John Navas hath wroth:
Oh, so that's what it's called. Using Google, I found:
No need to buy it. I offer my arguments for free. However, donations are always welcome.
I can substantiate my logic and observations if you want, but I find it odd that you would disagree. The rules for what constitutes privacy are constantly being re-written by various incursions into our civil rights on an almost daily basis. Every time there's a major problem, the standard law enforcement solution is a dramatic reduction in our civil rights, including privacy, that is required to supply law enforcement. Whether it's no knock rules, automated wire tap, at&t and NSA style internet spying, DMCA enforcement by subpoena of ISP logs, and such, it's a change in civil rights which directly affects privacy. Even a reputable ISP will resort to a form of mild privacy violation, by sniffing traffic, in order to remove spam, viruses, and kiddie p*rn.
In the case of the shared satellite link, the privacy violation is in the form of traffic monitoring and disclosing the traffic summaries to the other members of the group in order to justify the metered billing. I've had complaints about this practice on the basis of privacy, mostly from those that don't undestand that I don't collect URL's or record anything about web sites visited or porno downloaded. Just the total bytes. However, if they insist that I must be spying on them, my standard answer is to suggest they pay for their own satellite link.
I've re-read my 3 statements and still don't understand what you find disagreeable. I have a system with 13 houses and about 30 users that has been functional for about 2.5 years without violence or litigation. I think that's sufficient to demonstrate that both the technology and the philosophy of charging by bandwidth used is totally functional. Whether it can be applied to a shared wireless connection in a harbor is debateable, but there may be some aspects worth adopting.