Slashdot Mirror


President Trump Wants US To Win 5G Through Real Competition (bbc.com)

hackingbear writes: In a tweet, President Trump said he wanted "5G, and even 6G, technology in the United States as soon as possible. I want the United States to win through competition, not by blocking out currently more advanced technologies. American companies must step up their efforts, or get left behind." While he did not specifically mention China's Huawei, many interpreted the comments as Mr Trump taking a softer stance on the firm. The U.S. has been pressuring allies to block out the Chinese telecom giant from their future 5G mobile networks, but the tactic meets considerable resistance. "Mr. President. I cannot agree with you more. Our company is always ready to help build the real 5G network in the U.S., through competition," Huawei President Ken Hu replied in a tweet, mocking Trump's frequent usages of the word "real." Huawei is the second biggest holder of 5G patents after Samsung and the top contributor to the 5G standard, and is setting its sight on 6G.

56 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. Fix it in software by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought 5G was just a software update. This is just fake news because everyone is jealous that AT&T are the only people investing in making 5G a reality and were the first to do so.

    1. Re:Fix it in software by michelcolman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fuck everything, we're doing 7G.

    2. Re:Fix it in software by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      My G goes to 11.

  2. Phonetards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Oh great, phonetards are getting high-speed conduits to share their retardation even faster than usual.
    We need phone/desktop apartheid, segregate the phonetards from the enlightened desktop master race.

    1. Re: Phonetards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you masturbate when you write this nonsense?

  3. does this one go to 11G? by nadaou · · Score: 2
    --
    ~.~
    I'm a peripheral visionary.
    1. Re:does this one go to 11G? by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      First we finish the wall. And then? 8G.

  4. Real competition? Trump? by gweihir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does he even understand what that word means?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Real competition? Trump? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope, he thinks it means borrowing a whole lot of money to try and crush the competition then declaring bankruptcy and not paying the contractors what you owe when you finally figure out that it's not sustainable because you're not "competing", you're "subsidizing".

      Leave other people to pay the bills and pick up the pieces.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re: Real competition? Trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not progressives who are at fault for the hypocrisy, corruption, and fraud of the blatantly selfish right-wing fools.

    3. Re:Real competition? Trump? by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Remember the adage of the broken clock. "Even a broken clock is right two times a day". I am by no means a Trump Supporter, I find this man to be to be the embodiment of evil, as his views and actions tend goes against everything that I have learned to be right and moral. However to stop myself from being angry and bitter all the time, I will have to ask myself what is my view on this particular issue, and how would I solve it, with the information I currently have at hand about it... And sometimes Trumps approach would match mine, So, I have to give him a point on that particular area.

      Now that said, I agree We need strong Competion in the wireless speed race, so the standard isn't controlled by the Big boys in the Room such as American Telephone and Telegraph, there is a complication with Competition and Deploying Standards, which they are often trade-offs in each design. Method 1 may have greater range but slower speed, while method 2 has a Faster Speed but less of a range, They are methods that are in the middle. Some may have smaller range and slower speed, but is more easier managed, and components for receivers are cheaper. Some methods way work better in Rural areas with less volume, while others may work better in a crowded area. With True Competition, we are not going to have 5G, but a dozen of 5G's all incompatible with each other.
      Often when standards are applied, they are rarely the best option out there, but the most balanced good enough out there.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Real competition? Trump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait, but the left loves it's tech startups that do the same thing?

    5. Re:Real competition? Trump? by Joce640k · · Score: 1, Informative

      They're not doing it with taxpayer money.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re: Real competition? Trump? by gweihir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I find it fascinating that you Trump-fanatics never have any good arguments _for_ your choices, only the usual, invalid "the others are worse".

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re: Real competition? Trump? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You mean people made a grave mistake and are now trying to push the blame for that on somebody else? Makes sense to me.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  5. That's rich. by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As though Trump would know anything about competition.

    He only won his "competition" with Russians stepping up their social engineering techniques on a gullible public, and the GOP blocking votes from being being counted in congressional races.

    1. Re:That's rich. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's competition!

      Just like marks are "citizens", respect for the rule of law is "the unhinged, violent left", lining up to apply for asylum is "illegal rapists and murderers", Nazis is "good people", and tax cuts for the top one percent are "for the middle class".

      That's GOP cant.

    2. Re: That's rich. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, she didn't say the working class are deplorables. She said half of Trump's supporters are deplorables. And she's been proven right. They continue to support him, no matter how much he exploits his position for his own family's gain. No matter how many racist attacks he makes against minorities. And when asked to defend his actions they just say "but it pisses Democrats off". Those right there are the irredeemable deplorables she was exactly talking about. There is no point at which they will say enough is enough (except maybe for when he finally does something that directly affects then in a negative way, even if it was something they knew he promised)

    3. Re:That's rich. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Again with the Hillary issues...you do realize the election was two years ago

      Yep.

      So, do YOU realize that what you're responding to was responding to someone who brought up the election. You know, the one where Trump and Hillary were running against each other?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:That's rich. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Again with the Hillary issues...you do realize the election was two years ago but you still seem intent on reliving it. Move on, come up to speed, cook with gas. "Sure my guy is a dolt, but that Hillary...whoa!!".

      Hey - they are still pissed off about Franklin D Roosevelt. So my guess is they'll be able to to raise their blood pressure about ol' Hellery for another 50 years or so.

      It's just what they do as opposed to solutions.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:That's rich. by markass530 · · Score: 1

      still sticking with whataboutism there ruskie

    6. Re:That's rich. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      The topic is the "blame the dirty foreigners" narrative, which is always bullshit. You can tell it's bullshit because people blame the foreigners for their own faults.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:That's rich. by TomBauserman · · Score: 1

      Longer than 20 years. Since Reagan, we were signing peace treaties while arming Afghanistan against the Russians. We were arming and training death squads in El Salvador starting in 1980, then we used the contra guerillas to attack the sandinistas. We've been sticking our nose where it doesn't belong for a long time. It's all about the $$$.

    8. Re:That's rich. by hey! · · Score: 1

      More to the point, misunderstanding competition is how the US ended up lagging the rest of the developed world in mobile technology.

      The first GSM specification was produced in 1987. Rather than get behind that the Reagan and later George HW Bush administration decided that government shouldn't be involved in standardization of telecom technology, that competition would select the best standard.

      In fact what happened was that carriers selected a number of incompatible 2G technologies that were roughly equivalent in their capabilities: GSD, CDMA-200, D-AMPS, iDEN. Rather than focusing exclusively on building out their networks, carriers preferred to *lock in* customers, often charging exorbitant fees for things like getting pictures out of your phone's camera.

      *Competing standards* helped shield carriers from *economic competition* based on price and quality of service.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:That's rich. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "He only won his "competition" with Russians stepping up their social engineering techniques on a gullible public, and the GOP blocking votes from being being counted in congressional races."

      Don't forget the opposing party's subversion of the democratic process, in spite of having democracy in their name. There was plenty of fuckery on both sides.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:That's rich. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Hillary and bubba were both solidly behind war in Iraq. One of the things that Trump supporters believed, erroneously of course, was that Trump would avoid needless wars. They believed it because he broke from the pack and actually called out specific politicians for that behavior, the Clintons among them. Of course, that was a lot of crap. I criticized Obama for drone strikes... Which have increased under Trump. And we're still in Iraq. And anyone who believed that he'd back off from those policies is a tool.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:That's rich. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Hillary and bubba were both solidly behind war in Iraq.

      I was listening to some revisionist history this morning. Trying to claim that Dubya got bad intel that made him decide to go into Iraq. Funny, as I recall at the time that the Intel community was pissed because he ignored their input, just like the pre 9-11 input was ignored.

      One of the things that Trump supporters believed, erroneously of course, was that Trump would avoid needless wars. They believed it because he broke from the pack and actually called out specific politicians for that behavior, the Clintons among them. Of course, that was a lot of crap. I criticized Obama for drone strikes... Which have increased under Trump. And we're still in Iraq. And anyone who believed that he'd back off from those policies is a tool.

      One of the issues we are now facing is that we have been at war, and spending a lot of money since 2002. Which sounds remarkably like one of the things that helped break the old Soviet Union up. No country can engage in endless warfare without bankrupting itself, and if anything real comes up, we are well and truly screwed.

      As to his supporters, it has become clear over time, that they were just handing a big "Fuck You!!!" to the establishment. Problem was, they elected a person who exemplified the worst part of the establishment, coupled with a remarkable lack of insight other than what lines his pockets. Meanwhile, the farmers around here who haven't even harvested the soybeans that are rotting in the field have taken down their Trump-Pence MAGA signs. Seems that their man believes that tariff wars are easy to win, and I guess rotting soybeans are just a sign of winning.

      But the 1960's trailers with all the washers, dryers, and cars sitting in the yard still have their signs up. Maybe it serves as a windbreak.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re:That's rich. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      One of the issues we are now facing is that we have been at war, and spending a lot of money since 2002.

      We've been at war in Iraq since when, the sixties?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:That's rich. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      One of the issues we are now facing is that we have been at war, and spending a lot of money since 2002.

      We've been at war in Iraq since when, the sixties?

      But we weren't sucking the treasury dry. The family bitchfight that was the Dubya war, was pointless. Halliburton did well though.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re:That's rich. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We've been at war in Iraq since when, the sixties?

      But we weren't sucking the treasury dry.

      We didn't get here without going through there.

      The family bitchfight that was the Dubya war, was pointless.

      Every president for decades has bombed the shit out of Iraq. This is not about a "family bitchfight". This is about American imperialism. Reagan. Bush. Clinton. Bush. Obama. Trump. What do they all have in common? Military policy in the middle east.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re: That's rich. by Paul+Carver · · Score: 1

      No, she didn't say the working class are deplorables. She said half of Trump's supporters are deplorables. And she's been proven right. They continue to support him

      Wait, you're telling me that insulting people didn't cause them to join your side?

      I think Trump is an idiot, but if you think calling people "deplorable" is a viable strategy for converting them to your point of view then you're dumber than he is. Of course trump's supporters haven't abandoned him to join up with the people who expressed contempt for them.

    16. Re:That's rich. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      We've been at war in Iraq since when, the sixties?

      But we weren't sucking the treasury dry.

      We didn't get here without going through there.

      The family bitchfight that was the Dubya war, was pointless.

      Every president for decades has bombed the shit out of Iraq. This is not about a "family bitchfight". This is about American imperialism. Reagan. Bush. Clinton. Bush. Obama. Trump. What do they all have in common? Military policy in the middle east.

      We'll just have to agree to disagree about the bitchfight https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    17. Re:That's rich. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Every president for decades has bombed the shit out of Iraq. This is not about a "family bitchfight". This is about American imperialism.

      We'll just have to agree to disagree about the bitchfight

      I read your link. That was a pretext, nothing more, and bombing Iraq again was simply a continuation of prior U.S. foreign policy on Iraq. I am often resistant to video citations, but I really cannot recommend highly enough that you take the time to watch the above video. It seems long, but it is actually jam-packed with relevant information, provided in a straightforward fashion. It specifically names the individuals responsible on both sides of the aisle, and does not pull punches.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Re:Serving you with Confidence by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    It was Chinese shill hackingbear did you expect any less?

  7. Huawei? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    A real competition where he picks who gets to play is not a real competition.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  8. Thatâ(TM)s right! But... by Petersko · · Score: 1

    You canâ(TM)t tell the useful idiots that theyâ(TM)re idiots if you need them. And she needed some of them.

    She couldnâ(TM)t smile and nod, and let these people believe theyâ(TM)re important. She was a terrible candidate.

    1. Re: Thatâ(TM)s right! But... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I walk into a room with only one other person in it and declare that half the room are idiots. And the other guy agrees with me!

  9. Re:I'm waiting for 11G by Sique · · Score: 1

    For now, you can use 802.11g. The 802 are extra.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  10. Irresponsible lying propaganda summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "mocking Trump's frequent usages of the word "real."

    Does anyone in their right mind believe the president of Huawei was somehow "mocking" president Trump's apparent overture to free trade? That has to be the stupidest most lying propagandist comment I have ever read.

    If anything Huawei's president was insinuating that because Huawei holds the most 5G patents that it was in the best position to build "real" 5G networks. Not everything is about making Trump look bad.

    These are serious geopolitical and world trade issues that the world's number 1 economy (China) and the US are trying to work out for mutual benefit.

    Getting in a jab at president Trump, especially a false one that if misinterpreted could sour relations and eventually lead to war if the war hawks prevail in their insane quest to kill us all... is irresponsible.

  11. Re:China cant invent anything by quenda · · Score: 1

    American delusion. China used to be a purely copy-paste tech nation, but if you hadn't noticed, they've been producing more and more original tech over the past years.

    And before that it was Japan, who shamelessly copied western goods and sold them cheaper. Until eventually they made better cameras and cars.
    Before that it was the US, ignoring copyright and patents until they became leaders instead of followers.

    China's caught up with us.

    Meh ... getting there. A way to go yet. Taiwan and Korea are more caught up.

  12. I'll give you competition. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    4 years ago we got on a contract with AT&T for 10mbps fiber at 3 locations.

    They oversold the product and couldn't give us SIP Trunks for older POTS PBX's. Literally told the rep "sell me a phone system, give me a number", he didn't want to. Not that it wasn't time to change them out but hey. Found an ISP who could who snagged the business.

    Doing the work to get us right with them before going to another vendor, I discovered our project manager was out in the phillipines, and they were sending CCNA certified contractors (really just kids) to do wiring jobs because union labor was just too expensive. I got 9, Cisco 10,000 series routers, $10k a pop, shipped to me because the order got re-entered several times. After we moved to a new ISP it took them a full year for the "asset recovey team" to give me a call and send labels. There's a reason nobody likes doing business with AT&T or any of the large carriers; they don't care because they don't have to.

    Right now we're working against a telecom oligopoly that needs to be broken up; Huawei are a bunch of bastards just like any US corporation with the distinct difference being that US Corps know not to taunt ant government openly. Do that first.

    Also, really great idea. If your company is caught shipping devices that have backdoors for your governement in them into the US for the purpose of engaging in espionage, not only do your products get banned from being imported into the US permanently, but your companies patents get invalided as well and the tech goes public. We need to learn not to engage in warfare via economics and that's the only way how, make the cost of doing that astronomically high.

  13. 6G=X-Rays and Gamma Rays? by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    I wonder what 6G and 7G are. X-Rays and Gamma rays so everyone can get cancer?

    1. Re:6G=X-Rays and Gamma Rays? by niftydude · · Score: 1

      No. We're still pretty far away from that. 6G is supposed to head towards the terahertz regime: https://www.networkworld.com/a...

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
  14. Re:China cant invent anything by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    Per country, China is #1 in Co2 emissions. Almost twice the US.
    Per capita, China is #3.

    1.5 billion chinamen can't be wrong!

  15. 5G==Mesh network by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1

    SO 6G==?????

    Optical?

    1. Re:5G==Mesh network by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Laser beams! going all pew pew!

  16. Re:China cant invent anything by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One commonality I have found with Trump, and Chinese culture, is the need to "Win". I found the need to Win, to be inevitably counter productive. To Win at something you have a clear single objective, you work to get that objective better or faster then someone else, then you win. However what you do to get to that objective may sabotage other objectives you may want to peruse later on.
    That kid who cheated to win the game. Is no longer invited to pay again.
    A country who has wasted all their resources to become a more powerful economy, will struggle in the future, because there are no more resources to work off of.

    While in college, they were Chinese national students, they were the test curve breakers, always getting A's on all the test, however in the practical assignments they really struggled, as they studied to pass the test, but not understand the material.
    In Work, when we have a Chinese national new hire, there always seems to be some work involved to get them to work with the rest of the team, ask questions, don't be afraid to make mistakes, but learn from them.

    The Chinese people are smart, creative and innovative. They need to recognize the flaws in their culture, to help them grow. As do Americans, as we have different traits that make us shoot ourselves in the foot. Often our Bully attitude, and often seat of the pants approaches to problems, which causes us to come up with stupid ideas, and keep going with them.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  17. Why not 10G? by h4x0t · · Score: 1

    Or 100G for that matter? This guy really has no clue, clearly.

  18. Re:China cant invent anything by dryeo · · Score: 1

    Do you have some citation for China's per capita CO2 emissions?
    While your right about all those Chinese adding up to number 1 in total, the figures I find put the US about #12 with twice the per capita emissions of China. Places like Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are top per capita producers.
    Most of what I find is a bit old, such as Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... only going to 2011 though I don't think the US has dropped much since. This, https://knoema.com/atlas/China... claims 7.45 tonnes per capita for China while the latest for the US from Wiki, says about 16 tonnes per capita for the US

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  19. Why stop there? by hey! · · Score: 1

    Why not go to 7G or even 8G?

    There's plenty positive integers left.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Why stop there? by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Because people start to black out at that point.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    2. Re:Why stop there? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      6.4G ought to be enough for anybody.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  20. We'll have 6G next year! by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    Since some telecoms are slapping 5G on their 4G LTE networks this year they might as well complete the farce and slap on 6G tags next year!

  21. Re:China cant invent anything by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    Per capita countries like Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, SA kind of don't count, due to the nebulous and small population count. If 3/4 of the people there are not citizens but rather immigrants (read slave labor), the numbers might be a bit skewed.

    By country, Union of Concerned Scientists puts China at #1. https://www.ucsusa.org/global-...
    Leaving out the Araby, USA comes in #2 per capita for CO2, behind Australia, according to Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  22. Competition by spinitch · · Score: 1

    So is T-mint on or off? Arguable more competitors better except the top two have extensive size advantages. As explain by others, likewise for standards. Then there is Huawei , from one perspective they help competition but given their state backing, is it in interests of democracies to cede so much power ? Multiple vendors are usually good for competition and spreading risk. Keep debating since important like democracies despite their flaws, the alternative so far worse.

  23. Re:Stick to 3G and 4G... by hraponssi · · Score: 1

    It makes sense to deploy 5G in very densely populated areas. Big city centers etc. Much like it makes sense to deploy high quality 4G/LTE where there is sufficient customer base etc.