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."

Comments

Good

[sexconker]

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

Re:Good

[GerryGilmore]

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...

Re:Good

[alvinrod]

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.

Re:Good

[bigwheel]

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.

Re:Good

[Angelwrath]

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.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

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 :)

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Good

[NicknameUnavailable]

The cell phone bill that gets $30/mo more expensive every year doesn't help, but this is the proper solution to net neutrality: it's a utility, treat it as such. Nationalize 5G and the ISPs will get scared and straiten out or get nationalized too.

Re:Good

[4wdloop]

They did decent job with highway system, no?

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re: Good

[WindBourne]

ACA was force on the nation as GOP refused to actually work with them. Then the GOP has done everything to destroy. Yet, if we go back to BEFORE ACA, America's deficit increases a great deal.

Re:Good

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Good

[slew]

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 :)

As illustrated by the latest Strava revelation, sideband/meta-data information is quite useful and end-to-end encryption often doesn't protect against leaking this information. Things like Tor reduce the leakage of this type of sideband, but as we also know, actual implementations like Tor cannot be perfect (nor the users that use the technology).

Re:Good

[rtb61]

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).

Re:Good

[Freischutz]

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.

Re:Good

[meerling]

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.

Re: Good

[kelemvor4]

Citation or examples please.

As usual you have no clue.

I work for the government. We are incompetent assclowns.

NOAA, NASA are the first that come to mind. Your department may be full of assclowns, but not all are.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the USPS, which despite constant bitching from the Right will still deliver to any address in the U.S. for the cost of a stamp, which adjusted for inflation is about as cheap as it's ever been and is still an order of magnitude less than what you'd pay a private carrier for the same service.

Re:Good

[rickb928]

"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.

Re: Good

[jbengt]

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.

Re:Good

[doconnor]

"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."

I've never heard this from anyone but partisans. Can you provide examples?

Re: Good

[MachineShedFred]

Answering your question: electricity generation. Like it or not, the Tennessee Power Authority and the Bonneville Power Authority in the Pacific Northwest generate a shitload of electricity and wholesale it to the grid operators. Sure, there aren't really rapid advancements in that field like there are with telecommunications so it's not a perfect example (far from it, really) but it's an example of where the government has "kept pace" with the free market.

The irony though: it's not like you would have federal employees out there standing up cell masts - they would contract the whole mess out to Verizon / ATT / Sprint to use existing cell sites, and give those telcos a nice big scapegoat for any customer service complaints about service quality.

This is just a proposed government giveaway to the telcos, again. Big surprise. Instead of them footing the bill for the network rollout, the taxpayer does. And then they continue charging the shit out of us for access to it.

Re:Good

[layabout]

if you take an honest look, most social infrastructure (roads, schools, prisons, law enforcement, food and medical safety, etc) delivers better results than private industry. when government fails, it is usually from fake state actors starving the project of the money it needs to function.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Korea.
Australia.
Netherlands.
Sweden.

Re: Good

[apoc.famine]

Really? USPS delivers to my door 6 days a week, and drops off for Amazon on Sunday. UPS swings by at 10am on a Tuesday, and slaps a note on my door that if I want my package, I have to drive to a shady strip mall 3 miles away in another day or two and pick it up from an "unaffiliated" UPS Store.

And when I tell the employees at that store that it's fucking bullshit that I pay to have packages delivered to my door, and they don't even let me sign them to be left when I'm not there, they tell me that they're not affiliated with UPS. At a store branded "The UPS Store". And that I should call a 1800 number, wait on hold for 20 minutes, and then complain. And, of course, this "unaffiliated" store is open like 9 to 6, and Saturday morning.

All while a mile from my house USPS has a 24hr service center where I can bring my packages in, weigh them, affix the postage, and drop them off, and buy stamps and even snag some of the flat-rate boxes.

I'm in the upper Midwest in a small city. The difference between USPS and UPS is very stark around here. UPS sucks balls, and USPS is pretty fantastic, even when there's 2' of snow and a -20 wind chill.

LMAO

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't sound very conservative. It's cool though because he's on our team.

Re:LMAO

[aussie_a]

Lots of people in government make all sorts of recommendations, most of them aren't acted on. Just because one department made a presentation on something doesn't mean "team Trump" are going to do it.

Re:LMAO

[PopeRatzo]

PopeCrapso

You're triggered, aren't you? Because you sound triggered.

I get a bonus in my monthly Soros check when I can trigger an AC on Slashdot. Would you mind filling out a brief survey about your satisfaction with this interaction? You'll be entered in a drawing to win a MAGA hat or a pair of Stormy Daniels panties worn after an interracial cuck scene.

No Russia?

[ArchieBunker]

A Trump story without a mention of Russia hacking something? Come on Slashdot!

Neo-colonial behavior?

[Bobrick]

Reading a US government official denouncing another country's neo-colonial behavior just made my freaking day. +1 Funny whoever it was... Ivanka? Jared?

Re:Neo-colonial behavior?

[HiThere]

Sorry, the US doesn't have to justify leaving a power vacuum. It didn't intend to do so, it's just that that's the way things happen. Being the "top dog" is expensive in many ways, and no country can afford to do that forever, even with stolen wealth. Egypt couldn't, Greece couldn't, Rome couldn't, Britain couldn't, and the US can't. Except for Greece (Alexander) the time periods seem to be getting shorter and the area dominated larger, but it hasn't happened often enough to make a pattern that can be trusted. Estimates, however, have been made that the US has spend several times the worth of all the oil remaining in the ground in the Middle East fighting there.

The problems is that times of transition of power have often been violent. This needs to be avoided this time if humanity is to survive.

P.S.: There are several "world powers" I just left out, though with the inclusion of Greece the justice of doing so is questionable. In particular the Assyrians, the Hittites, the Mongols, etc. The Mongols in particular should really have been included, as their "empire" still has an affect on the modern world. Tamerlain shaped the tone of the Moslem religion into a strongly militaristic and Xenophobic form, which it didn't have in the earlier period. The Koran can be read in as many different ways as the rest of the Bible. But with the destruction of the civilized cities along the silk road, the Moslems retreated into a shell of fundamentalism, and many of them have not yet re-emerged. (Now justify why the Christians are doing the same thing without being wiped out by an invading army.)
OTOH, leaving out China from the list was not only intentional, but strongly justifiable. China has almost always been heavily introverted. Their traditional stance has been "Nobody outside China matters". The British may have broken this stance, but it wouldn't surprise me to see it re-assert itself. This doesn't mean they don't seek to dominate those they trade with. North Vietnam would have willingly allied itself with the US to avoid Chinese domination, but the US was unwilling to deal honorably with them. This has happened several times where potential allies were turned into enemies because the US refused to deal honorably with them. For explicit examples you could ask the American Indian tribes how honestly the US has maintained it's treaties. Often, however, the US hasn't even been honorable long enough for a treaty to be signed. In Vietnam the Geneva Protocols were first accepted by the US, and then, when the US saw who would win the election, violated. Etc.

Re:Chinese neo-colonial behavior?

[R3d M3rcury]

They're behaving the way we do. It's not fair!

Also in the news...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Re:Also in the news...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Mobile networks are not a natural monopoly, the way wired networks are.

I find your views on limitless spectrum intreging and would like to know more. At the very least, you can always (at huge expense) run more non-interfering fiber. You cannot just broadcast more data.

good thinking - no chinese components

[iggymanz]

this will protect us, because mobile devices aren't made in china

neither are the components of wireless networking gear

(pffffft!!!!)

Re:China, dominant..?

[PopeRatzo]

I guess they forgot the Finnish Nokia, which *actually* dominates the mobile network business.

That's why Trump's got the Department of Defense working on a bomb that kills everyone but leaves hot blondes with big fake tits alone.

It's kind of like a neutron bomb, but for breast implants.

Re:Baked in paranoia

[93 Escort Wagon]

Get the design from a trusted US, Germany, Japan, France, UK brand. All thats needed is the experts to show their design is 5G ready and secure to US standards.

Under most administrations, Republican or Democrat, I wouldn't blink at this. But with this guy... all it's going to take is one wild rumor from Fox News and suddenly Trump's going to demand everything be completely changed.

Thoughts

[DaMattster]

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.

Not that kind of protect...

[Excelcia]

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*

My God, what's next?

[mark_reh]

Medicare for all?

Extraordinarily bad idea

[WaffleMonster]

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.

Re:Extraordinarily bad idea

[jeff4747]

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

That horse left the barn in the Bush administration. 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.

Re:Extraordinarily bad idea

[WaffleMonster]

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.

That horse left the barn in the Bush administration.

So what if it has? Is this a license to ignore the issue and allow it to be made worse?

Re:Extraordinarily bad idea

[Freischutz]

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.

Re:Extraordinarily bad idea

[Freischutz]

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.

Given recent history...

[Falconnan]

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.

Re: Nationalize?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Minority report

[markdavis]

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....

Well Infrastructure should never be private

[Casandro]

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?...

Yes, but...

[Casandro]

there are already agreements on that for decades, that wouldn't really make a difference.

Re:Chinese neo-colonial behavior?

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Another important point:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'm German, and ...

[meerling]

Sure, it's normal for the government to not be profit motivated, but trump is, and I suspect anything he does because of it. He's abusing the country in several ways that already, so why should we not suspect this move as well?

Nationalizing? Neo-Colonialism?

[dpilot]

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.

Amtrak

[jabberw0k]

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.

Re:Chinese neo-colonial behavior?

[jwhyche]

The Serbians have a saying that translated means,

No they don't, or none that I can find. I even asked a Serbian here at work and he has never heard of it Can you provide a direct citation complete with 'colorful' language?

Re:Chinese neo-colonial behavior?

[jwhyche]

Ako Amerikanka nudi pomoc, mrsh u pichku materinu

Doing some research with google and bing translators this quote still doesn't seem to be a true Serbian saying. After doing a few translations and comparing to results on google I got absolutely no matches for ether the original quote or the original quote. I think some one was having some fun at your expense. Don't worry though. Lots of people have been burned by not properly researching their BS, err I mean quotations.

I love reading and collecting quotes. Some of my favorite are by Mark Twain. The following one is one so many of us should learn to live by.

qaqmeH qoH puS 'oH poS je Hoch Hon teq 'e' DaHar SoQ nuj 'ej nuvpu' yInISQo'.

I think, like Shakespeare, it rolls off the tongue better when its spoken in the original Klingon.