• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump team idea to nationalize 5G network to counter China is rejected

Should our government nationalize the 5G network?

  • Yes, in the name of national security

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, because it smacks of Socialism

    Votes: 4 80.0%

  • Don't know / don't care

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • Total voters
    5
danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
(Reuters) - The top U.S. communications regulator, wireless companies and some lawmakers oppose an idea by members of President Donald Trump's national security team for the government to build a 5G wireless network to counter China spying on phone calls.

The Trump administration has taken a harder line with China on policies initiated by predecessor President Barack Obama on issues ranging from Beijing's role in restraining North Korea to Chinese efforts to acquire U.S. strategic industries.

The option of a nationalized 5G network was being discussed by Trump's national security team, an administration official said on Sunday.
Click to expand...

I'm on the fence with this one. The negative? Nationalizing a phone network is a Socialist idea that takes product or service out of the free market and gives it to the government. The positive? China and Russia won't be able to hack phone conversations any more. The Libertarian in me screams no at this, but national security says hold on, this might be a good idea, but the Libertarian in me answers back and says whatever the government can do, a free market can do better.

I can be convinced either way on this with a good argument, so convince me.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1FI1T2
 
danarhea said:
I'm on the fence with this one. The negative? Nationalizing a phone network is a Socialist idea that takes product or service out of the free market and gives it to the government. The positive? China and Russia won't be able to hack phone conversations any more. The Libertarian in me screams no at this, but national security says hold on, this might be a good idea, but the Libertarian in me answers back and says whatever the government can do, a free market can do better.

I can be convinced either way on this with a good argument, so convince me.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1FI1T2
Click to expand...


"China and Russia won't be able to hack phone conversations any more."

Until they can.
 
It's a terrible idea, and not because of "socialism" -- the editorial comment which keeps me from having a choice which fits in the poll.

It's unneeded bureaucracy which will hamper and delay the development of a 5G network, and likely make it less efficient and less reliable.

Pait at the FCC is steadfastly against it.
 
I doubt that it would be reliable and not a huge bureaucracy money dump.... but i would be open to the idea of maybe public infrastructure put into place, where private companies can rent the infrastructure....or purchase it
 
Well it might prevent the Russians and Chinese from spying for a while, but ensure it is easier for the NSA to spy on American's. No need to force Cisco, Qualcomm to build back doors for the US government to spy on the network, it would be part of design from the start
 
Harshaw said:
It's a terrible idea, and not because of "socialism" -- the editorial comment which keeps me from having a choice which fits in the poll.

It's unneeded bureaucracy which will hamper and delay the development of a 5G network, and likely make it less efficient and less reliable.

Pait at the FCC is steadfastly against it.
Click to expand...

And give the govt way more control.

No thank you.
 
No... anything to big takes to long for changes to happen.
It may be great at first but when it was time for repairs, updates, patches it would take forever.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Well it might prevent the Russians and Chinese from spying for a while, but ensure it is easier for the NSA to spy on American's. No need to force Cisco, Qualcomm to build back doors for the US government to spy on the network, it would be part of design from the start
Click to expand...

Keeping in mind that the NSA specifically fought to get Apple to weaken its encryption. Obviously a nationalized 5G service would be used for surveillance, and obviously Pai hates it because he's a shill for private ISP's. There are no good guys on this issue.
 
I’m against it. So what if China and Russia can listen in? You shouldn’t be discussing national security issues on unencrypted lines anyway.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I’m against it. So what if China and Russia can listen in? You shouldn’t be discussing national security issues on unencrypted lines anyway.
Click to expand...

Frankly, why everybody isn't using Signal is beyond me. Even if they're not discussing anything serious, people change their behavior when they're being observed. That's just a fact. I like talking on the phone knowing I'm not being observed.
 
Seems like an idea that pretty much assures there won't be a 6G in the US
 
danarhea said:
I'm on the fence with this one. The negative? Nationalizing a phone network is a Socialist idea that takes product or service out of the free market and gives it to the government. The positive? China and Russia won't be able to hack phone conversations any more. The Libertarian in me screams no at this, but national security says hold on, this might be a good idea, but the Libertarian in me answers back and says whatever the government can do, a free market can do better.

I can be convinced either way on this with a good argument, so convince me.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1FI1T2
Click to expand...

I see the good both ways in this but what scares me about nationalizing it is... does the government then even need a warrant to listen in if they own the line?

If it stays private, then I'd like to have implemented a non-compete clause that whoever has the 5G strings cannot also be your provider. Like Verizon can't own the 5G and your phone service. Whomever owns the 5G rights has to evenly rent space on it to the providers and cannot compete with them or favor any of them over another.

That is the kind of government regulation that makes free market competition flourish.
 
Last edited:
prometeus said:
What makes this network so much more secure?
Click to expand...


A single network using only US government approved encryption/security protocols could be more secure from outside hacking than a mix of components for the various networks built by the cell companies. Of course it means the NSA and the like will have a very easy time snooping on all domestic calls and data going through the system.


Right now, for the US only Intel is among the leaders developing 5G network technology, the others are Korea, Chinese, Swedish and Finnish
 
Pretty stupid approach, especially since they are saying any private 5G network would be able to directly connect to the proposed federal 5G network.

Nothing is wrong with the existing private innovation in this space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom