Slashdot Mirror
Trump Team Considers Nationalizing America's 5G Network (axios.com)
JoeyRox writes: "Trump national security officials are considering an unprecedented federal takeover of a portion of the nation's mobile network to guard against China, according to sensitive documents obtained by Axios." This is based on a PowerPoint presentation Axios has in their possession. Two options are described -- a national 5G network funded and built by the Federal government, or a mix of 5G networks built by existing wireless providers. A source suggests the first option is preferred and essential to protect against competition from China and "bad actors". The presentation suggests that a government-built network would then be leased out to carriers like AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile.
The PowerPoint presentation was produced by a senior National Security Council official, and argues that the move is necessary because "China has achieved a dominant position in the manufacture and operation of network infrastructure," and "China is the dominant malicious actor in the Information Domain."
It also suggests America could export its secure 5G technology to protect its allies, and "Eventually this effort could help inoculate developing countries against Chinese neo-colonial behavior."
The PowerPoint presentation was produced by a senior National Security Council official, and argues that the move is necessary because "China has achieved a dominant position in the manufacture and operation of network infrastructure," and "China is the dominant malicious actor in the Information Domain."
It also suggests America could export its secure 5G technology to protect its allies, and "Eventually this effort could help inoculate developing countries against Chinese neo-colonial behavior."
This would in theory make carriers compete for customers everywhere, and increase signal availability and quality for everyone.
Ah ha! See, I KNEW that guy is a damn communist!
No wonder the russians love him!
That doesn't sound very conservative. It's cool though because he's on our team.
What the fuck?
This is the first time the United States has publicly admitted its inferiority to another country.
Truly amazing!
More likely to be another handout to ISPs.
Big Federal government is better at providing infrastructure services than private industry. That is why Federal spending has increased every year the GOP has been in control of the Federal government.
A Trump story without a mention of Russia hacking something? Come on Slashdot!
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Reading a US government official denouncing another country's neo-colonial behavior just made my freaking day. +1 Funny whoever it was... Ivanka? Jared?
I guess they forgot the Finnish Nokia, which *actually* dominates the mobile network business. They also own pretty much all the crucial patents in GSM and xG networks.
So tired of seeing a once-decent techy site devolving into a CNN competitor that is obsessed with Russia and Trump. For EditorDavid, BeauHD and msmash to even call themselves "editors" is a disgrace; VanityFair wouldn't even hire them at this point. That's one less reader to generate ad revenue from.
But where would all the communications equipment be manufactured? China?
...there's pushback because very stupid people are now able to make powerful presentations using PowerPoint, leading to very stupid decisions.
Mobile networks are not a natural monopoly, the way wired networks are. It's the wired ones that should be nationalized. 5G is not a serious security issue. I'd probably regulate teleco equipment a bit better, with stronger security requirements and legal enforcement of some of the best practices on critical systems.
Will they all have to be made in Wisconsin?
Who do they think they are kidding.
Please define "millenials" while I'm grabbing MY popcorn.
Canâ(TM)t break mobile encryption, own every tower and shut providers who donâ(TM)t cooperate instead.
Then the government has, what, legal access to monitor any, and all, communications on said network without need for commercial cooperations or judicial concerns?
A source suggests the first option is preferred and essential to protect against competition from China and "bad actors".
How are they going to build the network without using hardware that is made in China?
this will protect us, because mobile devices aren't made in china
neither are the components of wireless networking gear
(pffffft!!!!)
Nationalizing private assets. Baby steps to become a dictator Donnie.
I assume this will come in effect the same day the Trump family's businesses start producing their crap in the US instead of China?
So what would the plan be then, "law enforcement" backdoor, and require it by force of law? Seems pretty straightforward.
I worry more about the 3 letter agencies snooping than I do the Chinese snooping. If the feds build the network they will for sure be even more tapped into it than they are now.
Simple solution is to keep it as it is now, just ban the import/use of Chinese components in the new networks.
While everyone thought it be Russia.
Making Internet and cellphone traffic an utility is long overdue though. Would be a huge win for the customer as compared to the monopoly of today.
So, would that mean that if the US Government build/controlled the network, then leased it out, they wouldn't need to notify the companies when they were mirroring and monitoring traffic, right?
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
Good to see the Slashdot crowd is as credulous as ever.
I think I am actually fine with it. Given the abuses of Verizon and AT&T, I am fine with a nationalized 5G network. CAVEAT: As long as there are no laws forcing encryption to have backdoors.
Eventually we could export the hardware with all of our own backdoors in it to our allies instead of them using the stuff with the Chinese backdoors.
The kind of protection spoken of is not to protect against Chinese superiority, it's to protect US networks against using compromised Chinese components which they are concerned would make the network vulnerable to their eavesdropping. Which is particularly rich, considering that the US government has been forcing US manufacturers to embed weaknesses into their networking and telecom equipment for years. *cough*CISCO*cough*
...anything that benefits Trump.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
The media is telling you what trump is going to do?
They're lying to you.
They haven't been right about ANYTHING for almost 2 years now.
Medicare for all?
Not all anti-gov militia people are wackos, but enough of them are. Fact that Donald is even considering this is like shooting your anti-gov militia supporters in the back. There are things government should provide, but a government controlled network is just asking for un-restricted spying. That's a great idea, just give the NSA a blank check and backdoor to everyone.
No one's entirely sure yet even how to build a 5G (>20 GHz) network. I'm not normally one for privatization above all else, but at least the private companies will try to have a positive ROI. And if the people normally for privatization are floating a government build-out, than I'm extra suspicious.
public funding: Government builds infrastructure
private profits: Verizon & AT&T leases infrastructure to citizens
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
We don't want those bastards anywhere near a 5G network.
Or even a pair of tin cans connected by a string.
Placing government in control of a 5G network everyone uses grants government means of directly tracking high resolution movements of everyone everywhere in real time. Hard to come up with a worse more dangerous idea than this one.
This would in theory make carriers compete for customers everywhere, and increase signal availability and quality for everyone.
What would be better is framework for allowing competing carriers to dynamically share spectrum completely doing away with exclusive grants.
Allowing multiple carriers to use the same frequencies is technically feasible with next gen technology and opens up means to competition rather than allowing only those with the deepest pockets to win spectrum auctions.
Am I the only person who sees this as a quick way to lock in all of the electronic surveillance by controlling the encryption directly? Because unless end-to-end encryption is locked in, this would be the full keys to the Kingdom.
Reading this all I could think of was how excited the NSA would be to have a federally controlled 5G national network.
There is no way I would connect to a government 5G network. We need to be very careful. Governments all over the world are starting to use the "because China" excuse to take away our privacy and freedom.
This is sheer trade protectionism, a non tariff barrier. A dummyspit.
For it to work - it would have to be more than just spectrum, it would also have to prescribe what equipment the carriers use, and access to software mesh networks, because mesh networks break traditional spycraft options. Canada, UK and Australia, and NZ are introducing draconian ISP rules
because law enforcement is nearly broken. So now USA sees the 'problem'.
And it wont work security wise because Chinese actors will still set up a presence and mine what they can. With satellites overhead, the hoovering up of signals with iffy encryption is another deep flaw - for all countries, not just the USA.
I would like to think of this apparent outcome is the result of letting American companies outsource manufacturing, then R&D, then firmware, so China caught up and perhaps overtook the USA in making stuff, while qualified Americans were put out to pasture and lost frontline skills.
A natural progression is for the Chinese to add high grade encryption to all the new handsets they are selling, without back doors, and without
broadcom chips and binary blobs. Maybe they put before and after traces around the broadcom. Then the shit will fly.
Well, I guess I am in a minority on Slashdot, based on the apparent general approval of such a thing. I think it is a dangerous idea. The last thing on earth we need is more and bigger Federal government. Could one reason the Fed would want in on this is to guarantee their easy access to CONTROL and LISTEN IN on the network traffic? Remember, their notion of "Security" typically isn't the same as a consumer's. How many agencies are still SCREAMING for "back doors" in encryption?
Spectrum is limited, of course. And I have no problem with the Fed in control of who leases such spectrum- someone has to manage it. I even think it is a good thing to set and enforce standards and interconnection and communication. But handing them the keys to design, build it, and supposedly pay for it would likely:
1) Cost much, much more than expected- just like most every other Fed run program.
2) Be full of corruption and kickbacks- just like most every other Fed run program.
3) Take much longer to complete- just like most every other Fed run program.
Be careful what you wish for....
This reuters article suggests that they want to build a national 5G network, but not that they want to take over networks built by private carriers.
I'd like to see a 5G speed network built that is just a dumb pipe for IP. Then, they could use the same security for VOIP as is used with the wired internet. What's the point to a 5G "cellular telephone" network? The bandwidth is overkill for voice. If they just provide a dumb pipe, secure data communication is as solved a problem as anything they're going to come up with. The big problem is the name. I'm sure Trump won't want to put money towards anything with "Dumb" in the name.
I don't even know what to make of this. It seems unclear what they actually want to do but "nationalizing" a whole sector of telecommunications is very socialist.
Of course that probably wouldn't be much worse than the oligoply that controls wireless already.
The other advantage for the government is that, as they run the network, they can run tracking and call interception on anyone at a whim, without having to rely on involving third party telecommunication companies and silly things like warrants.
Its good he killed dreamers to hostage them for 25 billion that Mexico wont pay.
Fucking Satan must have won and there is no longer a god or heaven.
yes!
4wdloop
I think this has squat to do about China.. This has more to do with controlling the communication channels of everyday Americans.
This means the administration, Trump's or others, will have total control of 5G. Backdoors anyone? Traffic monitoring? Incidental eavesdropping? Location tracing of dissidents? Freezing the network to prevent prevent unrest and agitation by subversive elements?
No one here seems to get it.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
To be fair, ObamaCare, which I call RomneyCare, was a bad idea. The insurance companies should never have had a seat at the table. Health care is worthwhile, health *insurance* is a terrible idea, that is only made palatable if someone else appears to be picking up the tab, because the insurance companies always are in there to make a profit.
Universal basic health care should be the platform, and just skip any reference to insurance. If you want insurance, it's appropriate for things that are not only expensive, but also unlikely. Then the purpose is to spread the risk. But everyone needs basic health care, so the insurance model is grossly inefficient and excessively expensive. So major medical insurance is reasonable. But neither insurance for basic health care nor for actually optional services. (Reconstructive plastic surgery for burn victims does not count as optional in my book, even if they are not incapacitated without it.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
We have learned that in Germany, where we went from one of the most modern data networks before we sold our phone company, down to something that's worse than in most eastern European countries.
However in the interest of balance. Here's a counter point claiming that private enterprise means competition and therefore democracy. And obviously the oil industry in the US is a prime example for this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
there are already agreements on that for decades, that wouldn't really make a difference.
Here's how I picture it.
"What's the top sector in the US"
"Oil and Coal."
"Have they bribed me?"
"Yes."
"OK, 25% tariff on solar. Who's next?"
"Telecommunications, no bribe."
"Nationalize 5G, Privatize if they spend $500M at Mar-a-Lago."
"Done"
Nationalization of the spectrum (along with the hardware in the tower) is a great idea. Rent it to everyone at the same price. Eliminate monopoly, and force competition on service, not lies about speeds and coverage.
But the cynic in me thinks it's just a public announcement to manipulate, not a serious suggestion.
Learn to love Alaska
There is something I cannot understand. Hopefully you can help out ...
This is what you are claiming ---
> ... they are blatantly a neocolonial power subtly taking over power in many dictatorships ...
Question: How to 'take over power' from 'dictators'?
If you nationalize for security reasons, the obvious concern is to avoid using any foreign designed chips or software in the system. At this point in time, to do that we'd actually need to start building foundries. It would set us back at least a decade. But then, rolling back the changes of the last 50 years seems to be this administrations goal. It's as if they want us to become a steampunk society in order to avoid being part of the global economy. So, hey, that's what we voted for. Make America as great as it was in the 50s, right?
To be fair, ObamaCare, which I call RomneyCare, was a bad idea.
I call it PelosiCare, because of the monumental effort she put forth to get it passed, while Obama was waiting to get something to sign. It is extremely impressive what she did.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I don't think you understood the proposal at all.
Having the government build it out and own it, and then lease bits to providers (the spectum is a public asset, after all) is far from "giv[ing] up 5G"... it's GETTING 5G but without the nasty crony-capitalist play of "selling" the bandwidth to some corrupt/evil company who then keep the public from having their way with the bandwith that the public owns. I fail to see how some giant corp "buying" the bandwidth and then overcharging only that portion of the public who are their customers for the use of said bandwidth (the current model) is superior in any way other than as a way to lock-in profits and captive customers for the winning bidder in the bandwidth auction.
Please explain how selling that bandwidth to Verizon, who will then only let users use it if they pay too much AND use whatever China-made phones Verizon chooses to allow in any way protects the public against China.
While this would also give direct government surveillance of every cell user everywhere, it would place it back under previous 4th amendment government grounds, rather than in that carefully crafted '3rd parties don't have to respect the 4th amendment' grounds they've been using to spy on us for all these years.
Thanks to some of the recent surveillance bills it is the same amount of spying either way, but if the winds of politics start to blow the other way, it would provide an opportunity to declaw much of this surveillance since they could no longer claim it was third party operated and thus devoid of 4th amendment protections.
So he is a republican, because he keeps acting like a typical republican, by not acting like a republican? ... ...
Seriously?
WTF is wrong with your head??
... for a country that big, the US highway system is fine. Imagine the corporatr alternatives: Either ... a health competing market, but five highways next to each other, one for every competitor, ruining the landscape and wasting space ... or just one highway, but a different monopoly for each area of the country, like with ISPs, which is not very "free market".
I see it like this: The fact that a government does not have profit as its only goal to rule them all, is both a bad and a good thing. It means they don't want to milk you and rip you off as much as physically possibe; but it also means they do not have a motivation to improve.
Which makes clear why a corporate monopoly is the worst combination.
But makes me think: Why don't we have multipe competing *governments* in one country then? So organizations with the improvement of the country as their goal, instead of profit. A free market of a kind that actually makes things better!
Yes, it's merely a fantasy right now. But I would love to give it an experimental try, for research purposes!
(But *beware*: There *will* be moles, trying to ruin it and make it look bad! Moles with bigger budget than your entire current government!)
What exactly is your argument?
That US corporations do not obey an NSL by some TLA, and hence are more trustworthy?
Also, they do their own for-profit spying on top of it!
And it's not like your US government *IS*'nt merely a corporate oligarchy already.
Chinese neo-colonial behavior
Yeah, us in the West really don't like colonialism.
I know everyone wants to queue up "the government sucks at running things", but really that's not true. There are plenty of things that the government runs just fine.
The fact is that infrastructure systems are things where a) it is useful to have everyone on one standard and b) the profit margins are so thin anyway that we end up bailing them out/subsidizing them all the time anyway and then, hopefully, imposing a bunch of regulation in exchange for our public assistance. In effect, they're already partly socialized just without the full oversight actual socialization would provide.
Don't buy into it you guys! This is being masterminded in Kremlin by Putin himself! Everyone that's supporting this is a Russian Troll. The 5G network will allow Russian hackers to infiltrate our networks at a faster speed! DONT FALL FOR IT!
Just look at how well the National Broadband Network is coming along!! http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
Nationalize wired networks, telephone, cable and fiber. Sell bandwidth to companies to resell to end users. Treat it like a utility.
Wireless isn't really a natural monopoly.
Why do we always need a bogeyman to make headway? Oh, the Chinese! Otherwise gravy trains and cronies all the way up.
I can't wait to tell my pro-Trump friend that Obama pushed for Government built 5g network and hear them lambaste it. "Great even bigger government", "I thought we had no privacy before, but this ridiculous!". I wonder how he will defend it when I tell him that this is a Trump idea!
My american friends called us commies back in the early 90s when we in british columbia bowed down to bcTEL and the socialist govern...oh wait everything was cheaper. When they brokebit up and Telus rolled in suddenly everything cost more and weve been raped ever since on phones (landline or otherwise)
I would liken this to building a highway, paying for the upkeep of the road, the police, snow cleaning, etc., and allowing AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, etc, have tollbooths and collect a hefty fee for basically a PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
No.
The options are free market all the way and allow the companies to cherry pick where the service will be excellent (due to market size), or completely nationalize the communications network and then pick winners / losers based on how damn good companies can lobby for their cut of the pie.
It's a Catch-22 in either case. We, the public, the consumer, will loose.
...Strong encryption that the government has no backdoor to is implemented as well to prevent government spying....
We'd save a ton on stingrays. Might be able to cut the top-level tax a bit more.
I'm trying to reconcile nationalizing the 5G network with abolishing network neutrality. Those two just aren't fitting together well.
Same with the whole neo-colonialism thing, and the obvious issue of US vs Chinese neo-colonialism.
This is just silly and full of cognitive dissonance.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Do you want Amtrak running your cell network? No service to Phoenix or Annapolis, and Minneapolis gets signal once a day for an hour at midnight. Before you laugh: Amtrak, the nationalization of our passenger trains, was signed into law by Nixon, a Republican.
Interesting combination,
The business plan of the postal service.
The technical competence (not) of the FAA, or FBI, or IRS, or gee there are so many dumb stories about the govt deploying next gen technology, I just can't pick one.
Next gen technology requires a mix of good, quick and cheap. The problem is that China can do quick and cheap and is getting good at good. On it's best days, the government can occasionally do good, but quick or cheap is not something usually associated with the government. For anything called nextgen, this is a problem. By the time government nextgen shows up, it's about 2 gens behind.
For technology, if you want to kill the arsenal of democracy, just put the government in charge.
This seems both a happy dream for TLA's and a nightmare for keeping America competitive.
As much as we love to hate the carriers, this will make us wish for them back.
OTOH, deploying long haul fiber is not like this. Fiber technology changes much slower and requires rights of way. It is also an enabler for wireless and could be a lever to make the fixed service providers play fair. If you want to build a national infrastructure, build a backbone transit network and make rules of the road to control what an ISP has to do for his customers to use it. This should keep the TLA's happy and maybe actually help make the US more competitive.
Given how the FCC has been acting, I have a low bar of hope here. Hopefully, they will do no harm, but it looks scary for all concerned including the national security.
Please define "millenials" while I'm grabbing MY popcorn.
Millenials = People who still eat popcorn.
Really... this administration is trying to protect us from a foreign country trying to use cyberwarfare to destroy Democracy? Something doesn't sound quite right.
Adopt a fiber optic cable
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic...
aaaaaaa
Who builds the hardware that runs 5G infrastructure?
For that matter, are there any American companies making hardware that supports 4G infrastructure?
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
so, to be clear, federalized healthcare: bad, federalized communication infrastructure: good?
this guy...
Pending one can actually trust the government that takes this over and who regulates it. But we are fooling ourselves here. Historically and even today, we have plenty of examples as to why our government shouldn't be trusted with this. Using China, which is a self-inflicted adversary to start with, as an attempt to point out the the US as being the lesser of two evils is not good enough anymore. Time to make a stand. It is time to opt out and let the technology die at the vine. We don't need it.
"The presentation suggests that a government-built network would then be leased out to carriers like AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile."
Translation: Why make big telecom pay for all that pesky infrastructure when we could put that on the taxpayers, then hand it over to telco to reap the profits?
I for one am looking forward to our fascist pushed NSA developed security network that will be built using our tax dollars and eventually allow companies to build tiered pricing access models on. I mean what could go wrong Trump is for it, amirite?
Set a frequency band. Have a few regulations to make everyone to play nice with each other. Let anyone set up equipment to set up equipment to work within those frequencies. Then butt the fuck out.
If the 5G carries are slowly being purchased by Chinese companies, which are without doubt creatures of the Chinese Government, then it could be said that the Chinese were the ones actually nationalizing the 5G networks in America.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Who developed 5G? Because nationalizing a 5G network will work NOW but what about the next iteration? If private companies don't own it, who will do the R&D for 6G? Certainly not the government. Will Verizon or AT&T care anymore if they have to share the wealth? The short term success might be marred by long term goals.
ie. We can also nationalize all medicine and current drugs will be cheaper, but who's gonna do the research on new ones?
There needs to be some level of interest for private companies.
Bell System! Bell System! Revive Western Electric!!!
5G wireless is more bandwidth than neccessary. WiMax 2 is a tested, mature, IEEE standard, without much legacy material to deal with for security. Just build a well executed, WiMax 2 system instead.
*COUGH*
Socialism?
Hitler much?
Nationalizing something == socialism.
Idiots.
the better to NSA/FBI traffic with my dear.
"Slashdotters unanimously support Trump's administration policy" :)
Probably the real issue is that Chinese hardware is making the internet TOO secure for the US gov's comfort.
Anyone remember that guy Snowden?
A network supported by a fascist president built by the NSA using tax payer dollars to allow private companies to sell services priced using tiered models, traffic shaped and only blocks "illegal" content.
What could possibly go wrong? I mean Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, bunch of neoliberal, pc, Trump, Trump, Trump, fake news, Trump, Trump, liberal media, Trump, Trump, illegals, Trump, Trump, Trumpety Trump...
Some American with mod points to burn couldn't handle the truth...
But neither insurance for basic health care nor for actually optional services.
People take out insurance for "optional" things all the time, and it works well—the key differences from "health insurance" (as it exists today) being that it's a voluntary arrangement for both parties and that it's priced competitively, not politically. Insurance work for almost any situation where you have a risk and wish to exchange it for a predictable cost. As a substitute for charity, or a payment intermediary for routine care, it functions abysmally.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Aside from all ideological objections, the biggest barrier to any kind of large-scale extended infrastructure project is the cost and time of acquiring right-of-way. This is primarily what is killing the California HSR initiative, which despite using all off-the-shelf technology, has been stalled over this squabble.
If the gummint is going to build a national fiber backbone, run it along the sides of the Interstate Highway System for zero right-of-way cost. Fiber could be buried for the most part under the right shoulder of existing pavement, or where appropriate, in the median. At each major exit, have a set of tap points that local ISPs would compete and contract for access to, serving the local area along the interchange road. Let one tap at each of these points be reserved for local volunteer organizations, hobbyist and user groups with an interest in getting licensed to operate "ham Internet" service.
The tag line for such a backbone might be "You already know where it goes. You already know where to access it."
Every internet *issue* becomes a Federal Issue. I'm not so sure that I like that idea.
Many Internet crimes are already Federal crimes. But this just cements the
double-whammy of state and federal punishment and abuse. I'm not committing
any crimes, nor do I have plans to do so. But I could see this being a problem
regarding State Rights, abuse of Fed. Authority, and a backlog of court cases
with wacko (mostly liberal now) federal judges.
People. Very fine people. The bigliest, bestest people with the most words.
Other people came before, bad people! But I, your Orange Overlord, Drained the Swamp! The crocodiles are all gone, replaced with fine American alligators! Winning!
Make America Stupid Again!!!
So here in Oz, the government decided to give every on fibre to the home, forgetting the costs. It was hailed as a road to the future. It was praised by the Tech community -- 100 mhz to each house. The internet super highway.
But there was no business plan. No costing of alternatives. And most importantly, no proper analysis of real need which was for people without broadband rather than for higher capacity for those with it.
Then the government changed, and they went to fibre to the node + cable. Many tech people screamed "Fraudband" because this would deliver only 25mhz, not 100mhz.
But here is the kicker. Most people do not need 100hz, and are not willing to pay for it. Most households are not even willing to pay for 25mhz. It only takes 2mhz to watch DVD quality Netflix, and that is all many households need.
The price of mobile data is crashing down. Now about $5/Gig. Soon $1/Gig. (No unlimited but artificially limited plans in Oz.) At that point it starts to become cheaper than the NBN. And many people are choosing to go mobile INSTEAD of the NBN.
If half (say) of the population end up avoiding the NBN, the fixed cost economics are a disaster, and the taxpayer will end up footing even more the bill.
The moral is the way that government could be swayed by the Tech crowd into the stupid policy. Private enterprise, when their own money is on the line, tend to be more pragmatic, for better or worse.
Why bother with Stingray devices when you own the whole network! Of course the government security agencies are for this. They've been so careful with our 4th Amendment rights so far. What could go wrong?
We should be working hard to make it easy to work from home... We need the bandwidth to do this... Telepresence should be something we diligently pursue. Imagine taking all that Federal money building trains and such, and pouring it into this industry! Don't move bodies... move minds!
The federal government cannot take over a 5G network. .. First reason is that there is no 5G network yet. With the history of the large cellular companies being totally reluctant to improve infrastructure I doubt it will happen this decade. We don't even have a 4G network in the U.S. There is limited penetration of 4Glte which is 3G+ (or 4G light) elsewhere in the world. .. Second reason is that the bandwidth doesn't belong to the populace but companies LEASE the radio bandwidth and the leases are done by competitive bid. ALL radio traffic in a country is governed by international treaty. In the U.S. the agency that oversees radio usage is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Yep, this was a bit of fake news written by someone that has no foggy clue about radio frequency licensing.
NRRPT/RCT
Do something beneficial for poor people.