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.
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....
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.
"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.