3 ms·

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 d

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.

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.