5 ms·

One of the driving forces is for every device to have a 5G connection, no wifi needed. Everything will have an IPv6 address soon. I do not agree with any of t

One of the driving forces is for every device to have a 5G connection, no wifi needed. Everything will have an IPv6 address soon. I do not agree with any of that, though.

paranoidrobot 6y ago
I'm thinking about it from a BOM cost, though. Consider the beancounters at the manufacturer: We are shipping a SmartTV, we expect our users to therefore have internet access, because the device is mostly non-working without it. Why would we then include: a cellular radio AND make us pay for a cellular data service on an ongoing basis? Is the data from some small fraction of users who don't already have wifi valuable enough to pay off the hardware and service costs in every other TV? Seems unlikely.
- daniellarusso 6y ago
  I bought the very first Kindle and it came with free Sprint cellular data service. Look at how much an ESP32 can do and what it costs. At scale, the cost of the additional electronics is negligible, especially if it is being subsidized. Nobody is making you pay for service. It will simply send back fingerprints of your screen image and usage data, and can probably load ads, as well.
  - paranoidrobot 6y ago
    Kindles with Whispersync over 2G was subsidised directly by you buying books. You'll note though that getting a Kindle with 3G nowdays means paying for the more expensive models - Paperwhite or Oasis. > Nobody is making you pay for service I think you missed what I said. I was talking from the perspective of a manufacturer. The cost of buying and integration the new hardware, and also an ongoing monthly sim cost for the benefit of getting analytics and ads from a tiny fraction of your userbase that does NOT already have their TV hooked up to wifi is significant, and I doubt it comes close to the added revenue you might get from that fraction of users. That also assumes that those who don't have their Smart TV hooked up to wifi are going to be in cellular range.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    LTE-M1 chips are getting closer to that region. Besides, cars have had it for decades, under “telematics” terminology. Intention is Google Analytics for physical cars, but they OTA, connects to internal CAN bus, technologically not infeasible to cause unintended accelerated drive into walls if taken, and it’s completely on the house, free of any payment.
- donmcronald 6y ago
  You'd only have to pay for cellular data service for devices that don't connect to WiFi. So the only real cost is whatever the modem costs. I think what'll really happen is they'll become always online devices where if you're offline for more than X days they quit working and claim they need an update - please connect to the internet.
- behringer 6y ago
  The same users who would sue you if you took their data. Its just not worth it when 99 percent of the population welcomes the smart TV craze.
narrator 6y ago
I used to rant about these ipv6 privacy concerns back in 2010. Nobody believed me. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1742431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1742431
hunter2_ 6y ago
If a cellular network IoT is the future, why is it blocked by 5G deployment? Seems like it could just happen now with 4G. Does 5G relax the need for a phone number (which I believe all 4G devices have, even if they can't make calls) or something?
- yencabulator 6y ago
  The problem with the "5G" terminology is that it groups a bunch of things together, in a meaningless blob of vague hype. Some of the technologies are specifically intended to give "phone home" connectivity to low-power devices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrowband_IoT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrowband_IoT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE-M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE-M

One of the driving forces is for every device to have a 5G connection, no wifi needed. Everything will have an IPv6 address soon. I do not agree with any of that, though.

paranoidrobot 6y ago

I'm thinking about it from a BOM cost, though. Consider the beancounters at the manufacturer: We are shipping a SmartTV, we expect our users to therefore have internet access, because the device is mostly non-working without it. Why would we then include: a cellular radio AND make us pay for a cellular data service on an ongoing basis? Is the data from some small fraction of users who don't already have wifi valuable enough to pay off the hardware and service costs in every other TV? Seems unlikely.

daniellarusso 6y ago
I bought the very first Kindle and it came with free Sprint cellular data service. Look at how much an ESP32 can do and what it costs. At scale, the cost of the additional electronics is negligible, especially if it is being subsidized. Nobody is making you pay for service. It will simply send back fingerprints of your screen image and usage data, and can probably load ads, as well.
- paranoidrobot 6y ago
  Kindles with Whispersync over 2G was subsidised directly by you buying books. You'll note though that getting a Kindle with 3G nowdays means paying for the more expensive models - Paperwhite or Oasis. > Nobody is making you pay for service I think you missed what I said. I was talking from the perspective of a manufacturer. The cost of buying and integration the new hardware, and also an ongoing monthly sim cost for the benefit of getting analytics and ads from a tiny fraction of your userbase that does NOT already have their TV hooked up to wifi is significant, and I doubt it comes close to the added revenue you might get from that fraction of users. That also assumes that those who don't have their Smart TV hooked up to wifi are going to be in cellular range.
- numpad0 6y ago
  LTE-M1 chips are getting closer to that region. Besides, cars have had it for decades, under “telematics” terminology. Intention is Google Analytics for physical cars, but they OTA, connects to internal CAN bus, technologically not infeasible to cause unintended accelerated drive into walls if taken, and it’s completely on the house, free of any payment.
donmcronald 6y ago
You'd only have to pay for cellular data service for devices that don't connect to WiFi. So the only real cost is whatever the modem costs. I think what'll really happen is they'll become always online devices where if you're offline for more than X days they quit working and claim they need an update - please connect to the internet.
behringer 6y ago
The same users who would sue you if you took their data. Its just not worth it when 99 percent of the population welcomes the smart TV craze.

narrator 6y ago

I used to rant about these ipv6 privacy concerns back in 2010. Nobody believed me. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1742431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1742431

hunter2_ 6y ago

If a cellular network IoT is the future, why is it blocked by 5G deployment? Seems like it could just happen now with 4G. Does 5G relax the need for a phone number (which I believe all 4G devices have, even if they can't make calls) or something?

yencabulator 6y ago
The problem with the "5G" terminology is that it groups a bunch of things together, in a meaningless blob of vague hype. Some of the technologies are specifically intended to give "phone home" connectivity to low-power devices: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrowband_IoT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrowband_IoT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE-M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTE-M