China's 5G and fiber future, and potential impacts to the U.S.
March 6, 2019 8:57 AM Subscribe
China Will Likely Corner the 5G Market—and the US Has No Plan -- in which Susan Crawford, an Ideas contributor for WIRED, a professor at Harvard Law School, and author of Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution—and Why America Might Miss It (Yale Books), outlines how the U.S. can respond to impacts from China's Belt and Road Initiative (Wikipedia), which will include a fiber-optic silk road (The Diplomat) that "will allow China to do this across huge territories that 65 percent of the global population calls home" and allow Huawei, Now World’s Largest Telecom Equipment-Maker (Caixin), to set new global standards.
Cut to the ending:
Except China can’t control the market in rare earth elements because they aren’t all that rare (The Verge)
Cut to the ending:
Luckily, nearly 800 municipalities and cooperatives across the US are showing us the way. Sick of the expensive and second-rate connectivity they've been stuck with by federal policy failures, which have left most urban areas dominated by local cable monopolies charging whatever they want for whatever services they want to provide, and rural areas out in the cold almost entirely, they've taken matters into their own hands and called for the installation of fiber-optic cables. We need this policy issue to be on the radar screen at every level of government in America.None of this addresses How China is locking up critical resources in the US’s own backyard (Mining.com), noted in the beginning of the Wired article.
Here's what should happen: Publicly controlled fiber-optic cables should form a kind of wholesale street-grid, available for lease under nondiscriminatory terms to private operators who sell services. Government doesn't need to control connectivity; we are not China. Ideally, government should require frequent, open interconnection points for competing 5G operators to hang their gear on this street-grid made of glass, so that no one operator can pick which services succeed in a particular geographic area. Again, we shouldn't replicate the domineering ways of China's Huawei.
Above all, we need a plan. Right now we don't have one.
Except China can’t control the market in rare earth elements because they aren’t all that rare (The Verge)
And although China seems to wield great power over this critical global supply chain, the truth is that the country can’t just bring the West to its knees by limiting the export of rare earth elements. We know this pretty conclusively because it tried this in 2010, and it didn’t work out (io9). In both cases, the overlooked factor is just how difficult it is to produce rare earth elements, compared to how easy it is to find them.In short, rare earth elements are not so hard to find, but the process of isolating those elements is “expensive, difficult, and dangerous,” says former rare earth trader and freelance journalist Tim Worstall. He told The Verge that, because of this, the West has been more or less happy to cede production of rare earths to China.
A crucial element of 5G is to give wireless companies the ability to monetize their services more effectively, to ensure they’ll never again be treated like "dumb pipes" by online businesses they don't control. For carriers or network providers, the great advance of 5G is “network slicing,” which will allow carriers to create, on the fly, multiple customized virtual private networks for particular customers or applications. This will create a high-priced, services-based, perfectly-billed-for ecosystem that’s very different from the 4G world.
Based on this paragraph I'm hoping the end result of all this is that the US gets frozen out of 5G and we just don't upgrade, like how we're just never going to make the jump to chip-and-PIN credit cards. Everything about 5G sounds either useless or outright horrific.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:11 AM on March 6, 2019 [13 favorites]
Based on this paragraph I'm hoping the end result of all this is that the US gets frozen out of 5G and we just don't upgrade, like how we're just never going to make the jump to chip-and-PIN credit cards. Everything about 5G sounds either useless or outright horrific.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:11 AM on March 6, 2019 [13 favorites]
Yeah. That's cute and all, but the US is doing low orbit, low latency satellite internet constellations/swarms without censorship, and it will get here before 5G, as incumbent telcoms suck. Y'all have a nice day, Tibet is not China and the Goddess of Democracy still stands in Tienanmen Square and Nixon says hello.
I mean, I do despair at our fate as a nation in the USA sometimes, but China really still has a long way to go to catch up with neighboring nations. Hell, they're still trying to catch up to Apple. The Orwellian shit ain't helping them any.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:23 AM on March 6, 2019 [3 favorites]
I mean, I do despair at our fate as a nation in the USA sometimes, but China really still has a long way to go to catch up with neighboring nations. Hell, they're still trying to catch up to Apple. The Orwellian shit ain't helping them any.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:23 AM on March 6, 2019 [3 favorites]
Sick of the expensive and second-rate connectivity they've been stuck with by federal policy failures, which have left most urban areas dominated by local cable monopolies charging whatever they want for whatever services they want to provide, and rural areas out in the cold almost entirely, they've taken matters into their own hands and called for the installation of fiber-optic cables.
Well, that's great, but the reason local cable monopolies can get away with charging whatever they want for whatever services they want to provide, and leaving rural areas out in the cold almost entirely is because they have pretty much total regulatory capture at the FCC and at the state level. Because of this, in quite a few states, municipal telecom systems are explicitly illegal. Where they aren't public ballot initiatives pushing municipal systems have been ratfucked into oblivion by Comcast or AT&T with massive disinformation campaigns and drop in the bucket service upgrades meant to make them seem less attractive. I mean I was covering this movement a lifetime ago in the 90s. It was a quixotic effort then and it's a quixotic effort now. Especially since Google seems to have lost interest.
They can call for it all they want.
posted by Naberius at 9:24 AM on March 6, 2019 [3 favorites]
Well, that's great, but the reason local cable monopolies can get away with charging whatever they want for whatever services they want to provide, and leaving rural areas out in the cold almost entirely is because they have pretty much total regulatory capture at the FCC and at the state level. Because of this, in quite a few states, municipal telecom systems are explicitly illegal. Where they aren't public ballot initiatives pushing municipal systems have been ratfucked into oblivion by Comcast or AT&T with massive disinformation campaigns and drop in the bucket service upgrades meant to make them seem less attractive. I mean I was covering this movement a lifetime ago in the 90s. It was a quixotic effort then and it's a quixotic effort now. Especially since Google seems to have lost interest.
They can call for it all they want.
posted by Naberius at 9:24 AM on March 6, 2019 [3 favorites]
I wonder if the US had thought to bug internet connections on such a base level like China, would they have been more interested in better infrastructure? Too little too late anyway, China looking like it's scoring a few more superpower points with this move. This is going to be a bleak internet landscape. Net neutrality dead, China monitoring and censoring, corporations doing the same.
posted by GoblinHoney at 9:26 AM on March 6, 2019
posted by GoblinHoney at 9:26 AM on March 6, 2019
Meanwhile, in Vancouver, Huawei exec faces extradition to the U.S., with China retaliating against Canada.
posted by No Robots at 9:29 AM on March 6, 2019
posted by No Robots at 9:29 AM on March 6, 2019
I'm hoping the end result of all this is that the US gets frozen out of 5G and we just don't upgrade
"Dumb pipes" might be bad for quality of service - even though things like video calls are much better than they used to be, they're still not perfect. But "dumb pipes" are what we need for net neutrality.
like how we're just never going to make the jump to chip-and-PIN credit cards
I have no idea what's holding that up. It's been 15 years since that came into effect in Canada, and today I can use tap or Apple Pay almost anywhere, even little rural stores that have updated nothing for decades except their payment processing
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 9:29 AM on March 6, 2019 [3 favorites]
"Dumb pipes" might be bad for quality of service - even though things like video calls are much better than they used to be, they're still not perfect. But "dumb pipes" are what we need for net neutrality.
like how we're just never going to make the jump to chip-and-PIN credit cards
I have no idea what's holding that up. It's been 15 years since that came into effect in Canada, and today I can use tap or Apple Pay almost anywhere, even little rural stores that have updated nothing for decades except their payment processing
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 9:29 AM on March 6, 2019 [3 favorites]
Dumb pipes are fine for quality of service. Telecoms that want to take over the Internet are bad for quality of service (and also net neutrality).
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:32 AM on March 6, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:32 AM on March 6, 2019 [8 favorites]
Speaking as an engineer, let me say that 5G is just the latest buzzword--meaning clueless executives can talk about it and make it sound like they are doing something and the equally clueless press eats it up. It used to be 'The Cloud'. Everyone thinks they are doing something and working hard and everyone is happy. If the Chinese are 'winning 5G' then all that means is they are just winning the buzzword war. There's a reality underneath that has almost nothing to do with what is being talked about in the press and this Wired article is one of the worst.
What is 5G from a technical point of view? Primarily it is really just a different way to encode cell phone signals that is a little more efficient. That's all it is. 5G can, but doesn't have to be, sent on millimeter waves. If you ignore millimeter waves, then you can convert all cell phone frequencies to 5G coding--TMobile is converting their lowest speed signals (600MHz) to 5G. Of course that means you'll eventually have to get a new phone.
5G can also go on millimeter waves, much higher than have been used before for cell phones. They can handle a lot more data but can be blocked by almost anything (like windows), which is why Verizon is using millimeter waves as a way to get home internet from the street to the house with fixed antennas.
The Wired article goes into so many different topics, calling them all 5G, that it made my head spin. It talked about wiring up the country with fiber, which is great. It talked about China's Belt and Road, without mentioning how imperialist it is and how, like most large centrally controlled government initiatives, it is mostly failing. It talked about Huawei, without once mentioning all the controversy about this company.
None of these things are '5G'. And the article reads like a press release from the Chinese government.
posted by eye of newt at 9:34 AM on March 6, 2019 [29 favorites]
What is 5G from a technical point of view? Primarily it is really just a different way to encode cell phone signals that is a little more efficient. That's all it is. 5G can, but doesn't have to be, sent on millimeter waves. If you ignore millimeter waves, then you can convert all cell phone frequencies to 5G coding--TMobile is converting their lowest speed signals (600MHz) to 5G. Of course that means you'll eventually have to get a new phone.
5G can also go on millimeter waves, much higher than have been used before for cell phones. They can handle a lot more data but can be blocked by almost anything (like windows), which is why Verizon is using millimeter waves as a way to get home internet from the street to the house with fixed antennas.
The Wired article goes into so many different topics, calling them all 5G, that it made my head spin. It talked about wiring up the country with fiber, which is great. It talked about China's Belt and Road, without mentioning how imperialist it is and how, like most large centrally controlled government initiatives, it is mostly failing. It talked about Huawei, without once mentioning all the controversy about this company.
None of these things are '5G'. And the article reads like a press release from the Chinese government.
posted by eye of newt at 9:34 AM on March 6, 2019 [29 favorites]
On my Facebook feed, the only information being shared about 5G is how it's going to give us cancer and will kill us all.
posted by NoMich at 9:46 AM on March 6, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by NoMich at 9:46 AM on March 6, 2019 [5 favorites]
China can try to take the world on a 5G fiber-optic silk road trip but so long as there's the assumption of zero security thanks to the state running the businesses that enable the technology, nobody's going to sign up for that.
posted by allkindsoftime at 9:47 AM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by allkindsoftime at 9:47 AM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
They will if they ever want to get on an airplane again.
posted by Naberius at 10:14 AM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Naberius at 10:14 AM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
eye of newt, can you talk a bit more about how China's Belt and Road initiative is failing? It seems like all I've heard is the opposite, but I've not followed this closely.
posted by facehugger at 10:21 AM on March 6, 2019
posted by facehugger at 10:21 AM on March 6, 2019
A quick search turned up this overview/opinion: China's Belt And Road Initiative Faces Obstacles in 2019 (A commentary by Dan Southerland for Radio Free Asia, Jan. 15, 2019)
I should have looked into RBI more before posting this. It seems to be more of a review of the theoretical impact of the final roll-out of the Belt and Road Initiative, if it were to be as expansive and connected as proposed.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:38 AM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
China is confronting multiple setbacks, flaws, and failures in President Xi Jinping’s ambitious overseas infrastructure project—the Belt and Road Initiative.Link to that referenced report: China's Belt and Road Is Full Of Holes (Jonathan E. Hillman for Center for Strategic & International Studies, September 4, 2018)
Experts note that more than five years after its launch, three of the six economic corridors planned for the massive initiative, often referred to as the BRI, lack any Chinese-funded major projects.
And it appears that the BRI isn’t as well organized as some believe it to be.
...
In an analysis published on Sept. 4, 2018, by CSIS, Hillman wrote that since the BRI was launched in 2013, it “has yet to materialize on the ground as promised.”
The BRI includes six economic corridors, but Hillman says that a statistical analysis of 173 infrastructure projects finds that “Chinese investment is just as likely to go outside these corridors than in them.
In his analysis, Hillman argued that much of the BRI’s activity looked more “scattered and opportunistic” than part of a well-implemented grand design.
I should have looked into RBI more before posting this. It seems to be more of a review of the theoretical impact of the final roll-out of the Belt and Road Initiative, if it were to be as expansive and connected as proposed.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:38 AM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
STOKAB, A SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (PDF Download), 61 pages
"For almost 20 years, the City of Stockholm, via Stokab, has invested 5.4 billion SEK (over €600 million) in the development of an open, operator-neutral fibre network for everyone.
...
Stockholm vs. Copenhagen
Stockholm and Copenhagen are relatively similar in terms of size, population and economy. It is particularly interesting to compare the broadband situation in the two cities, since diametrically opposite conclusions were reached in connection with the deregulation of the telecom market, as to who
should own the ICT infrastructure and how this should be organised.
Stockholm chose, as already described, to view the ICT infrastructure as something that should be accessible to everyone and be delivered by a neutral player in order to create competition. Copenhagen opted, like most of Europe, to see the ICT infrastructure as the direct prerogative of the market and telecom operators. This has resulted in the incumbent player TDC being the one who owns and controls most of the ICT infrastructure in Copenhagen.
After about 20 years, it is interesting to see what differentiates the two cities. Regarding the development of the fibre network, barely 20% of multi-dwelling units in Copenhagen are connected, to be compared with more than 90% in Stockholm. This means that in Stockholm there are considerably more people that can get high speed broadband, and the cost for a broadband provider to reach customers is lower because the passive infrastructure (representing around 80% of total investment) is already there. Even the price of dark fibre, the basic ICT infrastructure, is significantly lower in Stockholm than in Copenhagen for both consumers and enterprises.
While in Stockholm all those who need fibre can design their network structure themselves, in Copenhagen the design possibility is heavily limited because the dominant player chose to build a the network frugally, and designed to meet their own service-delivery needs. The result is a fibre-poor network, which decreases flexibility and design possibility drastically for other operators. The low level of fibre deployment in Copenhagen also affects the
possibility of symmetric high-speed broadband connection. Hence, while broadband at 100 Mb/s speed both downstream and upstream is common for the majority of residents in Stockholm, it is virtually impossible for households in Copenhagen. Moreover, the price of an asymmetric broadband connection (with low upstream speed) in Copenhagen is almost twice the price of a symmetric broadband connection (with high upstream) speed in Stockholm.
This has also a strong impact on the business climate, as the possibilities for data communication are crucial for the business creation. It is symptomatic for instance, that more and more international enterprises have chosen to locate their Scandinavian headquarters in Stockholm: in 2009, Stockholm had 69% more establishments than Copenhagen (compared to 10% in 2006)."
posted by Julianna Mckannis at 10:39 AM on March 6, 2019 [15 favorites]
"For almost 20 years, the City of Stockholm, via Stokab, has invested 5.4 billion SEK (over €600 million) in the development of an open, operator-neutral fibre network for everyone.
...
Stockholm vs. Copenhagen
Stockholm and Copenhagen are relatively similar in terms of size, population and economy. It is particularly interesting to compare the broadband situation in the two cities, since diametrically opposite conclusions were reached in connection with the deregulation of the telecom market, as to who
should own the ICT infrastructure and how this should be organised.
Stockholm chose, as already described, to view the ICT infrastructure as something that should be accessible to everyone and be delivered by a neutral player in order to create competition. Copenhagen opted, like most of Europe, to see the ICT infrastructure as the direct prerogative of the market and telecom operators. This has resulted in the incumbent player TDC being the one who owns and controls most of the ICT infrastructure in Copenhagen.
After about 20 years, it is interesting to see what differentiates the two cities. Regarding the development of the fibre network, barely 20% of multi-dwelling units in Copenhagen are connected, to be compared with more than 90% in Stockholm. This means that in Stockholm there are considerably more people that can get high speed broadband, and the cost for a broadband provider to reach customers is lower because the passive infrastructure (representing around 80% of total investment) is already there. Even the price of dark fibre, the basic ICT infrastructure, is significantly lower in Stockholm than in Copenhagen for both consumers and enterprises.
While in Stockholm all those who need fibre can design their network structure themselves, in Copenhagen the design possibility is heavily limited because the dominant player chose to build a the network frugally, and designed to meet their own service-delivery needs. The result is a fibre-poor network, which decreases flexibility and design possibility drastically for other operators. The low level of fibre deployment in Copenhagen also affects the
possibility of symmetric high-speed broadband connection. Hence, while broadband at 100 Mb/s speed both downstream and upstream is common for the majority of residents in Stockholm, it is virtually impossible for households in Copenhagen. Moreover, the price of an asymmetric broadband connection (with low upstream speed) in Copenhagen is almost twice the price of a symmetric broadband connection (with high upstream) speed in Stockholm.
This has also a strong impact on the business climate, as the possibilities for data communication are crucial for the business creation. It is symptomatic for instance, that more and more international enterprises have chosen to locate their Scandinavian headquarters in Stockholm: in 2009, Stockholm had 69% more establishments than Copenhagen (compared to 10% in 2006)."
posted by Julianna Mckannis at 10:39 AM on March 6, 2019 [15 favorites]
Well, eye of newt, the stuff I have seen about 5G implementations also calls for tons of smaller antennae, mounted high up and pointing down on all of us. Some are on buildings, some on towers -- wherever you can get height. (Insert joke here about Nebraska being frozen out of the market due to being too flat.)
But yeah, "And the article reads like a press release from the Chinese government." I hear you there.
posted by wenestvedt at 10:42 AM on March 6, 2019
But yeah, "And the article reads like a press release from the Chinese government." I hear you there.
posted by wenestvedt at 10:42 AM on March 6, 2019
I want dumb pipes.
I do not want my water company to track how much hot vs cold water I'm using and charge me based on how different that is from my neighbors. I don't want my electrical outlets to adjust either my cost or the amount of electricity available based on whether I plug in a lamp or a laptop. I don't want drugstores to charge me differently for aspirin based on whether I'm using it for headaches or a heart condition.
I want distributors to be purpose-agnostic. They should be charging by amount used, and potentially by time of access; there is no need for internet services to change pricing based on what URLs you visit, and no benefit whatsoever to the customers.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:03 AM on March 6, 2019 [14 favorites]
I do not want my water company to track how much hot vs cold water I'm using and charge me based on how different that is from my neighbors. I don't want my electrical outlets to adjust either my cost or the amount of electricity available based on whether I plug in a lamp or a laptop. I don't want drugstores to charge me differently for aspirin based on whether I'm using it for headaches or a heart condition.
I want distributors to be purpose-agnostic. They should be charging by amount used, and potentially by time of access; there is no need for internet services to change pricing based on what URLs you visit, and no benefit whatsoever to the customers.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:03 AM on March 6, 2019 [14 favorites]
my understanding is that BRI is basically a way for china to extort strategically located countries into giving it access to military bases, and also more generally to grant china a sphere of influence there based on its investments.
if the local govts feel beholden to china due to its spending/investment, and/or blackmail type arrangements with local pols and businesspeople, then it hardly matters if all the stuff china builds there (incldg 5G or fiber infrastructure) is shit and doesnt work. it's a mercantilist, imperial deal, not a consumer-oriented one.
the US response, of course, should be to empasize the rights of the individual (or more cynically, the consumer) in these places in contradistinction to china. but instead, the repubs are just doing their best wannabe china impression, wishing their grip on the US and its allies was as firm as Xi's is over china. pathetic.
posted by wibari at 1:11 PM on March 6, 2019 [2 favorites]
if the local govts feel beholden to china due to its spending/investment, and/or blackmail type arrangements with local pols and businesspeople, then it hardly matters if all the stuff china builds there (incldg 5G or fiber infrastructure) is shit and doesnt work. it's a mercantilist, imperial deal, not a consumer-oriented one.
the US response, of course, should be to empasize the rights of the individual (or more cynically, the consumer) in these places in contradistinction to china. but instead, the repubs are just doing their best wannabe china impression, wishing their grip on the US and its allies was as firm as Xi's is over china. pathetic.
posted by wibari at 1:11 PM on March 6, 2019 [2 favorites]
Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, "5G" is a buzzword that's been overloaded almost all the way to uselessness. When someone talks about "5G", it's not at all clear what they're talking about. It's marketingspeak at best.
Also the idea of a "5G gap" seems a little... missile-gap-y to me. If it results in the government putting money into data infrastructure, or building out more publicly-owned backbone routes or FTTP or whatever, I'm all for it—it's much higher ROI than building missiles, certainly!—but I think we need to look at the actual capabilities that customers either have or don't have as a result of this alleged gap, before we go into a national panic.
Increasing cellular tower density with low-powered micro/pico/femtocells, and starting to take advantage of millimeter-wave bands, is cool. I'm not convinced it's going to be some game-changing technology in terms of people's everyday lives, but more bandwidth is always nice; people will figure out what to do with bandwidth, and it'll probably be neat. Assuming they can afford to, and it's not just one more source of rents for giant telco firms.
There's a weird (again, mostly marketing) tie-in between 5G and "IoT", which is also an unhelpful term for "things that probably shouldn't be connected to the Internet but are". I don't really see the logical connection between 5G and IoT, particularly since the mm-wave bands aren't obviously well-suited to the sort of low-power, intermediate to long range, low data rate communications that unmanned sensor networks and other "things" generally need. If you want every goddamn streetlight to be Internet-enabled (for some stupid reason), what you probably want is very cheap connectivity on 600-800 MHz. If I didn't totally distrust the cellcos, I'd say what you really want is a QoS tranche system where you could pay less for non-time-critical, asynchronous data transmission. E.g. receiving data from sensors, or sending commands out to [thing], where you don't care if it takes an extra second or two for bandwidth to open up.
Anyway, my prediction is that we're going to look back and see a single global Internet, "the Internet", as a neat idea that only lasted until states realized how important it was, and started paying attention. Never again are states going to just let the nerds run around without somebody pointing a gun at their collective necks from behind. Right now there are effectively two Internets: the Chinese Internet and Everyone Else's Internet. But the Russians (well, certain elements of the Russian government, anyway, and in an authoritarian country that's all that matters) apparently envy the Chinese their control, and are interested in going that route. I'm sure other countries will follow, for more or less shitty reasons. (E.g. the Eurozone could end up with its own Internet as a result of data privacy laws. Better motivations, but same outcome.) It will be interesting to see at what level of the protocol stack these parallel Internets decide to build their fences. Hopefully they'll at least keep agreement on IP routing and addressing, but I could imagine countries deciding, when IPv4 addresses are finally 100% exhausted, that segmenting the network is cheaper than migrating to IPv6. (E.g. the Russians start looking enviously at all the /8 blocks the US government and major US corporations hold, and decide to "reuse" those blocks within their own network. TBH I'm surprised this hasn't already happened.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:01 PM on March 6, 2019 [5 favorites]
Also the idea of a "5G gap" seems a little... missile-gap-y to me. If it results in the government putting money into data infrastructure, or building out more publicly-owned backbone routes or FTTP or whatever, I'm all for it—it's much higher ROI than building missiles, certainly!—but I think we need to look at the actual capabilities that customers either have or don't have as a result of this alleged gap, before we go into a national panic.
Increasing cellular tower density with low-powered micro/pico/femtocells, and starting to take advantage of millimeter-wave bands, is cool. I'm not convinced it's going to be some game-changing technology in terms of people's everyday lives, but more bandwidth is always nice; people will figure out what to do with bandwidth, and it'll probably be neat. Assuming they can afford to, and it's not just one more source of rents for giant telco firms.
There's a weird (again, mostly marketing) tie-in between 5G and "IoT", which is also an unhelpful term for "things that probably shouldn't be connected to the Internet but are". I don't really see the logical connection between 5G and IoT, particularly since the mm-wave bands aren't obviously well-suited to the sort of low-power, intermediate to long range, low data rate communications that unmanned sensor networks and other "things" generally need. If you want every goddamn streetlight to be Internet-enabled (for some stupid reason), what you probably want is very cheap connectivity on 600-800 MHz. If I didn't totally distrust the cellcos, I'd say what you really want is a QoS tranche system where you could pay less for non-time-critical, asynchronous data transmission. E.g. receiving data from sensors, or sending commands out to [thing], where you don't care if it takes an extra second or two for bandwidth to open up.
Anyway, my prediction is that we're going to look back and see a single global Internet, "the Internet", as a neat idea that only lasted until states realized how important it was, and started paying attention. Never again are states going to just let the nerds run around without somebody pointing a gun at their collective necks from behind. Right now there are effectively two Internets: the Chinese Internet and Everyone Else's Internet. But the Russians (well, certain elements of the Russian government, anyway, and in an authoritarian country that's all that matters) apparently envy the Chinese their control, and are interested in going that route. I'm sure other countries will follow, for more or less shitty reasons. (E.g. the Eurozone could end up with its own Internet as a result of data privacy laws. Better motivations, but same outcome.) It will be interesting to see at what level of the protocol stack these parallel Internets decide to build their fences. Hopefully they'll at least keep agreement on IP routing and addressing, but I could imagine countries deciding, when IPv4 addresses are finally 100% exhausted, that segmenting the network is cheaper than migrating to IPv6. (E.g. the Russians start looking enviously at all the /8 blocks the US government and major US corporations hold, and decide to "reuse" those blocks within their own network. TBH I'm surprised this hasn't already happened.)
posted by Kadin2048 at 2:01 PM on March 6, 2019 [5 favorites]
Meanwhile, our Flag-Humper-in-Chief whines about it and has no clue what to do about it, because he's an idiot. The enormous power he and Congress have to jumpstart this through bipartisan infrastructure funding they pissed away with a tax-cut give-away. Buncha fools.
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:16 PM on March 6, 2019
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:16 PM on March 6, 2019
the US response, of course, should be to empasize the rights of the individual (or more cynically, the consumer) in these places in contradistinction to china.
America's historical approach is to emphasise the rights of the American individual, specifically, over and above the rights and interests of the people living there, which makes China's relatively more honest approach of straight-up purchasing political power so refreshing.
posted by Merus at 2:31 PM on March 6, 2019
America's historical approach is to emphasise the rights of the American individual, specifically, over and above the rights and interests of the people living there, which makes China's relatively more honest approach of straight-up purchasing political power so refreshing.
posted by Merus at 2:31 PM on March 6, 2019
I thought the US was going to get the most G, the biggest G ever.
posted by pompomtom at 2:54 PM on March 6, 2019
posted by pompomtom at 2:54 PM on March 6, 2019
makes China's relatively more honest approach of straight-up purchasing political power so refreshing
this idea that the US has done bad things, so therefore true dictatorships like china and russia are somehow ok or even praiseworthy, is exactly out of trump's repertoire.
posted by wibari at 3:24 PM on March 6, 2019 [3 favorites]
this idea that the US has done bad things, so therefore true dictatorships like china and russia are somehow ok or even praiseworthy, is exactly out of trump's repertoire.
posted by wibari at 3:24 PM on March 6, 2019 [3 favorites]
So I was on the phone with my doomsday-prepper parents the other day and my Dad gave me an earful about 5G resulting in nosebleeds and headaches and other health conditions, but it's coming to the US whether we like it or not. I told him I found this hard to believe because no one was kicking up a fuss in my bluest of the blue states. When I responded skeptically, I was informed "this is evidence based!" However, when I tried to search online for such evidence I found nothing which caused me to shrug and continue along with my business. Can anyone speak to this or is it just wild doomsday-prepper conspiracy?
posted by floweredfish at 4:41 PM on March 6, 2019
posted by floweredfish at 4:41 PM on March 6, 2019
It's not just right wing prepper folks. The people in my Facebook feed are friends that are of the left wing persuasion, but apparently are susceptible to conspiracy theories. Apparently they are left wing free thinkers or whatever they call themselves
posted by NoMich at 5:42 PM on March 6, 2019
posted by NoMich at 5:42 PM on March 6, 2019
If the price for pirating Game of Thrones really quickly is a nosebleed or "other health condition" then I do not give a fuck, give me whatever G's you got. This rock we're all on has got like ten years left max.
posted by turbid dahlia at 6:46 PM on March 6, 2019
posted by turbid dahlia at 6:46 PM on March 6, 2019
Ah, your parents must also read the Daily Mail. I'm sorry.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:57 PM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:57 PM on March 6, 2019 [1 favorite]
If I didn't totally distrust the cellcos, I'd say what you really want is a QoS tranche system where you could pay less for non-time-critical, asynchronous data transmission. E.g. receiving data from sensors, or sending commands out to [thing], where you don't care if it takes an extra second or two for bandwidth to open up.
That's essentially exactly what telcos are building out when they talk about '5G', because for 4G and below the difference in relative levels of QoS is not high enough to be marketable. And even though 5G is a 'network speed' definition and people can correctly define it from Wikipedia, that's not really what it means or entails for any telco across the globe. The idea of '5G' is that charging can be moved to the control plane (vaguely talking here) from the network backbone, so that real-time charging for QoS tranches is possible.
The US actually has tons of dark fiber - if there are lots of data centers being built in your area, it's because there is so much dark fiber begging for use and as such 5G air interfaces are mostly unnecessary. Dark fiber also crosses rural areas, but there is no economic reason to build fast networks to rural areas because (1) people in rural areas don't like paying taxes and (2) the cost of running fiber to the home in these places is more than the yearly income of the residents.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:32 AM on March 7, 2019
That's essentially exactly what telcos are building out when they talk about '5G', because for 4G and below the difference in relative levels of QoS is not high enough to be marketable. And even though 5G is a 'network speed' definition and people can correctly define it from Wikipedia, that's not really what it means or entails for any telco across the globe. The idea of '5G' is that charging can be moved to the control plane (vaguely talking here) from the network backbone, so that real-time charging for QoS tranches is possible.
The US actually has tons of dark fiber - if there are lots of data centers being built in your area, it's because there is so much dark fiber begging for use and as such 5G air interfaces are mostly unnecessary. Dark fiber also crosses rural areas, but there is no economic reason to build fast networks to rural areas because (1) people in rural areas don't like paying taxes and (2) the cost of running fiber to the home in these places is more than the yearly income of the residents.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:32 AM on March 7, 2019
my Dad gave me an earful about 5G resulting in nosebleeds and headaches and other health conditions
The organs in your body can decode cell phone signals, but this new 5G coding algorithm is too fast and burns your cells out prematurely.
posted by straight at 12:59 PM on March 7, 2019
The organs in your body can decode cell phone signals, but this new 5G coding algorithm is too fast and burns your cells out prematurely.
posted by straight at 12:59 PM on March 7, 2019
« Older Municipal Control for NYC Metro | And It's Not Even "She's All That" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by filthy light thief at 9:00 AM on March 6, 2019