu wrote: >> I'm not understanding what you think Starlink is prohibiting here. > > Original poster (Dave, not me) provided this text: "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."" > > If that text is true, I tend to agree with the interpretation that that > text prohibits sharing the wifi. > > It says 'personal, family, household'. That certainly means to be: not > my visitors, not my neighbors. it says 'designed for' not 'limited to' They list this, but then they also ship a handful of dishes to rural Indian villages to be setup in the community center for everyone to use. That would be against the rules per your interpretation. your interpretation would also prohibit businesses from using Starlink and allowing customers to use it. Since this is a reasonably common use of Starlink and I have not heard ANY stories of SpaceX objecting to it, I don't see any evidence to back that they intend for it to be that restricted. > In the past it was the case like that with non-space home ISPs. There > were requests to modify that, business to open. The response was the > appearance of business that shared the wifi (independent wifi sharing > boxes, free for end users), independent of the ISPs. It led into the > development of the concept of sharing WiFi among users of same ISP, and > agreements between ISPs. The same could happen now with Starlink. no, the ability to use other people's network connections on the same ISP is not something that developed from users sharing wifi. If you have any evidence that it was, please correct me. > However, and I will post separately, there are so many unknowns and so > much noise about Starlink in general, changing all the time, that it is > hard to make a definitive oppinion. Basically one does not know what is > real until one tries it, and I have not tried it (I am not a starlink > user but considering it). I currently pay for 3 starlinks, one that my sister has been using since early in the beta period in rural Michigan (on a farm, two miles outside the limits of the nearest villiage), one that I use full time at my house (as a redundent connection) and one that is configured for mobile use that is used for camping and search and rescue work Ask away and I will respond with my experience. David Lang