FCC Chairman Slams Trump Team's Proposal To Nationalize 5G (axios.com)

The Federal Communications Commission's Republican chairman on Monday opposed a plan under consideration by the Trump White House to build a 5G mobile network, nationalizing what has long been the role of private wireless carriers like AT&T and Verizon. From the report: "I oppose any proposal for the federal government to build and operate a nationwide 5G network," he said. The FCC's reaction doesn't bode well for the proposal the Trump administration is considering, first reported by Axios on Sunday night, since it's one of the main government agencies when it comes to wireless issues.

Comments

Killing Net Neutrality was fine....

[MikeDataLink]

because it filled their wallets. This takes money off the table. Whoops.

Re:Killing Net Neutrality was fine....

[jellomizer]

A government monopoly means that you have some say in what goes on in a democracy. Vs. a Corporate monopoly where your only action is to not purchase it, and being a monopoly you will not have competing products to choose from.

Re:Killing Net Neutrality was fine....

[ranton]

And you failed to answer the question, you brain-dead fool. All you did was throw up a strawman.

Considering his post was nearly identical to you, every bit of criticism you gave him also applies to your argument. If your only argument is that government shouldn't be trusted because it has done bad things, then it is no better than saying private companies shouldn't be trusted because they have done bad things. His implied point is that both private and public entities do bad things, so your argument is moot.

Most people agree that a competitive environment is best, a government monopoly is worse but sometimes necessary, and a corporate monopoly is the worst possible option. What many disagree on is what it takes to maintain a competitive environment and whether or not one can realistically exist for all industries.

A disagreement on this topic can be had without the type of inflammatory language you are using.

Re:Killing Net Neutrality was fine....

[HiThere]

The thing is, the transmission layer of the network, even a wireless network, is a natural monopoly. In such a case it does make sense to have the government running it...you aren't going to get much competition anyway. *Somebody's* going to be controlling it.

Compare the current situation with the original situation, where the phone company supplied the wires and the connection, and any group that wanted to could start up an ISP. Then there was real competition between the ISPs. Now? But competition at the physical level is impractical. So the physical layer should be handled by a "public utility". The problem is, I'd really like it to be isolated from government control.

According to Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump team=someone in a government department showing someone else a PowerPoint.

Building a 5G network

[Anonymous Coward]

for the government use is different from refusing to auction the spectrum and managing the use of it. Which plans are we talking about here, really? Confusion is starting to trump summaries that we can believe in again.

The FCC shouldn't have a position on this

[mysidia]

This just comes to show.... the FCC is in the Pockets of the corporate monopolies who are scared of potential competition.

The FCC's job is to be a neutral technical regulator for spectrum and consumer protection --- having a national 5G network would not adversly affect the FCC's ability to do their job, so why are they even commenting?

I can think of only one reason.... the commission is attempting to leverage the fallacy that they are experts in matters of commerce and infrastructure investment to push the administration in the direction of the political goals of their past and future employers: The largest cable companies and Telcos.

Re:Can't fault a man for sticking to his guns.

[gtall]

Maybe. It is also consistent with his positions of being a tool of the telecoms. Or maybe he's holding out for a higher bid for his "services".

Go figure

[elohssa]

A lawyer for Verizon would oppose nationalizing part of Verizon's business.

As much as I think ...

[PPH]

... Trump's nationalization plan is way over the top, he (Trump) does have a point in that our telecom infrastructure is a critical utility. And to the extent that it probably should remain in private hands, it needs oversight and regulation. And if the private owners can't see fit to run it as anything more than their own marketing channel to consumers, then the government needs to step in. And this includes building systems in poorly covered areas where private capital doesn't see the ROI to justify the service.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[swb]

What fantasy world do you live in where cellular carriers aren't regularly and enthusiastically turning over data to the government?

Of course he'll slam it...

[QuietLagoon]

... he is owned by Verizon and other ISPs.

Re:"He" is Ajit Pai

[whoever57]

I wonder how he'll blame Obama or Hillary for this betrayal?

Simple, he will blame Obama for appointing Pai.

Re:Can't fault a man for sticking to his guns.

[jellomizer]

I am not sure why it is funny. But Trumps only policy is what seems to Trump up Trump. He isn't a conservative or liberal, he is Trump who just wants himself to look good. He will stick with the people who likes him and complements him, and will betray anyone who makes him seem less then he thinks he is.

This makes him easily manipulative. I have worked with personalities like this in the past, just as long as you weather the temper-tantrums, you can get the person to do whatever you want.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[swb]

Which is unbelievably easy to get plus we have no idea how much permanent ingress is allowed to the government or what data is just sent over regularly.

I don't think a common wireless utility (simply running the spectrum + backhaul) would be any less subject to the thin barrier of warrants or any less compromised than the major carriers already are.

The consumer benefit so greatly outweighs the "muh gubmint" risk.

Re:Can't fault a man for sticking to his guns.

[Marillion]

Exactly. Pai has a deep ideological belief in free markets. I'd go so far as to say he has too much faith in free markets. I feel free markets are good when there's enough elasticity in the market for good old-fashioned supply and demand to function correctly. But the telecom industry has a natural tendency to be a monopoly due to the enormous physical plant required to prevent the supply side from reacting to the demand side. In the absence of strong regulatory action, the monopoly will ... what's the euphemism? ... maximize shareholder value.

Re:Only Consistent Trump Policy is TREASON

[MachineShedFred]

Actually this is very consistent for Chairman Pai - he's a telecom shill and (officially) former Verizon lobbyist, so both rejecting the Federal government from becoming a supplier for Verizon, as well as killing Net Neutrality is entirely consistent with serving his corporate overlord.

He can't serve two masters, and only one of those masters is paying him 30 coins of silver to sell the rest of us out.

Re:"He" is Ajit Pai

[whoever57]

I know that's what happened.

But do you think that the fact that Pai was McConnell's choice will stop Trump from blaming Obama for Pai's appointment?