[NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading)

[NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading)

[the keyboard of geoff goodfellow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 470 bytes --]

*'Placing unnecessary restrictions on this technology could stifle it in
its infancy,' Verizon wrote of network slicing, in a widening debate
involving the FCC's net neutrality proceeding and new wireless
technologies...*
[...]
https://www.lightreading.com/regulatory-politics/verizon-t-mobile-nokia-get-noisy-on-network-slicing-and-net-neutrality
via
https://twitter.com/mikeddano/status/1766207009106669682

-- 
Geoff.Goodfellow@iconia.com
living as The Truth is True

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1710 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading)

[Livingood, Jason]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1760 bytes --]

I find it difficult to imagine a lot of consumer use cases for this (and find it another rather complex 3GPP spec). I can see some enterprise, industrial, and event (e.g. sports venue) use cases - but those seem like simple give X devices priority over Y devices sorts of scenarios.
________________________________
From: Nnagain <nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 5:08:28 PM
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Cc: the keyboard of geoff goodfellow <geoff@iconia.com>
Subject: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading)

'Placing unnecessary restrictions on this technology could stifle it in its infancy,' Verizon wrote of network slicing, in a widening debate involving the FCC's net neutrality proceeding and new wireless technologies...
[...]
https://www.lightreading.com/regulatory-politics/verizon-t-mobile-nokia-get-noisy-on-network-slicing-and-net-neutrality<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.lightreading.com/regulatory-politics/verizon-t-mobile-nokia-get-noisy-on-network-slicing-and-net-neutrality__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Cco-2y5APq2qA34gWl-3semjgX4nCU2MUxcXbp31NDgbY6cNJ7Kes3JaTaDZZ6SZwjyiYAKjrN0PgpNlR_efbRPRcra8VvVw$>
via
https://twitter.com/mikeddano/status/1766207009106669682<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://twitter.com/mikeddano/status/1766207009106669682__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Cco-2y5APq2qA34gWl-3semjgX4nCU2MUxcXbp31NDgbY6cNJ7Kes3JaTaDZZ6SZwjyiYAKjrN0PgpNlR_efbRPRcq3TfLy0$>

--
Geoff.Goodfellow@iconia.com<mailto:Geoff.Goodfellow@iconia.com>
living as The Truth is True


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3340 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading)

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Jason.

> On 9. Mar 2024, at 00:30, Livingood, Jason via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> I find it difficult to imagine a lot of consumer use cases for this (and find it another rather complex 3GPP spec). I can see some enterprise, industrial, and event (e.g. sports venue) use cases - but those seem like simple give X devices priority over Y devices sorts of scenarios. 

[SM] Looking at the wikipedia article on slicing I see:
"Network slicing emerges as an essential technique in 5G networks to accommodate such different and possibly contrasting quality of service (QoS) requirements exploiting a single physical network infrastructure.[1][13]
[...]
Impact and applications
In commercial terms, network slicing allows a mobile operator to create specific virtual networks that cater to particular clients and use cases. Certain applications - such as mobile broadband, machine-to-machine communications (e.g. in manufacturing or logistics), or smart cars - will benefit from leveraging different aspects of 5G technology. One might require higher speeds, another low latency, and yet another access to edge computingresources. By creating separate slices that prioritise specific resources a 5G operator can offer tailored solutions to particular industries.[14][15]: 3  Some sources insist this will revolutionise industries like marketing, augmented reality, or mobile gaming,[16][17] while others are more cautious, pointing to unevenness in network coverage and poor reach of advantages beyond increased speed.[18][19]"

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.

Personally I still think this is not an attractive proposition, but I am not the audience for that anyway; the relevant regulatory agency and the legislative is.

Regards
	Sebastian

*) This is a (too) short condensation of the rationale of the EU for stepping into the NN debate.

> From: Nnagain <nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 5:08:28 PM
> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Cc: the keyboard of geoff goodfellow <geoff@iconia.com>
> Subject: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading)   'Placing unnecessary restrictions on this technology could stifle it in its infancy,' Verizon wrote of network slicing, in a widening debate involving the FCC's net neutrality proceeding and new wireless technologies...
> [...]
> https://www.lightreading.com/regulatory-politics/verizon-t-mobile-nokia-get-noisy-on-network-slicing-and-net-neutrality
> via
> https://twitter.com/mikeddano/status/1766207009106669682
> 
> -- 
> Geoff.Goodfellow@iconia.com
> living as The Truth is True
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading)

[Dick Roy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1883 bytes --]

 

 

…

 

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! :-):-)

 

RR


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4357 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading)

[Robert McMahon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2713 bytes --]



What is DSRC?


DSRC (Dedicated Short-Range Communications) is a wireless communication technology that enables vehicles to communicate with each other and other road users directly, without involving cellular or other infrastructure. DSRC is based on WiFi technology



⁣https://auto-talks.com/technology/dsrc-technology/#:~:text=What%20is%20DSRC%3F,involving%20cellular%20or%20other%20infrastructure.

On Mar 9, 2024, 12:42 PM, at 12:42 PM, Dick Roy via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>…>
>
>
>
>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! :-):-)
>
>
>
>RR
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Nnagain mailing list
>Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5903 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading)

[Dick Roy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3921 bytes --]

 

 

  _____  

From: Robert McMahon [mailto:rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2024 12:58 PM
To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu; Dick Roy via Nnagain
Subject: Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing
and net neutrality (LightReading)

 

 

What is DSRC?

[RR] Don't get me started! :-(:-(:-(  Very simply it is the optimal
technology for V2X comms (it is in over 11 billion devices on the planet
today . aka Wi-Fi at 5.9GHz . think 802.11a) that has been shelved here in
the US (temporarily if I have anything to say about it) in favor of an
8-year old technology that does not work and on which a single company has a
majority of the IPR.  Surprise, surprise, that company has invested 100's of
millions of dollars to execute this con job, and unfortunately it's working.
DSRC products were available more than 8 years ago and would have been on
the roads today (and in handsets) in large numbers saving lives, but that
wasn't good enough for that company because they stand to get >10x in
royalty fees if and when the FCC mandates their technology.  When the
general public becomes aware of this con, and fully understands the impact,
they should be and will be outraged! Think "DOWNFALL: The Case Against
Boeing"  . it's exactly the same thing . just the names have been changed.
Watch it if you haven't already!

Contact me if you want more details!  I am looking for any and ALL help I
can get to expose this fraud.

Cheers,

RR 





DSRC (Dedicated Short-Range Communications) is a wireless communication
technology that enables vehicles to communicate with each other and other
road users directly, without involving cellular or other infrastructure.
DSRC is based on WiFi technology




https://auto-talks.com/technology/dsrc-technology/#:~:text=What%20is%20DSRC%
3F,involving%20cellular%20or%20other%20infrastructure.

On Mar 9, 2024, at 12:42 PM, Dick Roy via Nnagain
<nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

 

 

.

 

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! :-):-)

 

RR






  _____  






Nnagain mailing list


Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net


https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 11429 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading)

[Vint Cerf]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4581 bytes --]

How do you know where the vehicle is that you are talking to?

V

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024, 17:26 Dick Roy via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Robert McMahon [mailto:rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 9, 2024 12:58 PM
> *To:* dickroy@alum.mit.edu; Dick Roy via Nnagain
> *Subject:* Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network
> slicing and net neutrality (LightReading)
>
>
>
>
>
> What is DSRC?
>
> *[RR] Don’t get me started! **LLL**  Very simply it is the optimal
> technology for V2X comms (it is in over 11 billion devices on the planet
> today … aka Wi-Fi at 5.9GHz … think 802.11a) that has been shelved here in
> the US (temporarily if I have anything to say about it) in favor of an
> 8-year old technology that does not work and on which a single company has
> a majority of the IPR.  Surprise, surprise, that company has invested 100’s
> of millions of dollars to execute this con job, and unfortunately it’s
> working.  DSRC products were available more than 8 years ago and would have
> been on the roads today (and in handsets) in large numbers saving lives,
> but that wasn’t good enough for that company because they stand to get >10x
> in royalty fees if and when the FCC mandates their technology.  When the
> general public becomes aware of this con, and fully understands the impact,
> they should be and will be outraged! Think “DOWNFALL: The Case Against
> Boeing”  … it’s exactly the same thing … just the names have been changed.
> Watch it if you haven’t already!*
>
> *Contact me if you want more details!  I am looking for any and ALL help I
> can get to expose this fraud.*
>
> *Cheers,*
>
> *RR *
>
>
>
> DSRC (Dedicated Short-Range Communications) is a wireless communication
> technology that enables vehicles to communicate with each other and other
> road users directly, without involving cellular or other infrastructure.
> DSRC is based on WiFi technology
>
>
>
> https://auto-talks.com/technology/dsrc-technology/#:~:text=What%20is%20DSRC%3F,involving%20cellular%20or%20other%20infrastructure
> .
>
> On Mar 9, 2024, at 12:42 PM, Dick Roy via Nnagain <
> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> …
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 10727 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4006 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading)

[Dick Roy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7402 bytes --]

V: That’s a fascinating question on so many fronts.  The number of
life-saving applications enabled by this simple scheme I will describe below
is huge (google CVRIA and you’ll get to
https://www.standards.its.dot.gov/developmentactivities/cvreference) where
you can spend hours or days!  

 

That said, V2X (which involves V to pedestrians, roadsides, personal devices
(aka iPhones) and more) communications is absolutely dominated (by many
orders of magnitude) by the following very simple scheme.  Here-I-am
messages (aka BSMs or Basic Safety Messages and their lookalikes) are
broadcast several times every second which sends to all receivers that are
in comm range, estimates of the sender’s kinematic state and a lot of other
stuff I don’t have time to go into.  So the direct answer to your question
is: vehicles rarely talk directly to other vehicles, and when that becomes
necessary the vehicles know where each other are!  That, however, is not
really as relevant as knowing the layer-2 (aka MAC) addresses which also
happen to be in every stream (aka every DSRC packet transmitted OTA).  And
yes, local area networks in cars and roadside units can be involved in which
case layer-3 addresses (aka IP addresses) are also used.   Naturally this
technology can also be used as the first/last hop in a connecting to the
internet for hundreds of other purposes, or other access technologies
(google ITS station or simply think iPhone) can be and are used!  FTR, the
ITS station predates the iPhone! :-):-):-) 

 

There are hundreds of international standards detailing exactly how this is
done, and until a year ago, there were products on the roads in the US DOING
IT! Interestingly, the EU didn’t fall for the con so they actually have
millions of units in the field and more getting deployed every day. Here in
the US, we just seem to want to get hosed by a big corporation while the
government sits by and watches 50,000 people a year die on our roads
needlessly. Stunningly, we (the US) are currently far behind the state of
play in this space that we were in over a decade ago … yes more than 10
years and billions of dollars have been wasted.  Didn’t have to be this way,
but here we are.  People needlessly die every day on the roads and that
corporation’s market cap continues to climb! We (the US) are currently
experiencing another CDMA con job (aka square peg in a round hole with lots
of IPR) and no one seems to know or care. What is wrong with this
picture???? :-(:-(

 

Again, if you (the reader) have any interest in trying to “right this ship”,
feel free to contact me!

 

RR

 

  _____  

From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint@google.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2024 3:03 PM
To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu; Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the
technical aspects heard this time!
Cc: Robert McMahon
Subject: Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing
and net neutrality (LightReading)

 

How do you know where the vehicle is that you are talking to?

 

V

 

On Sat, Mar 9, 2024, 17:26 Dick Roy via Nnagain
<nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

 

 


  _____  


From: Robert McMahon [mailto:rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2024 12:58 PM
To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu; Dick Roy via Nnagain
Subject: Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing
and net neutrality (LightReading)

 

 

What is DSRC?

[RR] Don’t get me started! :-(:-(:-(  Very simply it is the optimal
technology for V2X comms (it is in over 11 billion devices on the planet
today … aka Wi-Fi at 5.9GHz … think 802.11a) that has been shelved here in
the US (temporarily if I have anything to say about it) in favor of an
8-year old technology that does not work and on which a single company has a
majority of the IPR.  Surprise, surprise, that company has invested 100’s of
millions of dollars to execute this con job, and unfortunately it’s working.
DSRC products were available more than 8 years ago and would have been on
the roads today (and in handsets) in large numbers saving lives, but that
wasn’t good enough for that company because they stand to get >10x in
royalty fees if and when the FCC mandates their technology.  When the
general public becomes aware of this con, and fully understands the impact,
they should be and will be outraged! Think “DOWNFALL: The Case Against
Boeing”  … it’s exactly the same thing … just the names have been changed.
Watch it if you haven’t already!

Contact me if you want more details!  I am looking for any and ALL help I
can get to expose this fraud.

Cheers,

RR 

 

DSRC (Dedicated Short-Range Communications) is a wireless communication
technology that enables vehicles to communicate with each other and other
road users directly, without involving cellular or other infrastructure.
DSRC is based on WiFi technology



https://auto-talks.com/technology/dsrc-technology/#:~:text=What%20is%20DSRC%
3F,involving%20cellular%20or%20other%20infrastructure.

On Mar 9, 2024, at 12:42 PM, Dick Roy via Nnagain
<nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

 

 

…

 

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! :-):-)

 

RR

 
 





  _____  



 
 







Nnagain mailing list






Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net






https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 21030 bytes --]