3 ms·

Why shouldn't the three monopoly cellular players in the US do this work themselves? Is there some reason the NSF is doing industry research for them? Are we

Why shouldn't the three monopoly cellular players in the US do this work themselves? Is there some reason the NSF is doing industry research for them? Are we /honestly/ afraid of "falling behind" in cellular technology if the government doesn't do basic research?

dboreham 2y ago
Ah yes the Verizon protocols were such a good contribution to standards.
devmor 2y ago
What US centered industry has continued to innovate new technologies in their fields that have benefits other than increasing shareholder value at all costs?
snowwrestler 2y ago
How is it saving money if the cost is just shifted elsewhere? Why does it matter where the work is done except for empty ideological signaling?
- xyzzy123 2y ago
  The cost would be borne by the consumers of Telcos / wireless services rather than by all taxpayers. The Telcos would allocate funding / resources based on their financial position and their needs. I dunno, tbh maybe the government can do a better job at right-sizing the service and running it efficiently than the private sector could? Maybe! But it feels like most arguments along these lines would also apply to the Telcos themselves, i.e, if government can do a better job why not nationalise the Telcos?
  - mixermachine 2y ago
    Companies develop closed source technology that benefits them (as it is expect). This is done X times (where X is companies that offer services). A government agency does preferably develop open source or atleast nationally available knowledge/solutions. This will raise prices
  - snowwrestler 2y ago
    What we are talking about is basic research, e.g. developing the physics and computer science behind networking. It’s common for governments to fund those types of investigations, and private companies often prefer it that way. It is risky in that the work is open-ended and “wins” are hard to predict. But when they are found, they benefit everyone. And then industry can swing into action commercializing it.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
Spooky23 2y ago
I, for one, prefer the rotary dial.

dboreham 2y ago

Ah yes the Verizon protocols were such a good contribution to standards.

devmor 2y ago

What US centered industry has continued to innovate new technologies in their fields that have benefits other than increasing shareholder value at all costs?

snowwrestler 2y ago

How is it saving money if the cost is just shifted elsewhere? Why does it matter where the work is done except for empty ideological signaling?

xyzzy123 2y ago
The cost would be borne by the consumers of Telcos / wireless services rather than by all taxpayers. The Telcos would allocate funding / resources based on their financial position and their needs. I dunno, tbh maybe the government can do a better job at right-sizing the service and running it efficiently than the private sector could? Maybe! But it feels like most arguments along these lines would also apply to the Telcos themselves, i.e, if government can do a better job why not nationalise the Telcos?
- mixermachine 2y ago
  Companies develop closed source technology that benefits them (as it is expect). This is done X times (where X is companies that offer services). A government agency does preferably develop open source or atleast nationally available knowledge/solutions. This will raise prices
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  What we are talking about is basic research, e.g. developing the physics and computer science behind networking. It’s common for governments to fund those types of investigations, and private companies often prefer it that way. It is risky in that the work is open-ended and “wins” are hard to predict. But when they are found, they benefit everyone. And then industry can swing into action commercializing it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

Spooky23 2y ago

I, for one, prefer the rotary dial.