3 ms·

Why do you think it isn't a Nash equilibrium? Any actor unilaterally choosing to transmit at lower power is going to experience worse signal quality, even if it

Why do you think it isn't a Nash equilibrium? Any actor unilaterally choosing to transmit at lower power is going to experience worse signal quality, even if it's only marginally worse in some cases.

wtallis 6y ago
> Any actor unilaterally choosing to transmit at lower power is going to experience worse signal quality, even if it's only marginally worse in some cases. Yes, your received signal to noise ratio for that transmission will be somewhat decreased, and that might (or might not) hurt data throughput meaningfully. But it also means that your transmissions are causing less interference for your neighbor(s), and as a result your neighbor's equipment will not have to send as many retransmissions that potentially interfere with your own communications. It's a second-order effect, but also one that's proportional to how many neighbors you have in range that are trying to use the same slice of spectrum. So it's entirely possible that by unilaterally shouting less, you cause a significant reduction in wasted airtime that benefits both sides (though probably benefiting your neighbors more than you, depending on where your priorities lie between throughput and latency). It's not always a zero-sum game. In general (at least for WiFi), it's better to worry about airtime as the scarce resource rather than focusing on bytes per second. For fixed-rate wired networking, transmit time and bytes delivered are exactly proportional, but a variable-rate shared wireless medium decouples the two.
- JustFinishedBSG 6y ago
  While you are right this is still a Nash equilibrium. Nash equilibriums aren't supposed to be "good", they just are equilibriums (ie any actor is worse off by deviating)
  - wtallis 6y ago
    > (ie any actor is worse off by deviating) I don't think you quite understood what I was saying: that decreasing your transmit power can actually lead to better overall network performance for you (and your neighbors) without requiring any corresponding change in strategy from your neighbors. Therefore it is not always an equilibrium (this may depend on the severity of local congestion).
    - alacombe 6y ago
      Only if every ISP cooperate and there is no single one bad actors (eg. individuals) boosting their own transmit power for their own good. Also, TX power is not all about interference: attenuation, there is very good reason to transmit at max power for best wall penetration / range. Even in a suburban/rural setting, with more and more devices connected remotely, you need the range. It's not in a manufacturer best interest to decrease the range of their routers. Only a small fraction of user will look at setting the TX power / investing in a better antenna / setup mesh network. The first reflex will always be "buy a new router". So once again, max legal transmit power is the best overall bet.
      - wtallis 6y ago
        > Only if every ISP cooperate and there is no single one bad actors (eg. individuals) boosting their own transmit power for their own good. Could you please try to re-write that sentence in a way that gives me some indication that you actually read and understood my last two comments? Because it seems like you're simply repeating an assertion without addressing any of the points I brought up, and I'm not sure whether my explanations were inadequate or just unwanted.
        alacombe 6y ago
        The points you brought up are irrelevant to the "effective range" argument. Range requires TX power, so maximum legal range is inherently the same as maximum legal TX power.

Why do you think it isn't a Nash equilibrium? Any actor unilaterally choosing to transmit at lower power is going to experience worse signal quality, even if it's only marginally worse in some cases.

wtallis 6y ago

> Any actor unilaterally choosing to transmit at lower power is going to experience worse signal quality, even if it's only marginally worse in some cases. Yes, your received signal to noise ratio for that transmission will be somewhat decreased, and that might (or might not) hurt data throughput meaningfully. But it also means that your transmissions are causing less interference for your neighbor(s), and as a result your neighbor's equipment will not have to send as many retransmissions that potentially interfere with your own communications. It's a second-order effect, but also one that's proportional to how many neighbors you have in range that are trying to use the same slice of spectrum. So it's entirely possible that by unilaterally shouting less, you cause a significant reduction in wasted airtime that benefits both sides (though probably benefiting your neighbors more than you, depending on where your priorities lie between throughput and latency). It's not always a zero-sum game. In general (at least for WiFi), it's better to worry about airtime as the scarce resource rather than focusing on bytes per second. For fixed-rate wired networking, transmit time and bytes delivered are exactly proportional, but a variable-rate shared wireless medium decouples the two.

JustFinishedBSG 6y ago
While you are right this is still a Nash equilibrium. Nash equilibriums aren't supposed to be "good", they just are equilibriums (ie any actor is worse off by deviating)
- wtallis 6y ago
  > (ie any actor is worse off by deviating) I don't think you quite understood what I was saying: that decreasing your transmit power can actually lead to better overall network performance for you (and your neighbors) without requiring any corresponding change in strategy from your neighbors. Therefore it is not always an equilibrium (this may depend on the severity of local congestion).
  - alacombe 6y ago
    Only if every ISP cooperate and there is no single one bad actors (eg. individuals) boosting their own transmit power for their own good. Also, TX power is not all about interference: attenuation, there is very good reason to transmit at max power for best wall penetration / range. Even in a suburban/rural setting, with more and more devices connected remotely, you need the range. It's not in a manufacturer best interest to decrease the range of their routers. Only a small fraction of user will look at setting the TX power / investing in a better antenna / setup mesh network. The first reflex will always be "buy a new router". So once again, max legal transmit power is the best overall bet.
    - wtallis 6y ago
      > Only if every ISP cooperate and there is no single one bad actors (eg. individuals) boosting their own transmit power for their own good. Could you please try to re-write that sentence in a way that gives me some indication that you actually read and understood my last two comments? Because it seems like you're simply repeating an assertion without addressing any of the points I brought up, and I'm not sure whether my explanations were inadequate or just unwanted.
      - alacombe 6y ago
        The points you brought up are irrelevant to the "effective range" argument. Range requires TX power, so maximum legal range is inherently the same as maximum legal TX power.