Leaked Trump Plan To 'Nationalize' Nation's 5G Networks A Bizarre, Unrealistic Pipe Dream

from the intern's-brain-fart dept

There's been a lot of hand wringing and hyperventilation over a new report claiming that the Trump administration wants to nationalize the nation's looming fifth-generation (5G) wireless networks, despite the fact the proposal has a snowball's chance in hell of ever actually materializing. According to a leaked PowerPoint deck and memo drafted by a "Senior National Security Council official," the Trump administration wants the U.S. government to build and own a centralized, government-controlled 5G network in order to, purportedly, fight Chinese hackers.

More specifically, the memo claims this plan would be akin to the "21st century equivalent of the Eisenhower National Highway System," creating a "new paradigm" for the wireless industry and for national security. Fear of Chinese hackers drives the proposal from stem to stern, suggesting the plan needs to be completed in three years to protect American interests worldwide:

"The PowerPoint presentation says that the U.S. has to build superfast 5G wireless technology quickly 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.” To illustrate the current state of U.S. wireless networks, the PowerPoint uses a picture of a medieval walled city, compared to a future represented by a photo of lower Manhattan.

The best way to do this, the memo argues, is for the government to build a network itself. It would then rent access to carriers like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile."

And while the Trump administration running our nationwide wireless infrastructure seems both equal parts fascinating and terrifying, it's hard to take the proposal seriously.

For one thing, it ignores the technical realities of the telecom sector and the path to 5G. Individual carriers like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile already have their own 5G network builds well underway and spectrum already largely assigned, with commercial launches of the faster, lower-latency standard expected beginning in 2020 or so. Suddenly injecting the United States government into this process at this point makes little to no actual sense, at least for an administration that has stated repeatedly that telecom Utopia is achieved by government letting these entrenched carriers do whatever they'd like.

The proposal also tends to ignore political realities. AT&T and Verizon have more state and federal political influence than nearly any other companies thanks to their already extensive ties to domestic surveillance operations. They don't want their assets seized to help operate such a "nationalized" network, and any effort to do so would prove politically suicidal. That's why Trump's own FCC (you know, the agency that actually regulates publicly-owned airwaves) was quick to release a statement shooting down the proposal:

"I oppose any proposal for the federal government to build and operate a nationwide 5G network. The main lesson to draw from the wireless sector’s development over the past three decades—including American leadership in 4G—is that the market, not government, is best positioned to drive innovation and investment. What government can and should do is to push spectrum into the commercial marketplace and set rules that encourage the private sector to develop and deploy next-generation infrastructure. Any federal effort to construct a nationalized 5G network would be a costly and counterproductive distraction from the policies we need to help the United States win the 5G future."

US Telecom, a lobbying organization backed by AT&T, was just as quick to shoot down the proposal:

"There is nothing that would slam the breaks more quickly on our hard-won momentum to be the leader in the global race for 5G network deployment more quickly than the federal government stepping-in to build those networks. The best way to future-proof the nation’s communications networks is to continue to encourage and incentivize America’s broadband companies -- working hand-in-glove with the rest of the internet ecosystem, and in partnership with government, to continue do what we do best: invest, innovate, and lead."

When I first read the proposal, my instinct was that it was just the random brain fart of some natsec advisor who doesn't understand how telecom works or the mammoth influence companies like AT&T have over such policy. And that seems to be supported by subsequent leaks in the wake of the memo's release:

"As multiple White House officials confirmed to Recode on Sunday, the document as published is dated. They also stressed it had merely been floated by a staff member, not a reflection of some imminent, major policy announcement — and probably might never be."

To be clear, none of this is to say nationalizing networks couldn't work or be beneficial in an ideal world that actually respected civil liberties. Data has suggested a nationwide, taxpayer-funded fiber network where ISPs come in and compete (aka "open access") would potentially provide America with cheaper, better service than the pricey dreck currently passing as American broadband. Of course, given incumbent ISP influence that proposal will never actually materialize either, since to do it correctly would mean increasing competition in the broken telecom market, and we certainly wouldn't want that.

That said, the proposal does engage in all the usual hand-wringing about how the existing $700 billion defense budget isn't enough to counter the "Chinese threat" to American industry. So while the proposal isn't likely to result in nationalized networks, any runner up proposal is likely to just double down of all of our worst habits to date, including throwing countless billions at companies like AT&T, bone-grafting them to our global intelligence apparatus, then ignoring all the ways this power has been routinely and consistently abused.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    sorrykb (profile), 29 Jan 2018 @ 10:52am

    When I first read the proposal, my instinct was that it was just the random brain fart of some natsec advisor who doesn't understand how telecom works or the mammoth influence companies like AT&T have over such policy

    Knowing this Administration, my first thought was that the advisor has a significant financial stake in a company that would get a contract to build this out.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 11:35am

      Re:

      and of course it would only work with NSA approved encryption

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 12:41pm

        Re: Re:

        "it would only work with NSA approved encryption"

        This is the U.S. equivalent of China's Great Firewall, complete with "man-in-the-middle" government-approved
        VPN's.

        The old East German spies are rolling in their graves.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 10:55am

    And just how much of the Chinese infrastructure has been compromised by the efforts of the NSA to control Internet routers?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 10:56am

    Any federal effort to construct a nationalized 5G network would be a costly and counterproductive distraction from the policies we need to help the United States win the 5G future.

    Win the 5G future??? Buddy, you're making it damn near impossible to even compete in the 4G present.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 10:58am

    Mike, honestly, are you trying to give Blue a heat attack?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Jan 2018 @ 10:58am

    To fight Chinese hackers.

    ...but not Russian hackers. Those guys are fine.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jason, 29 Jan 2018 @ 10:59am

    Am I the only one who wonders sometimes if the crazy, pipe-dream "early draft" proposals are "accidentally" released on purpose just so that when the real proposal comes out later on it seems halfway reasonable in comparison?

    Isn't that an old negotiating trick, to open with something so wildly beyond what you're actually hoping to get out of the deal that you've got plenty of room to walk it back and still get what you really want?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 12:12pm

      Re:

      Except this is an internal presentation that's being blown up to ridiculous proportions by scaremongers and conspiracy nuts (emphasis on nuts) as more "proof" that the government/Trump/Illuminati are the ultimate spawn of evil.

      Never mind that this has less than a snowball's chance in hell in ever getting anything beyond that power point presentation. Some one did a thought experiment/study and made a presentation. BFD.

      No one in their right mind would think the US GOVERNMENT of all people could keep a nationwide consumer and industrial cellular network secure when they can't keep their own PCs secure, not to mention the nightmare of regulation and red tape any government run department or company (postal service, Amtrak) becomes.

      Second, as we've already seen with the FCC, the telecom industry would simply talk to its cronies and get any chance of such a thing killed. Then you'd have the Republicans screaming bloody murder about government overreach, and the sin of all sins socialism/communism. The other side of the aisle would scream because they didn't think of it first and like the Republicans would come up with equally spurious political considerations that has nothing to do with anything realistic about its merits or demerits.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 12:21pm

      Re:

      More likely these drafts are released to get the lobbyists to send more money. There is a mid-way election coming up and Trumps policies and diplomatic efforts aren't universally popular. Also the sector is deeply indebted to his administration for the net neutrality repeal.

      By leaking this draft, they are opening for running a strawman campaign on this "Obama draft". If you can't find anything to agree about, you can always make up something to agree against!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Scote, 29 Jan 2018 @ 11:04am

    Secure from Chinese hackers...

    Right...

    ...the irony of this proposal is that it clearly envisions a secure network with a backdoor for US intel access, which could eventually provide access to Chinese hackers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 11:05am

    And we have plans on how to win an all out war with Russia. Yeah, that won't work either, but you have to have plans for everything.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 11:19am

    I don't care about their ability to provide better cell phone service. I do care about the constant lawlessness that is going on with the tele-coms and these private cell towers though.

    These devices are now essentially a de-facto public utility.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 11:43am

      Re:

      The recode and axios links didn't work for me. Ars has some slides and source documents.

      They claim "MUST take the opportunity to build it securely". I don't see any mention of metadata security. They need to do something like onion-route the phone traffic so people won't be tracked, but the government won't want actual security.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 12:11pm

        Re: Re:

        If you need dial tone to make a connection, then you tell the phone company who you are phoning to make the connection. Also not that which towers you phone can 'see' is essential infomation to provide for incoming calls, and tower hand-off when you move about. Therefore your approximate location, and who talks to you and who you talk to are all available to phone companies, and governments insist that they keep the records for law enforcement purposes.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 1:53pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Also not that which towers you phone can 'see' is essential infomation to provide for incoming calls, and tower hand-off when you move about.

          Yes, but please explain in terms of onion routing. My IP address is essential information for routing packets to me, and yet Techdirt doesn't know it. And my ISP doesn't know I'm viewing Techdirt.

          Why should phonecalls be different? The tower-provider just needs to know I've paid, they don't need to know the ultimate destination. And the phone-number-provider needs my authorization but not my physical location. (BTW, I can do this over Wifi already: connect with random MAC and tunnel VOIP over my personal onion service. It's not seamless handover but nothing about 802.11 makes it impossible for me to be connected to two or more APs.)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 3:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Distinguish between the other end of any communications, and your connection to the communication network. The communication provider can always roughly locate your device, and collect routing infomation about and data you send and receive over that their system. What Onion routing does, so long a the communications provider is not also controlling the onion nodes, is make it look like your encrypted traffic is between you and the entry node, assuming that they do not control the node.

            Phone systems, including cellular phones, use a routing system that is visible to the provider, and require that you give them the destination number to make a call. As you noted the way to avoid that is to use VOIP, but you should assume that only the other end and the contents are hidden from whoever is providing you connection to the network, as VOIP traffic is identifiable your connection regardless of any onion routing, because of the traffic patterns.

            Onion routing does not hide your location from the communication provider that you first connect to, or you approximate location of where the traffic is entering their network. It does hide who you are and where you are from whoever you are connecting to over the Internet. Using a public WiFi, hides who you are from the communications provider, they know where you are.

            Onion routings, assuming that nodes do not exchange data other that the packets being routed, restrict the visibility to source and destination addresses for routing to the next node. So any individual node in an onion network can identify and locate where a packet came from and where it is going, but other than entry and exit nodes, that is not the originator or destination of the traffic.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 4:09pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              The communication provider can always roughly locate your device, and collect routing infomation about and data you send and receive over that their system.

              Thanks for the explanation. There's a subtlety that might make the above quote misleading: the provider can locate my device, but that doesn't imply they know it's mine. IOW, they need to know which of the hundreds of devices on the cell to route the traffic to; they don't need to know who owns it (and they don't need an identifier that's known to any other cell). There are methods of anonymous paid network access using zero-knowledge proofs, by which the cell tower operator might see a bunch of "random" phones that can't be linked to anyone.

              VOIP traffic is identifiable your connection regardless of any onion routing, because of the traffic patterns.

              Potentially decryptable too based on the compression, timing, or both. And RF devices can be fingerprinted at the digital and analog levels, which could compromise anonymity.

              Nevertheless, tracking is currently trivial for phone providers (and anyone with SS7 access on some providers) and the governments that have compromised them. I'd welcome any improvement.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 4:51pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                For a phone to be useful, a fixed identifier is needed, so that people can ring you. Also, the device can, and will still be tracked. It is not that difficult for law enforcement to find out who you are, if they think that you phone is associated with criminal activity, or otherwise attracts their interest. One possible way of identifying a phone owner is to combine phone location data with ALPR data, and associate the phone with a particular car.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2018 @ 6:22am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  For a phone to be useful, a fixed identifier is needed, so that people can ring you.

                  That's exactly how an Onion Service works. It has a fixed cryptographic identifier, and we have no idea where it is. (There are attacks, sure, but it's not easy. Look how long it took to bring down Silk Road.)

                  Also, the device can, and will still be tracked.

                  If its "local" identifier is changing constantly, it could be (somewhat) difficult to do in an automated way. The network wouldn't be doing it implicitly, someone would have to be trying to compromise privacy.

                  It is not that difficult for law enforcement to find out who you are, if they think that you phone is associated with criminal activity, or otherwise attracts their interest.

                  They can always send an officer to tail me. But they can't send officers to tail everyone, like how the NSA et al. can track all the phones.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2018 @ 8:06am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    If use of the network requires that authorization to connect is required, i.e. for billing purpose, you will be using a unique identifier to connect to that network, and that can be tracked, and allows records of movements and use to be kept. Changing your devices identity on the network does not help if you have to give the network operator an authorization token of some sort.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2018 @ 2:00pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      If use of the network requires that authorization to connect is required, i.e. for billing purpose, you will be using a unique identifier to connect to that network

                      No, it's possible to use zero-knowledge proofs of payment. The Zero-Knowledge Freedom Network did it 15 years ago. All they'd know is that you're a person who paid, not which person.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2018 @ 3:41pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Citation: Untraceable Nym Creation on the Freedom 2.0 Network (Samuels and Hawco, 2000). "Given the lack of an anonymous e-cash standard, the challenge is how to use proven payment mechanisms to ensure the transaction's fiscal integrity, yet ensure that a nym's owner is untraceable. This document describes such a system"

                        See also: Freedom System 2.0 Architecture.

                        (There have been great advancements in zero-knowledge proofs over the last 18 years, like the zk-snarks used by zcash. We could do better now.)

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 31 Jan 2018 @ 3:45am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        If such a system, how often will you pay for service, and how much of that payment are you prepared to abandon when you phone network identity changes? Such systems are not convenient for paying small amounts frequently, and automating payments trades security for convenience.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 29 Jan 2018 @ 11:24am

    They also stressed it had merely been floated by a staff member, not a reflection of some imminent, major policy announcement — and probably might never be."

    One imagines Stephen Miller angrily dictating it after being mocked online for his "the powers of the president will not be questioned" interview.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Machin Shin, 29 Jan 2018 @ 11:33am

    “China is the dominant malicious actor in the Information Domain.”

    Oh really? I don't think someone is giving NSA the proper credit. I feel pretty sure they are solidly ahead of China in the malicious actor department.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    twitbot, 29 Jan 2018 @ 11:39am

    The concept of Chinese Hacking was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sailboatfool (profile), 29 Jan 2018 @ 11:48am

    Why not? Worked for Obama Care?

    Why does the government owning infrastructure not work? It worked out well for health insurance right? What's the difference here?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 12:12pm

      Re: Why not? Worked for Obama Care?

      One difference might be the fact that the government doesn't actually own the health insurance industry...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 12:53pm

        Re: Re: Why not? Worked for Obama Care?

        > One difference might be the fact that the government doesn't actually own the health insurance industry...

        The federal government now regulates it and a fair number of liberals want the federal government to OWN it lock stock and barrel.

        So why is a national government monopoly for your cancer treatment a good idea but national network infastructure a bad one?

        Government owned networks shared by competing ISPs isn't exactly that radical of an idea really. This article seems to be all about spin and partisan hatred. Although wireless already avoids the usual problems with land line physical monopolies.

        ...and American wireless still blows anyways. (go figure)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 1:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: Why not? Worked for Obama Care?

          The federal government owns quite a bit of the payer market.

          Without Medicare and Medicaid, most hospitals and doctors offices close their doors.

          The government owns Medicare and Medicaid. They are the biggest "insurer" in the country.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 1:17pm

          Re: Re: Re: Why not? Worked for Obama Care?

          “So why is a national government monopoly for your cancer treatment a good idea but national network infastructure a bad one?”

          Let’s start with the fact that it’s not a government monopoly on the treatment, it’s a government administered healthcare plan. So maybe try to get your basic facts straight before you spin so hard we could use you as an alternative energy source.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 17 Feb 2018 @ 2:27pm

          Re: Re: Re: Why not? Worked for Obama Care?

          Which government doc does your brain cancer treatment? He’s pretty bad at it considering the drek that is your comment.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 12:13pm

      Re: Why not? Worked for Obama Care?

      What's the difference here?

      The NSA, FBI and CIA and their determination to be able to collect all communications without it being protected by encryption.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 12:16pm

      Re: Why not? Worked for Obama Care?

      It worked out well for health insurance right?

      It must've. Despite 7 years of voting to repeal it, when it finally mattered, the Republicans couldn't.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 1:21pm

      Re: Why not? Worked for Obama Care?

      Yeah it’s not like they own and operate the Hoover Dam or a ton of other municipal utilities across the country... oh wait.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Jan 2018 @ 1:35pm

      Government-owned infrastructure

      Obamacare, despite all efforts to create a state-run plan as a standard (to which commercial plans could compete), it doesn't have one. All insurance plans are still privately owned.

      But there's plenty of state-owned infrastructure, including the national highway system and plenty of electrical, sewage, water and garbage collection utilities (which are state- or county- owned.)

      It was a point of jealousy during the rolling blackouts here in California that Southern California power was state-run, hence Enron couldn't create the artificial scarcity that allowed it to fleece PG&E. SoCal power was fine.

      State-run utilities suffer from different kinds of problems than private-run for-profit utilities, but they can work pretty well. We just don't like them because we're phobic of socialism.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 31 Jan 2018 @ 5:54am

        Re: Government-owned infrastructure

        Indeed, the Boogeyman Politics game will continue until people return to empiricism instead of relying on their feelings.

        Give me pragmatism or... give me pragmatism, damn it!

        That said, America is so vast it'd probably work out better to let local municipalities collaborate with private industry to build the infrastructure than to leave it to the Federal government. Wouldn't there be more accountability that way?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 31 Jan 2018 @ 5:02pm

          Federal infrastructure

          The National Highway System was build on a national scale. The Federal department set the standards (signs, stripes, concrete durability, tarmac thickness, etc.) and then would turn to the states to subcontract out the construction.

          Trump aside, if we took a nation-wide internet network plan seriously, I suspect they'd do the same thing: create the standards at the top and then turn to the states to figure out how to do it at the ground level.

          The notion of contracting such a huge project to a single bidder should be absurd like building a Death Star. There's just no company that should be big enough to do it.

          Should being the operating term here. It's possible that our anti-monopoly regulations are so lax that some companies have merged into entities that big. But that would mean they're big enough to threaten global policy, let alone national policy.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 11:58am

    I can't imagine what the constitutional ramifications this would have on the American people. Our government already collects our calls (many times with gratitude from the telecos - hello, AT&T). If the government builds a tool, you can guarantee they will use this for unconstitutional surveillance on every user who uses this network. It would be an absolute nightmare.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 1:51pm

    NASA Space Shuttle Redux

    The last time the govt attempted to mix DoD and commercial
    business, it was that utter disaster called the Space Shuttle.

    When DoD saw how awful the Space Shuttle really was, they
    decamped, and eventually used the Space Shuttle only a
    handful of times.

    Bad idea then & bad idea now.

    Don't do it!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 30 Jan 2018 @ 12:45pm

      Re: NASA Space Shuttle Redux

      _The last time the govt attempted to mix DoD and commercial
      business_

      was 1 second ago, regardless as to when you read this. WTH are you talking about? The DoD _is_ commercial business, more than anything else.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 1:51pm

    So.....

    Massive amounts of regulations from the government telling Cellular companies how they have to run the 4G Network is Totally OK.

    But the government running the 5G Network is Totally NOT OK.

    Interesting.....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Jan 2018 @ 2:59pm

    OMG they might even build towers in rural areas providing the internet to the forgotten people we've made promises to & paid out billions to get them nothing!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Coyne Tibbets (profile), 29 Jan 2018 @ 3:31pm

    Who will actually build it?

    Russian contractors? Chinese contractors? Israeli contractors? Mexican contractors? Pirate Bay?

    Pretty sure it won't be US contractors.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 5:37pm

      Re: Who will actually build it?

      Don't forget that this would be run by Trump. It would be only American contractors.

      They just wouldn't get paid.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 4:17pm

    After watching the decades of bad behavior and abuse of customers, I'd be happy to see telecoms taken down a peg if not some trust busting action in the spirit of Ma Bell.

    Taxpayers funded the private telecoms far and beyond what was eventually provided on high-speed internet infrastructure. Given that track record of failure -- why not?

    Taxpayers should fund telecommunications infrastructure owned by the public to the benefit of the public. Allow telecoms to rent access to the infrastructure clearing barriers to entry for competitive services closer to what is seen in Europe.

    Also, be sure to send a card to Verizon reading "Congratulations on the win. Dicks. -- The Public"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jan 2018 @ 5:15pm

    I damn near fell off my chair laughing at AT&Ts response. They know damn well that at the end of the day it isn't who builds the network, but who controls it. They would love nothing better than the government to step in and build the network for them, after all it's largely how their business was formed in the first place.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Richard Bennett (profile), 29 Jan 2018 @ 5:40pm

    How quickly the winds of fashion change...

    Just last week, Bodie McBodeface was spinning fantasies to the effect that government networks are better, faster, and cheaper than commercial networks.

    But today, upon learning that his evil twin Trumpy McTrumpface wants to build the Mother of All Government Network, Bodie does a 180 and lashes out at government networks.

    Where was all the handwringing about civil liberties when the Berkman (not really "Harvard") report on the magic of munis was on the table? It's local police departments, after all, that love Stingrays best.

    You TD kids are certainly flexible.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    takitus (profile), 29 Jan 2018 @ 6:13pm

    The best way to do this, the memo argues, is for the government to build a network itself. It would then rent access to carriers like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile.

    The good news is that reading this probably gave Pai a minor heart attack.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    EngineerZ (profile), 30 Jan 2018 @ 5:43am

    Just because you can run around setting up a bunch of Stingrays it doesn't mean you know how to build a network.

    But seriously, the US government has been trying to build a nationwide LTE network for first responders (FirstNet) for the better part of ten years and have little to show for it except an award to AT&T, made last year. How the heck are the heck are they going to build a commercial network?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 30 Jan 2018 @ 6:03am

    Not a pipe dream

    It's a syringe dream.

    If Mexico will pay for the wall, then China can pay for our national 5G network. And they can provide the equipment for it as well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jan 2018 @ 7:21am

    Not surprised this crap was posted here as it's so Anti Trump. This was NEVER a Trump plan to begin with.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    The Wanderer (profile), 30 Jan 2018 @ 8:28am

    Brakes vs. breaks

    Can I be the only one who's disappointed that a lobbying organization prominent enough to be involved in discussing something like this has either a poor enough grasp of the English language, or a poor enough proofreading / copyediting / QA process, that they would use "slam the breaks"?

    Oh, well; I suppose them's the brakes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 30 Jan 2018 @ 1:12pm

    5G is bullshit, build us a fiber network.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Wendy Cockcroft, 31 Jan 2018 @ 5:49am

    SOCIALISM!!

    So... socialism — where the state owns the means of production, in this case infrastructure — is okay when the Trump regime does it because China?

    Are you kidding me?

    Come on, Trump supporters, defend this nonsense — if you can.


    Meanwhile, smart people realise we'll always need some kind of a mix of public and private enterprise to foster a healthy open (and mostly free) market, and that moral panicking over ideology causes more problems than it solves.

    Seriously, though, I will jerk my thumb at this post next time a Trump supporter calls us leftists.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 31 Jan 2018 @ 4:07pm

      Trump supporters

      Trump supporters do not follow rhyme or reason. There's no logic to supporting Trump, except that maybe he gives his fans permission to hate, and convenient people to blame.

      Trump doesn't have policy, hence how he's been described as negotiating with jello. Once his capitalist hardliners and corporate lobby friends advise him, this nationalized internet idea is going to vanish.

      What surprises me is how capitalist hardliners stand that we have a public military, a public mail service and a public bank and stock exchange. If we're going to get all purist with our ideologies, we should go the distance.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    wahedjitumhrdo3 (profile), 1 Feb 2018 @ 8:59pm

    graphics software fre download

    thanks for helpful information

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jessica Gross (profile), 20 Mar 2018 @ 3:55am

    I think its a big step in the telecommunication sector.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • sslcresults

    The Maharashtra state 10th class exams are conducted from March 1st, 2018 to March 24th, 2018 by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dlink Technical Support (profile), 23 Apr 2018 @ 4:52am

    Thanks From Dlink Technical Support

    Hlw guys,

    This is a wonderful information, Thank you.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Houllandng (profile), 31 May 2018 @ 9:52pm

    very wonderful information, thanks everyone

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    LITEBLUE, 25 Jun 2018 @ 12:56am

    LiteBlue USPS Official LiteBlue.USPS.gov The USPS stands for the United States Postal Service which is an important and vast group of members contributing towards the nation’s development.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    LadyintheDesert (profile), 2 Jul 2018 @ 10:14am

    "Data has suggested a nationwide, taxpayer-funded healthcare network where insurance companies come in and compete (aka "open access") would potentially provide America with cheaper, better service than the pricey dreck currently passing as American healthcare." That didn't work either - remember?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sarvesh singh (profile), 19 Jul 2018 @ 9:16pm

    The PowerPoint presentation says that the U.S. has to build superfast 5G wireless technology quickly 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.” To illustrate the current state of U.S. wireless networks, the PowerPoint uses a picture of a medieval walled city, compared to a future represented by a photo of lower Manhattan.

    The best way to do this, the memo argues, is for the government to build a network itself. It would then rent access to carriers like AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile."

    And while the Trump administration running our nationwide wireless infrastructure seems both equal parts fascinating and terrifying, it's hard to take the proposal seriously.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.