Maybe I’m being overly paranoid (this is Lemmy, after all), but doesn’t this seem like a step toward something troubling?
Almost all of our devices are designed to use WiFi. Just try finding a laptop with an ethernet port, or a phone or tablet with wired connectivity. You can get adapters, sure, but they’re not standard anymore. I wouldn’t be surprised if game consoles eventually drop wired options altogether, or charge extra for them—like Sony does with the PS5 disc drive.
ISPs have a track record of trying to control our internet experience—remember the fight over net neutrality? They’re always looking for ways to monetize data and restrict what we can access online.
With long-range WiFi on the horizon, ISPs might find it cheaper to install one powerful broadcast device per neighborhood, similar to how 5G towers are deployed.
And when that happens, it’s not that features like fiber to the home or port forwarding are gone, but they could be locked behind an extra fee. Want direct access to your own network settings? That might come at a premium. Even access to certain websites could become conditional on paying more, or worse, dictated by someone else’s agenda.
This is not about streaming to a laptop or Internet access. This is about a long range, low power, low bandwidth network using 2.4GHz. It’s using 2.4GHz, like everyone else likes to, because it’s the “free” signal band that you don’t have to pay to license. It’s for sending the message “Sprinkler head 1039A is leaking” from a solar panel powered transmitter without having to run a data cable or network repeaters.
It’s competition for Zigbee/Z-Wave/Matter. Not the herald of the ISP crackdown Armageddon.
Laptops with Ethernet are still pretty common. I just bought one recently. At work, we buy a lot of them. But I don’t think smartphones ever had integrated wired networking.
But that aside, what you’re describing is already happening. Wireless network deployments are much, much cheaper than running wire to each building. In semi-rural areas, WiSPs are pretty common. And 5G for home Internet access is pretty common in high-coverage areas. And as time goes on, the ISP-provided equipment is more locked down.
Not in the US, but every LTE home internet provider I’ve dealt with is just a SIM that you can use in any off the shelf LTE/5G to wifi router setup. Mikrotik options are cheap and can handle simple one-device implementations, and multi-device mesh setups (that require more effort to configure)
And when that happens, it’s not that features like fiber to the home or port forwarding are gone, but they could be locked behind an extra fee. Want direct access to your own network settings? That might come at a premium. Even access to certain websites could become conditional on paying more, or worse, dictated by someone else’s agenda.
They can do that right now. If this new wireless option is standardized, it would seem less prone to ISP shenanigans to me. Just a question whatever functionality makes it into the standard in the first place.
I can find this believable in the US maybe (only stayed there for a few months and I heard nothing good, data caps on broadband is wild) but not a chance in countries with stricter regulations and guidelines on what the ISPs are allowed to do.
I don’t understand this (haven’t read the article, which probably explains that) but this thread is all over the place with different interpretations.
Mine is this is another local IoT network like Zigbee, zwave, thread, even Bluetooth. The latest z-wave standard includes a longer range functionality. LoRa is another such local IoT network. The use case is smart home or business devices, like a light switch or a thermostat. They are much lower power to suit battery powered devices and generally need very little bandwidth. You may have a central hub that can remotely control all your devices or manage automations. However a key feature is local. These are not directly connected to the internet, but may have a bridge to your network for connectivity.
But LoRa is expensive and requires a lot of configuration. If this means that WiFi can come with some of the LoRa connectivity and bridge configuration already done, then you’re making it much easier to set up such a local IoT network
Maybe I’m being overly paranoid (this is Lemmy, after all), but doesn’t this seem like a step toward something troubling?
What are you talking about?
This is not about streaming to a laptop or Internet access. This is about a long range, low power, low bandwidth network using 2.4GHz. It’s using 2.4GHz, like everyone else likes to, because it’s the “free” signal band that you don’t have to pay to license. It’s for sending the message “Sprinkler head 1039A is leaking” from a solar panel powered transmitter without having to run a data cable or network repeaters.
It’s competition for Zigbee/Z-Wave/Matter. Not the herald of the ISP crackdown Armageddon.
It may also allow some sort of meshnet-based Usenet (no binary groups), just saying.
Just like wifi already does?
Yes, just further due to the particular kind of misuse . Distance matters for mesh nets.
Laptops with Ethernet are still pretty common. I just bought one recently. At work, we buy a lot of them. But I don’t think smartphones ever had integrated wired networking.
But that aside, what you’re describing is already happening. Wireless network deployments are much, much cheaper than running wire to each building. In semi-rural areas, WiSPs are pretty common. And 5G for home Internet access is pretty common in high-coverage areas. And as time goes on, the ISP-provided equipment is more locked down.
But I don’t think those things are related.
Not in the US, but every LTE home internet provider I’ve dealt with is just a SIM that you can use in any off the shelf LTE/5G to wifi router setup. Mikrotik options are cheap and can handle simple one-device implementations, and multi-device mesh setups (that require more effort to configure)
They can do that right now. If this new wireless option is standardized, it would seem less prone to ISP shenanigans to me. Just a question whatever functionality makes it into the standard in the first place.
I think the article is explaining that this is really just modifying wifi protocols to work over LoRa, to reduce LoRa costs.
This will probably only be beneficial to people currently using LoRa.
I thought that LORA was optimized for low data throughput? Running WIFI over such a link would suck.
Also isn’t LoRa proprietary/patent encumbered?
I can find this believable in the US maybe (only stayed there for a few months and I heard nothing good, data caps on broadband is wild) but not a chance in countries with stricter regulations and guidelines on what the ISPs are allowed to do.
I don’t understand this (haven’t read the article, which probably explains that) but this thread is all over the place with different interpretations.
Mine is this is another local IoT network like Zigbee, zwave, thread, even Bluetooth. The latest z-wave standard includes a longer range functionality. LoRa is another such local IoT network. The use case is smart home or business devices, like a light switch or a thermostat. They are much lower power to suit battery powered devices and generally need very little bandwidth. You may have a central hub that can remotely control all your devices or manage automations. However a key feature is local. These are not directly connected to the internet, but may have a bridge to your network for connectivity.
But LoRa is expensive and requires a lot of configuration. If this means that WiFi can come with some of the LoRa connectivity and bridge configuration already done, then you’re making it much easier to set up such a local IoT network
Just tell them you have a low packet loss tolerance. The wire will never be cut. It can’t replace a wire for many use cases
Looking at how long it took for fiber to be “allowed” in my country, I don’t worry too much