10 ms·

Just think if this level of marketing, lobbying, and energy was channeled into something like a national fiber broadband utility available to everyone. "But,"

Just think if this level of marketing, lobbying, and energy was channeled into something like a national fiber broadband utility available to everyone. "But," you may ask, "why would industry groups ever push something like that? Such a thing would cost loads of money and put market dominance at risk!" And then maybe you start to wonder why they're in such a rush to fight for the subsidies, investment, and contracts for "more wireless, but faster and more G's!"

state_less 7y ago
Yes, and I can't talk with other radios either, I need to talk to a provider's cell tower. I have to drop down something ancient like a VHF radio to do peer to peer communication at long range. PS. If I'm wrong, please let me know. I'd love to hear about any developments in long range P2P wireless phones.
- rolleiflex 7y ago
  I do Aether (P2P Reddit~ish, https://getaether.net https://getaether.net) and I investigated doing something like this over radio mesh networks. Specifically doing it over HAM radio was one of the possibilities. The plan was something like doing anycast over Radio. Turns out, even those bands do have a lot of limitations. For example you cannot use any encryption, which makes most of the modern tools out of the picture because TLS is impossible. There are some workarounds like doing TLS with blank keys, but far as I understand it is dicey so far as legality goes. (The data on Aether is public, but we use encryption tools for authentication of messages.)
  - ohazi 7y ago
    What does TLS with blank keys give you over plaintext?
    - mokus 7y ago
      I can see how it’s not obvious, but the parentheses at the end are the answer to that (or maybe they were edited in after your question). You can use TLS without ciphering but with signatures to authenticate messages.
- thepete2 7y ago
  That's a really stupid thing about cell phones. We all carry these amazing radios with us, but they become completely useless once there is no tower around. Why can't phones be used as walkie-talkies?
  - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
    Because the person you want to contact is unlikely to be within radio distance.
    - thepete2 7y ago
      yes, but how cool would that be?
      - state_less 7y ago
        I think it would be pretty cool too. For those times when you are out of range of a tower and in range of each other, you could chat up your pals out at the campsite or whathaveyou. And if you and your ilk load some kind of meshing or 'router app' on these advanced (non-hobbled) handheld radios, you might have a better chance of getting in touch with that out of range person by routing packets across radios until you're at the internet. Even if you limit the bandwidth to text messages for this feature, it could be a real lifesaver for folks needing to get emergency messages out.
        Something1234 7y ago
        What about the push to talk feature on some work phones?
        lawfulcactus 7y ago
        You're effectively talking about APRS[1]. [1] http://www.aprs.org http://www.aprs.org
        state_less 7y ago
rayiner 7y ago
> Just think if this level of marketing, lobbying, and energy was channeled into something like a national fiber broadband utility available to everyone. I mean this is pretty much exactly why the government shouldn’t be in charge of deciding how to allocate this investment. Fiber is far less useful than fast wireless. 60% of Maryland has access to fiber. It hasn’t been revolutionary in the least. Most people don’t even subscribe to it, even in high income suburbs. Meanwhile, over 15% of high income households are “mobile only.” I think it’s fair to say that if you are computing using a tablet, you’re probably not benefitting much from fiber. Well, global PC sales peaked in 2010: https://images.app.goo.gl/4jwgmheZhp1S39EZ6 https://images.app.goo.gl/4jwgmheZhp1S39EZ6. Desktop PC sales globally are about the same as they were in 2001. The percentage of people using a computing device that can take advantage of fiber continues to shrink.
- wtallis 7y ago
  When the "fast wireless" under discussion more or less requires deploying FTTC as the backhaul, consumers definitely stand to benefit from transforming that into a regulated FTTH network instead of being further subjugated by cellular carriers.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    Isn't the cost difference between running fiber to base stations and running fiber to individual homes enormous? Just based on the economics: a fiber-lit base station serves anyone nearby with a mobile device, while the infrastructure to support FTTH is a risk (and, apparently, an unprofitable risk) based on how many homes sign up. I don't think base station backhaul and FTTH are comparable investments.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      If we're talking typical suburban housing density, deploying 5G mmWave will require digging trenches or hanging wires on poles through almost as many properties as deploying FTTH. A 5G basestation is going to be a lot more expensive than a GPON ONT, probably enough that the per-customer costs aren't a net win for 5G. (When the fiber is already at the mailbox, taking it down the driveway too just isn't that much more investment.) And the 5G basestation faces the same problem as FTTH that not every person in the neighborhood will be a guaranteed subscriber to any particular provider; even if Verizon/ATT/etc. already has you under contract for your smartphone, they have to work on convincing you to add all your wired devices to the plan. Barring detailed cost estimates to the contrary, I don't see how mmWave will be viable in suburban America. Sub-6GHz 5G will be, but that's not going to be providing dramatic speed upgrades or price/Mbps improvement the way FTTH has. In a denser urban residential setting, mmWave certainly won't have enough penetration to provide solid service to high-rise apartments, and it's even less likely that sub-6GHz 5G will have enough aggregate capacity to kill off wired ISPs. mmWave simply isn't viable for residential/fixed usage, and sub-6 is only an incremental improvement that brings cellular performance up to WiFi speeds, but not beyond.
closeparen 7y ago
What does 5G have to do with public policy? Getting the necessary approvals from the FCC seems like it would be a quiet, technocratic thing. Beyond that, cell carriers' infrastructure is their own business.
altacc 7y ago
> Just think if this level of marketing, lobbying, and energy Just think if governments made decisions based on evidence, trials and what was best for the populace, not which industry backed lobby shouted loudest and hired the most politicians' friends.

state_less 7y ago

Yes, and I can't talk with other radios either, I need to talk to a provider's cell tower. I have to drop down something ancient like a VHF radio to do peer to peer communication at long range. PS. If I'm wrong, please let me know. I'd love to hear about any developments in long range P2P wireless phones.

rolleiflex 7y ago
I do Aether (P2P Reddit~ish, https://getaether.net https://getaether.net) and I investigated doing something like this over radio mesh networks. Specifically doing it over HAM radio was one of the possibilities. The plan was something like doing anycast over Radio. Turns out, even those bands do have a lot of limitations. For example you cannot use any encryption, which makes most of the modern tools out of the picture because TLS is impossible. There are some workarounds like doing TLS with blank keys, but far as I understand it is dicey so far as legality goes. (The data on Aether is public, but we use encryption tools for authentication of messages.)
- ohazi 7y ago
  What does TLS with blank keys give you over plaintext?
  - mokus 7y ago
    I can see how it’s not obvious, but the parentheses at the end are the answer to that (or maybe they were edited in after your question). You can use TLS without ciphering but with signatures to authenticate messages.
thepete2 7y ago
That's a really stupid thing about cell phones. We all carry these amazing radios with us, but they become completely useless once there is no tower around. Why can't phones be used as walkie-talkies?
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  Because the person you want to contact is unlikely to be within radio distance.
  - thepete2 7y ago
    yes, but how cool would that be?
    - state_less 7y ago
      I think it would be pretty cool too. For those times when you are out of range of a tower and in range of each other, you could chat up your pals out at the campsite or whathaveyou. And if you and your ilk load some kind of meshing or 'router app' on these advanced (non-hobbled) handheld radios, you might have a better chance of getting in touch with that out of range person by routing packets across radios until you're at the internet. Even if you limit the bandwidth to text messages for this feature, it could be a real lifesaver for folks needing to get emergency messages out.
      - Something1234 7y ago
        What about the push to talk feature on some work phones?
      - lawfulcactus 7y ago
        You're effectively talking about APRS[1]. [1] http://www.aprs.org http://www.aprs.org
        state_less 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

> Just think if this level of marketing, lobbying, and energy was channeled into something like a national fiber broadband utility available to everyone. I mean this is pretty much exactly why the government shouldn’t be in charge of deciding how to allocate this investment. Fiber is far less useful than fast wireless. 60% of Maryland has access to fiber. It hasn’t been revolutionary in the least. Most people don’t even subscribe to it, even in high income suburbs. Meanwhile, over 15% of high income households are “mobile only.” I think it’s fair to say that if you are computing using a tablet, you’re probably not benefitting much from fiber. Well, global PC sales peaked in 2010: https://images.app.goo.gl/4jwgmheZhp1S39EZ6 https://images.app.goo.gl/4jwgmheZhp1S39EZ6. Desktop PC sales globally are about the same as they were in 2001. The percentage of people using a computing device that can take advantage of fiber continues to shrink.

wtallis 7y ago
When the "fast wireless" under discussion more or less requires deploying FTTC as the backhaul, consumers definitely stand to benefit from transforming that into a regulated FTTH network instead of being further subjugated by cellular carriers.
- tptacek 7y ago
  Isn't the cost difference between running fiber to base stations and running fiber to individual homes enormous? Just based on the economics: a fiber-lit base station serves anyone nearby with a mobile device, while the infrastructure to support FTTH is a risk (and, apparently, an unprofitable risk) based on how many homes sign up. I don't think base station backhaul and FTTH are comparable investments.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    If we're talking typical suburban housing density, deploying 5G mmWave will require digging trenches or hanging wires on poles through almost as many properties as deploying FTTH. A 5G basestation is going to be a lot more expensive than a GPON ONT, probably enough that the per-customer costs aren't a net win for 5G. (When the fiber is already at the mailbox, taking it down the driveway too just isn't that much more investment.) And the 5G basestation faces the same problem as FTTH that not every person in the neighborhood will be a guaranteed subscriber to any particular provider; even if Verizon/ATT/etc. already has you under contract for your smartphone, they have to work on convincing you to add all your wired devices to the plan. Barring detailed cost estimates to the contrary, I don't see how mmWave will be viable in suburban America. Sub-6GHz 5G will be, but that's not going to be providing dramatic speed upgrades or price/Mbps improvement the way FTTH has. In a denser urban residential setting, mmWave certainly won't have enough penetration to provide solid service to high-rise apartments, and it's even less likely that sub-6GHz 5G will have enough aggregate capacity to kill off wired ISPs. mmWave simply isn't viable for residential/fixed usage, and sub-6 is only an incremental improvement that brings cellular performance up to WiFi speeds, but not beyond.

closeparen 7y ago

What does 5G have to do with public policy? Getting the necessary approvals from the FCC seems like it would be a quiet, technocratic thing. Beyond that, cell carriers' infrastructure is their own business.

altacc 7y ago

> Just think if this level of marketing, lobbying, and energy Just think if governments made decisions based on evidence, trials and what was best for the populace, not which industry backed lobby shouted loudest and hired the most politicians' friends.