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."
That doesn't sound very conservative. It's cool though because he's on our team.
Sounds more like something that will be another big government project boondoggle, but nonetheless a nice way for Trump and fellow Congress cronies to funnel money to some of their friends and backers to build out this network.
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.
Yeah, and as a telecom employee I've thought this is the much better way forward. Spectrum sales create walled gardens. With one national network, each tower has access to full spectrum for maximum bandwidth, fewer towers are needed so the infrastructure spend is dramatically less, and the government can set a price and allow anybody in.
The alternative is good, too: Instead of spectrum sales, each carrier builds out a portion of the network, and has to contribute a minimum contribution like, say, $6 billion USD in infrastructure, and in return they get access to the whole network and customers everywhere. For that price they get access to the network and X number of customers. Then have a tiered pricing structure where, for each additional tower they add to the network, they get access to Y additional customers. If the figures are set carefully, this incentivizes both growing carriers, and large carriers spend more. The result? An even larger network, with more coverage in suburban and rural areas. And potentially new carriers and competition to drive prices lower.
Now... take this idea and apply it to a national fiber-Internet network, too. Private networks create uneven playing fields and require higher prices because each competitor has to over-build (where there's competition allowed of course). Incentivize carriers to be able to expand their customer base by reaching more and more people with their product, instead, and you'll see as close to 100% affordable broadband access as possible.
The popular vote difference was equal to two districts in LA plus one in NYC. You know, the reason why the electoral college exists? People living in Wyoming shouldn't have their elections decided entirely by distant arrogant elitist leftists living in New York.
It's funny how cocksure you sound about November 2018. Eerily similar to how you sounded in October 2016...
Maybe you should consider not being such a smug, condescending asshole? I'd rather be dead than vote for whoever you support, because you seem like a massive piece of shit.
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....
"Let the government build out the network"
The government doesn't build anything. The government is just the largest general contractor on the planet. The carriers who are currently building their own network infrastructure will just become well paid government vendors while still maintain a fair amount of leverage over pricing and availability. And for god's sake I wish people would stop thinking that the government is the answer to every problem. In case they have not noticed the government is broken and incapable of contributing anything positive to their constituents or the country as a wholes. And their dysfunction has nothing to do with who is President. Our elected representatives do nothing but attend campaign fund raisers, running for election, and conducting endless investigations that have nothing to do with improving the country in any sector. And some folks should actually study up on the powers the US President actually has and compare that power to the legislative branch. Congress has no term limits and have some politicians who have held their office for over 20+ years. Congressional members have no limit on the amount of money they can accept while running for election or sitting in office. These are the same people that control the government purse which they can wield in their on going political bitch fights. And these are also the morons who are charged with creating the countries budget and are lucky if any of them could balance their own check book. If all the social warriors endlessly bashing the President focused 10% their angst on the people actually responsible for the government meltdown maybe things would get better. Every one knows Trump is an idiot so all the protesters should count their efforts as a win and start going after those who are really responsible for bending the US public and giving it to them hard.
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.
You're making a big assumption: The government can implement the network competently.
Consider healthcare.gov.
"China is the dominant malicious actor in the Information Domain."
It's ironic that the actual dominant malicious actor in the information domain is claiming this. One would have to be incredibly naive to be worried more about the Chinese government than the US government, especially when physically in the US.
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
I totally agree with you. And there's another little tidbit no one is considering...
President Trump: If you want to use our network you'll have to put backdoors into your software. That way when we let our 'allies' use the technology we can make sure it's in our best interest...And if a few Americans are watched at the same time, that's okay. National Security. That's all the explanation we have to give.
And a big off-topic side note...
When former President Bush Jr. gave his big TV speech he told Saddam Hussein to leave the oil fields alone. "They belong to the people of Iraq." A reporter actually asked, "Then why aren't the U.S. oil fields nationalized?"
His reply, "That would make us Communists."
Hey! I just made this thread a connection between Trump and Russia. Hmmmm..... ;)
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
If you really think Donald Trump is an "idiot," then you're TRULY an idiot.
The government is competent at most of the things it does, you just don't hear about it because "XYZ doing fine, nothing to see here" isn't a very good headline.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
As long as the digital highway is as transparent as the highway system. What it contains, how private it is, how secure, warrants only invasion of privacy and state based leasing, leased state by state not nationally, to allow more competing companies. How the board are appointed, how builds outs ordered, upgrading, maintenance and repairs, call outs, all set regulation available for public discussions.
They are also all crapping on about social media, how about a congressional library social media platform. Anonymous users names tied to real people with warrants required to uncover them, strict laws apply to comments including freedom of speech versus actual crimes ie threats and set rules equally applied, this as a bone fide, legal and validated, strictly hugely illegal to interfere with (no government paid propagandists, severe penalties for trying) public discussion forums. Can even have foreigners as long as the US government can identify them and they are tagged as such (country of origin), still anonymous because outside opinions are always useful, stuck in a bubble is a waste of time.
So part of the digital highway could also be things like, safe universal email address, US political social media, search (with set rules, sorting and open source algorithms), shared library of congress content library (videos, pictures, stories and other stuff - more on that latter not time yet).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Don't worry, the spy networks will be baked in from the get go.
Of course, they're going to be there even if the government doesn't run the 5g, so it's not like trusting them is an issue. Just expect them to be spying. At least it'll cut down on the corporations doing it, the government usually doesn't like people trying to compete with it directly.
Though if the government is doing the 5g, US hardware for it will be highly unpopular in other countries. They'll automatically assume it's got spyware in it if the government has a hand in it.
Carriers are required to provide that information to the federal government. It's one of the things in the FISA bills that keep quietly passing Congress.
Are you seriously asserting carriers are continuously sending the wareabouts of every cell user to the federal government? If so feel free to backup your claim with publically available evidence. Wholesale collection of CDRs from everyone was ended years ago.
Yup, and what makes people think that the government agency running this national 5G network would just alluvasudden ignore whatever laws there are in place that currently prevent the security services from bullying private mobile service providers into tracking every user's location in real time and warehouse the data? If the US security apparatus wanted to implement an Orwellian system to monitor the movements of every US citizen via their cellphone it will not make a damn bit of difference whether the 5G network is publicly or privately owned.
In public he appears that way to make people like you think he's some kind of bumbling fool. And yet this a fool built a multi-billion dollar enterprise by having to negotiate contracts and construction with some of the most corrupt politicians and labor unions in the world.
He knows exactly what he is doing both publicly and privately. There are many people who say that in meetings when the media isn't present he's laser focused on the topic at hand and grasps nuances that others miss.
The man has been playing the media and people like you since he announced his campaign and you're all so arrogant and egotistical that you can't even see it.
I'm always amazed how every Republican president is supposedly a bumbling fool while every Democrat one is supposedly some form of genius or superior human and yet in my over 50 years my life and society in general has always seemed to be better when a Republican was in charge.
"something that the government provides to its citizens"
Our federal government was instituted specifically on the premise that it granted nothing, but was intended to recognizedcertain inalienable rights.
Now we're discussing how our federal government should 'give' to citizens that which we, citizens, are beginning to consider to be 'rights'. Like information channels.
No, this is wrong. In fact, what we think of as 'rights' should be inalienable, and the Internet is not such a thing. Turn off the electricity and discover what 'rights' actually are.
Now, fairness and honesty might compel us to ensure that the airwaves licensed to commercial enterprises for the purposes of information delivery be used in the public interest, and that be examined periodically, those enterprises be held to account for their performance, and perhaps sometimes changes made to encourage use for the public good, but to describe these as 'rights' goes a step too far. And if you've just thought that our federal government perhaps should not be in that business, well, you've got a good point. A good discussion to have. We might change things.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I've worked for governments and businesses, big and small. Some of the large private businesses can give government a good run for the money on inefficiency and incompetency. In fact, I've never found governments to be particularly incompetent in my line of work (consulting engineer for construction projects), just very slow and inefficient, mainly due to government requirements on being fair.