Scoop: Trump team considers nationalizing 5G network
Source: Axios
Trump national security officials are considering an unprecedented federal takeover of a portion of the nations mobile network to guard against China, according to sensitive documents obtained by Axios.
Why it matters: Weve got our hands on a PowerPoint deck and a memo both produced by a senior National Security Council official which were presented recently to senior officials at other agencies in the Trump administration.
The main points: The documents say America needs a centralized nationwide 5G network within three years. There'll be a fierce debate inside the Trump administration and an outcry from the industry over the next 6-8 months over how such a network is built and paid for.
Two options laid out by the documents:
The U.S. government pays for and builds the single network which would be an unprecedented nationalization of a historically private infrastructure.
An alternative plan where wireless providers build their own 5G networks that compete with one another though the document says the downside is it could take longer and cost more. It argues that one of the pros of that plan is that it would cause less commercial disruption to the wireless industry than the government building a network.
Read more: https://www.axios.com/trump-team-debates-nationalizing-5g-network-f1e92a49-60f2-4e3e-acd4-f3eb03d910ff.html
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)will it happen.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)dchill
(38,493 posts)Something Whitefish something?
Angleae
(4,482 posts)This message brought to you by the NSA.
Botany
(70,504 posts)China, yes that's the ticket.
Journeyman
(15,031 posts)You're not in favor of pedophilia, are you?
program is voluntary, Milo - don't forget that. The men don't have to sign Piltchard and Wren's
loyalty oath if they don't want to. But we need you to starve them to death if they don't. It's just like
Catch-22. Don't you get it? You're not against Catch-22, are you?'
~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Botany
(70,504 posts)paleotn
(17,913 posts)That's what the internets are really good for.
Forget the internet of things...like I want some kid in mom's basement hacking my lights and hvac system.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)to trick them into betraying their country."
You're welcome.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)The ultimate wrestling heel turned good guy. And the Trumpanzees would cheer him for it.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,328 posts)Volaris
(10,271 posts)all the things we 'hate', idjit republicans would pass outright just because they believe that we hate them.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 29, 2018, 12:33 AM - Edit history (1)
"The U.S. government pays for and builds the single network which would be an unprecedented nationalization of a historically private infrastructure."
The internet, "private infrastructure" ?
(Edited to correct: NOT "the Internet" )
BumRushDaShow
(128,981 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)paleotn
(17,913 posts)whipper snappers.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)And cellular service has always been privately owned here. (i.e. by Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint)
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)though the Government did have something to do with it, setting up the initial cellular network parameters.
"the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began setting aside a range of radio frequencies for radio telephony. Near the end of that decade, a trial of cellular phone technology had been conducted in Chicago, and the worlds first commercial cellular phone service was introduced in Tokyo, Japan.
By the early 1980s, the FCC was issuing wireless telephony licenses and setting up metropolitan and rural jurisdictions (so-called metropolitan statistical areas and rural service areas), and, by the middle of the decade, first-generation wireless systems were being deployed in the United States."
https://www.nap.edu/read/11711/chapter/4#17
getagrip_already
(14,750 posts)verizon, att, sprint, etc, all built their own mobile networks up to and including 4g. Thats why they all have different coverage maps.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)paleotn
(17,913 posts)ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)Remember when he was going to turn the cyber investigation of Russian hacking over to the Russians? I mean, who better than the ones doing it to tell you they are doing it, right?
paleotn
(17,913 posts)as long as it's fair and relatively cheap for all providers. The airwaves are commons and we all own them jointly. But, it's execution that's always the issue. Sounds public / private to me, with the point being making the network truly nationwide and standardized....and not just metro areas. Something along the lines of a modified Rural Electrification Act, so all have the same access.....and no single company owns the infrastructure. Imagine the competitive environment that would create, and imagine the screaming from Verizon and AT&T.
The same issues arose during electrification when it comes to purely private infrastructure. It just wasn't profitable enough for Duke to electrify much of western North Carolina. Thank goodness for FDR, the Rural Electrification Act and electric coops. We currently only have one really viable cellular alternative. Seems no one else wants to build the infrastructure here to make their service more than spotty at best. We have good internet service, but from only one company. Some areas here have zip other than HughesNet.
BumRushDaShow
(128,981 posts)not the Libertarian-focused RW GOP loon squad running this country at the moment, where they want to privatize everything, eliminate regulations, and free-market themselves from bubble to bubble to bubble until they crash and then "socialize the losses and pain" so they can start over again.
paleotn
(17,913 posts)which makes even the mention of a government backed, data infrastructure project all the more puzzling. I don't think the current admin is the source, rather career civil folks in national security and /or intelligence. So I'm sure this will get squashed quickly. Shitgibbon's cast of clowns couldn't come up with a good idea, public or private, if their lives depended on it.
BumRushDaShow
(128,981 posts)burrowowl
(17,641 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,161 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,715 posts)The radio spectrum in the U.S. has historically been public. That is why Amateur Radio operators can use certain frequencies. That is why small business and larger ones have to obtain an FCC license to operate on certain frequencies. That is why AM/FM and & TV have to have licenses to broadcast on those public frequencies.
It is a new occurrence that companies have been able to purchase frequencies to operate private radio networks on what used to be public frequencies (Cellular).
But the article is correct in that the government should set aside a block for public use.
For anyone interested here is how the radio spectrum is laid out: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/2003-allochrt.pdf
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)Kinda like reading a map.
JDC
(10,127 posts)These guys are going to take everything they can get their hands on. And by the way, own the network, hear the calls and track internet usage.
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)But with Shithole, the devil's in the details.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Verizon and another company are rolling out 5G in some major cities this year, and to expand that in 2019. It's already on the way.
I don't think the Repubs are interested in the government "owning" and especially paying for, anything like that. But a dictator might.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)1) as usual, it's probably a lie.
2) it was never his idea.
3) we aren't getting the full story
4) the devil is in the details
5) we, "the little people" will ultimately bear the full cost and implementation
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,501 posts)truthisfreedom
(23,147 posts)Do you mind? -45
Orsino
(37,428 posts)To defend against Chaina? Or to emulate China?