Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trump Team Considers Nationalizing America's 5G Network (axios.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the one-ringtone-to-rule-them-all dept.

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."

18 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. Good by sexconker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This would in theory make carriers compete for customers everywhere, and increase signal availability and quality for everyone.

    1. Re:Good by GerryGilmore · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I agree! This nonsense of selling spectrum to the deepest pocketed existing carrier should end. Let the government build out the network and lease - at RAND pricing - capacity to those carriers ready, willing and able to do so in any given area. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Capitalist Pig(TM) and proud of it, but - you know - pigs get fat and hogs (existing carriers) get slaughtered. As they deserve to be...

    2. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And it'll be built entirely from devices manufactured in China. So pointless and porky, right in the Trump wheelhouse.

    3. Re:Good by bigwheel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While I normally cringe at the having the government in control of things, this seems like a good idea to me too. Information routes, like roadways, should be something that the government provides to its citizens, rather than having much of the country at the whim of one or two carriers, who happen to own and control the spectrum. Plus, it pulls some of the Net Neutrality concerns off of the table.

      It will be interesting to see how they plan to pay for it.

    4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And of course, as its leased out government owned, there of course would NEVER be any domestic spying without all that pesky warrant and "just cause" right.. I mean that would have nothing to do with that.

      That can be adequately remedied with VPN and other secure tunneling methods. If it means that rural areas of the United States will finally receive decent broadband it just might be worth the trade.

    5. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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 hate Trump more than most, but this seems on the face a good idea. That is not to say the federal government won't screw it up.

      In short, spectrum is finite. You want phones to be as simple as possible to cut costs, so having everyone share the same hopefully fairly large set of spectrum makes sense. They just need to have every company leasing out fractions of cells on an as needed basis. You might need an additional penalty of you leased space for a month and never used it, just to avoid companies tying up spectrum.

      Spectrum in remote areas might be cheap, or possibly more expensive, if it is used in place of real broadband.

      I'm not sure I buy the security angle though. Phones are likely fast enough to encrypt conversations end to end real time, but maybe our government doesn't want to implement that :)

    6. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I like the analogy to the freeway system.

      Good broadband should be available all over the USA, just like the postal service and the highway system. It will make rural communities relevant again.

    7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Fools! If you give up 5G to guard against China, you lose 5G and become China!

    8. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Yeah ... right .. OK
      So the government would let VPN's operate on "their" network?
      You would only be able to have a VPN if it was a government supplied VPN with all the required backdoors built in.
      But hey .... you could finally get to listen in on Hillary's plans...

      Idiot.

    9. Re:Good by Freischutz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're making a big assumption: The government can implement the network competently.

      Consider healthcare.gov.

      That is a double edged argument. There are plenty of examples from all over the world where private enterprise took over previously government owned and operated road & rail grids, water supply systems, electric grids, communications grids, public real estate assets, etc ... that gave these private parties an effective monopoly. They then let then let these things fall apart through lack of maintenance and investment while effectively taxing the hell out of citizenry. That last part is what has effectively happened in the US mobile and internet service sectors. The telcos have divvied the country up into competition free fiefdoms and are taxing the hell out of the citizenry for totally sub standard service. If I'm going to be taxed by anybody I'd prefer it be the government because I can oust those bozos every four years by voting them out out of office. Ousting corporate oligarchs takes billions of dollars and a hostile takeover.

  2. Also in the news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...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.

  3. Re: Nationalize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You forgot the Godless Evangelicals who worship him and his false idols.

  4. Extraordinarily bad idea by WaffleMonster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Extraordinarily bad idea by Freischutz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      Why? All that is necessary now to achieve total surveillance is bully all the big providers into feeding the NSA data or just to allow the NSA unrestricted access to each providers backbone and the NSA has done that already. The horrible eventuality you foresee is already the norm thanks to the Republicans and Corporate Democrats (a few lone dissidents on both sides excepted). One big advantage of a national 5G grid would be that new service providers will be able to get equal access to the national grid and to challenge the big boys and eliminate the mobile service fiefdoms the US is currently divided up into and if there is no equal access it would be easier to bully the Fed into allowing it on a national grid by going through the courts than fighting a bunch of Telcos operating as a cartel. In Europe communities with municipal network backbones often have the liveliest competition and the lowest prices due to equal access for everybody both big national and small local players. Of course competition should have been enforced long a go through cartel, price fixing and competition laws since the US Telcos have not made much effort to hide their anti-competitive behaviour. Still, I wouldn't worry, the big Telcos are hard at work lobbying to kill this idea of a national 5G grid to protect their competition free fiefdoms so the current totally rotten system is safe.

  5. Re:Chinese neo-colonial behavior? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But this is the kicker:

    It also suggests America could export its secure 5G technology to protect its allies,

    You might want to ask our allies what it means to them when America comes to "protect" them. It usually means a body count. Ask Europe, North Africa and Southeast Asia.

    The Serbians have a saying that translated means, "When American comes to help, find a hole and crawl in." It's more colorful in their language and contains references to one's mother's private parts, but that's Serbians for you.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  7. Another important point: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  8. Amtrak by jabberw0k · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.