I have a few questions regarding it, like what replaces areas where massively agreed upon things need to be determined such as radio standards for wireless devices, and what medical procedures are safe and effective?

  • rah@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    802.11 is created by the ieee lan/man standards comnitee, which takes input from a lot of groups to formulate the standard.

    The standard doesn’t specify which frequency bands to use in which locations though, governments do that. So your response doesn’t address OP’s question.

    • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The same mechanisms could be applied tho. The frequency and power limitations are in place because the stuff doesn’t work without them. Radio broadcasters and equipment manufacturers have an incentive to cooperate on this.

      • rah@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So your answer is: a free-for-all on the spectrum.

        Radio broadcasters and equipment manufacturers have an incentive to cooperate on this.

        The biggest and most powerful broadcasters, TV and commercial radio stations, have a strong interest in actively jamming their competitors’ broadcasts. The same goes for mobile phone networks, it’s in their interests to disrupt the operation of their competitors’ networks.

        At the moment, those activities are suppressed by authority.

        • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not really. My answer is cooperation on the spectrum. As you point out, its quite easy to make a section of spectrum unusable so non-compliance with a cooperative agreement is self defeating. You jam me and I’ll just jam you back.

          There could be, for instance, an industry board which distributes spectrum, with members acting as their own enforcement.

          Again, the goal is not no government, its reducing down to the minimum required governance and heirarchy to accomplish that goal. A reallistic and workable system along those lines would in fact be highly ordered.

          Its also important to note that one of the heirarchies to be minimizee would be class heirarchy. The naive view of anarchism is “no government”, but thats actually quite narrow and most anarchists will agree that some government will pe needed, but with different form. The more full view of anarchy as a political stance is much more ecompassing and includes an ellimination of class and social heirarchy as well. So in a society where we have reduced coorcive control of spectrum, how do we prevent large corporations from ruining things? We get rid of them too.

          • rah@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You jam me and I’ll just jam you back.

            Exactly. In radio frequency terms, this is the same thing as civil war. And we institute governments in order to prevent that situation.

            See for example, the Seattle CHOP/CHAZ which very quickly descended into violence, ultimately ending in an escape to government and police.

            members acting as their own enforcement

            The point is that this won’t work.

            Again, the goal is not no government, its reducing down to the minimum required governance and heirarchy to accomplish that goal.

            At least in terms of radio spectrum allocation, that’s what we have now.

            how do we prevent large corporations from ruining things

            This is nothing specific to large corporations. I can envision amateur radio operators entering into feuds or disrupting others out of spite or jealousy. “Ruining things” is normal human behaviour. Like the killers in Seattle.

            • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think we have anything like a minimal spectrum governance model. The entity which governs spectrum probably doesn’t need to be the one that governs borders.

              Fundametaly, the question, “in a society with a fundamentaly different organizing priciple, how would you solve problem x?” always comes down to "imperfectly, but hopefully better than the current solution<

              • rah@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t think we have anything like a minimal spectrum governance model.

                I’m curious what you think is excessive?

                The entity which governs spectrum probably doesn’t need to be the one that governs borders.

                They aren’t really, they’re distinct parts.

                hopefully better than the current solution

                This is not a good sell.