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."

30 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 alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    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 Angelwrath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    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 AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    8. Re:Good by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    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.

    10. Re:Good by meerling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re: Good by kelemvor4 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    12. Re:Good by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.
    13. Re: Good by jbengt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    14. Re: Good by apoc.famine · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  2. LMAO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. Re:LMAO by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:LMAO by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  3. Neo-colonial behavior? by Bobrick · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. Re:Also in the news... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  5. Thoughts by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. My God, what's next? by mark_reh · · Score: 4, Funny

    Medicare for all?

  7. 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 jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. 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.

    3. Re:Extraordinarily bad idea by Freischutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  8. Minority report by markdavis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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....

  9. Well Infrastructure should never be private by Casandro · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?...

  10. 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.
  11. 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.