  When comparing new wireless technologies, it is common to consider the effect
that they have on the capacity of the network (defined as the maximum number of
simultaneously satisfiable links). For example, it has been shown that giving
receivers the ability to do interference cancellation, or allowing transmitters
to use power control, never decreases the capacity and can in certain cases
increase it by $\Omega(\log (\Delta \cdot P_{\max}))$, where $\Delta$ is the
ratio of the longest link length to the smallest transmitter-receiver distance
and $P_{\max}$ is the maximum transmission power. But there is no reason to
expect the optimal capacity to be realized in practice, particularly since
maximizing the capacity is known to be NP-hard. In reality, we would expect
links to behave as self-interested agents, and thus when introducing a new
technology it makes more sense to compare the values reached at game-theoretic
equilibria than the optimum values.
  In this paper we initiate this line of work by comparing various notions of
equilibria (particularly Nash equilibria and no-regret behavior) when using a
supposedly "better" technology. We show a version of Braess's Paradox for all
of them: in certain networks, upgrading technology can actually make the
equilibria \emph{worse}, despite an increase in the capacity. We construct
instances where this decrease is a constant factor for power control,
interference cancellation, and improvements in the SINR threshold ($\beta$),
and is $\Omega(\log \Delta)$ when power control is combined with interference
cancellation. However, we show that these examples are basically tight: the
decrease is at most O(1) for power control, interference cancellation, and
improved $\beta$, and is at most $O(\log \Delta)$ when power control is
combined with interference cancellation.
