…

As expected this technique is designed to allow exactly what NN was designed to prohibit (treating packets differentially in the internet based on economic considerations*)... this is IMHO why instead of calling a spade a spade mobile carriers avoid describing this in a useful way, as it is exactly about prioritisation... IMHO that will back fire, and a better avenue would be to be open about what it enables and propose a method to restrict the potential issues. E.g. (I am making this up on the fly, so it will likely not hold up to any degree of scrutiny) by self limiting to never commit more than X% of a cell's capacity to slicing, IFF the cell is used for normal end user service at all. So admit that there is some trade-off here, limit the fall-out, and then describe why we as a society should embrace that trade-off. I am a bit sceptical about the whole car 2 car communication thing (that is cars talk to cars, not people n cars talk to people on cars ;) ), but if a Carrier believes there is value in that for e.g. accident avoidance, then tell how this requires the stricter network guarantees that (only?) slicing can deliver.

[RR] V2X communications for saving lives will NEVER go through ANY carrier’s network in spite of what you hear.  There is simply no way anyone is going to pay to have BSMs broadcast 10 times a second to prevent accidents, and NO CARRIER is going to give that capacity away for free, even if they had enough to carry the traffic, which they do not by many orders of magnitude!!!  More importantly, the information being exchanged does NOT require a network to get where it needs to go!  The 5G hype you hear from various carriers and equipment suppliers related to V2X communications is all powerpoint BS (to make shareholders happy). And there is a ton of it out there! JJ

RR