Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday January 30 2018, @10:53AM   Printer-friendly
from the thwart-facilitate-Chinese-US-government-spying dept.

Trump security team sees building U.S. 5G network as option

President Donald Trump's national security team is looking at options to counter the threat of China spying on U.S. phone calls that include the government building a super-fast 5G wireless network, a senior administration official said on Sunday. The official, confirming the gist of a report from Axios.com, said the option was being debated at a low level in the administration and was six to eight months away from being considered by the president himself.

The 5G network concept is aimed at addressing what officials see as China's threat to U.S. cyber security and economic security. [...] "We want to build a network so the Chinese can't listen to your calls," the senior official told Reuters. "We have to have a secure network that doesn't allow bad actors to get in. We also have to ensure the Chinese don't take over the market and put every non-5G network out of business."

[...] Major wireless carriers have spent billions of dollars buying spectrum to launch 5G networks, and it is unclear if the U.S. government would have enough spectrum to build its own 5G network. [...] Another option includes having a 5G network built by a consortium of wireless carriers, the U.S. official said. "We want to build a secure 5G network and we have to work with industry to figure out the best way to do it," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Axios published documents it said were from a presentation from a National Security Council official. If the government built the network, it would rent access to carriers, Axios said.

Will it include "responsible encryption"?

Also at Newsweek and Axios.

Related: U.S. Lawmakers Urge AT&T to Cut Ties With Huawei


Original Submission

Related Stories

U.S. Lawmakers Urge AT&T to Cut Ties With Huawei 17 comments

Exclusive: U.S. lawmakers urge AT&T to cut commercial ties with Huawei - sources

U.S. lawmakers are urging AT&T Inc, the No. 2 wireless carrier, to cut commercial ties to Chinese phone maker Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and oppose plans by telecom operator China Mobile Ltd to enter the U.S. market because of national security concerns, two congressional aides said.

[...] Earlier this month, AT&T was forced to scrap a plan to offer its customers Huawei handsets after some members of Congress lobbied against the idea with federal regulators, sources told Reuters.

The U.S. government has also blocked a string of Chinese acquisitions over national security concerns, including Ant Financial's proposed purchase of U.S. money transfer company MoneyGram International Inc.

The lawmakers are also advising U.S. firms that if they have ties to Huawei or China Mobile, it could hamper their ability to do business with the U.S. government, one aide said, requesting anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Related: NSA Spied on Chinese Government and Huawei
Kaspersky Willing to Hand Source Code Over to U.S. Government
Kaspersky Lab has been Working With Russian Intelligence
FBI Reportedly Advising Companies to Ditch Kaspersky Apps
Federal Government, Concerned About Cyberespionage, Bans Use of Kaspersky Labs Products


Original Submission

Verizon Cancels Plans to Sell Huawei Phone Due to U.S. Government Pressure 6 comments

Verizon reportedly follows AT&T's lead and cancels plans to sell Huawei's latest phone amid fears of Chinese spying

Verizon is following AT&T's lead and cancelling plans to sell Huawei's Mate 10 Pro smartphone that boasts support for the upcoming super-fast 5G network, according to a Bloomberg report on Tuesday.

Verizon's decision is reportedly based on political pressure from the US government, which is seeing a reinvigorated fear of spying from China as US regulators urged an investigation of Chinese-made telecom equipment in December 2017. It's the same reason AT&T dropped its deal with Huawei to offer the Mate 10 Pro on January 8.

Huawei's Mate 10 Pro with 5G networking capabilities seemingly falls under the category of Chinese-made telecom equipment under investigation, as the company has been accused of having ties with the Chinese government.

Previously: U.S. Lawmakers Urge AT&T to Cut Ties With Huawei

Related: U.S. Government Reportedly Wants to Build a 5G Network to Thwart Chinese Spying


Original Submission

U.S. Intelligence Agency Heads Warn Against Using Huawei and ZTE Products 23 comments

Intelligence agency heads have warned against using Huawei and ZTE products and services:

The heads of six major US intelligence agencies have warned that American citizens shouldn't use products and services made by Chinese tech giants Huawei and ZTE. According to a report from CNBC, the intelligence chiefs made the recommendation during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday. The group included the heads of the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the director of national intelligence.

During his testimony, FBI Director Chris Wray said the the government was "deeply concerned about the risks of allowing any company or entity that is beholden to foreign governments that don't share our values to gain positions of power inside our telecommunications networks." He added that this would provide "the capacity to maliciously modify or steal information. And it provides the capacity to conduct undetected espionage."

These warnings are nothing new. The US intelligence community has long been wary of Huawei, which was founded by a former engineer in China's People's Liberation Army and has been described by US politicians as "effectively an arm of the Chinese government." This caution led to a ban on Huawei bidding for US government contracts in 2014, and it's now causing problems for the company's push into consumer electronics.

Verizon and AT&T recently cancelled plans to sell Huawei's Mate 10 Pro smartphone.

Don't use a Huawei phone because it's too Chinese. Don't use an Apple phone because strong encryption is not "responsible encryption". Which phone is just right for the FBI?

Previously: U.S. Lawmakers Urge AT&T to Cut Ties With Huawei

Related: FBI Director Christopher Wray Keeps War on Encryption Alive
U.S. Government Reportedly Wants to Build a 5G Network to Thwart Chinese Spying


Original Submission

Broadcom's Attempted Acquisition of Qualcomm Blocked on National Security Grounds 13 comments

Broadcom's quest to acquire Qualcomm has come to a screeching halt:

President Trump on Monday blocked Broadcom's $117 billion bid for the chip maker Qualcomm, citing national security concerns and sending a clear signal that he was willing to take extraordinary measures to punctuate his administration's increasingly protectionist stance. In a presidential order, Mr. Trump said there was "credible evidence" that led him to believe that if Singapore-based Broadcom were to acquire control of Qualcomm, which is based in San Diego, it "might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States."

[...] The move follows one by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which typically works behind closed doors and reviews deals only after they are announced, earlier this month to stall Broadcom's bid because of national security concerns. [...] The president said his decision had been based on the review by the committee, which focused on how Broadcom's purchase of Qualcomm might affect next-generation high-speed mobile networks known as 5G. The panel said that the leadership of Qualcomm, which makes wireless chips and also licenses key wireless patents, was too important to put into hands of a company with links to China. The committee argued that economic leadership in 5G was also a national security interest.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has just put a lot of companies on notice.

Also at CNN and LA Times.

Previously: Broadcom's Hostile Takeover Attempt of Qualcomm Delayed by U.S. Government Panel
Broadcom Pleads its Qualcomm Case to Congress

Related: President Trump Blocks Acquisition of Lattice Semiconductor
U.S. Lawmakers Urge AT&T to Cut Ties With Huawei
U.S. Government Reportedly Wants to Build a 5G Network to Thwart Chinese Spying
U.S. Rejects Chinese Takeover of the Chicago Stock Exchange


Original Submission

Broadcom is Officially a U.S. Company Now, But Why Was its Attempt to Acquire Qualcomm Blocked? 21 comments

Broadcom has moved back to the U.S. from Singapore, which could allow it to circumvent the mighty power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which blocked its takeover attempt of Qualcomm last month. The company's co-headquarters in San Jose, California will become the sole headquarters of the redomiciled company:

Broadcom said on Wednesday it had completed its move back to the United States from Singapore, weeks after President Donald Trump blocked its $117 billion offer to buy Qualcomm on national security grounds.

Broadcom, which was a U.S. company until it was bought in 2016 by Singapore's Avago, had announced its plan to redomicile on Nov. 2, days before making its first offer for Qualcomm.

[...] The move to the United States could allow Broadcom to buy U.S. companies without coming under the scrutiny of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which has the power to stop deals that could harm national security.

Rural Wireless Association Opposes U.S. Government Ban on Huawei and ZTE Equipment 8 comments

Banning Chinese network gear is a really bad idea, small ISPs tell FCC

The Federal Communications Commission's proposed ban on Huawei and ZTE gear in government-funded projects will hurt small Internet providers' efforts to deploy broadband, according to a lobby group for rural ISPs.

As previously reported, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal would prevent Universal Service Fund (USF) money from being used to buy equipment or services from companies that "pos[e] a national security risk." If the FCC approves the proposal, the ban is most likely to prevent the purchase of equipment from Chinese technology vendors Huawei and ZTE. But it could also affect other companies and technology from other countries, depending on how the FCC determines which companies pose national security threats.

ISPs who use federal money to build or expand broadband service would end up with fewer options for buying network gear. This would "irreparably damage broadband networks (and limit future deployment) in many rural and remote areas throughout the country," the Rural Wireless Association (RWA) told the FCC in a filing yesterday.

The RWA represents rural wireless Internet providers that offer home or mobile Internet service and have fewer than 100,000 subscribers. A recent Wall Street Journal report said that small ISPs rely on Huawei gear more than large telcos do.

Previously: U.S. Lawmakers Urge AT&T to Cut Ties With Huawei
U.S. Government Reportedly Wants to Build a 5G Network to Thwart Chinese Spying
U.S. Intelligence Agency Heads Warn Against Using Huawei and ZTE Products
The U.S. Intelligence Community's Demonization of Huawei Remains Highly Hypocritical


Original Submission

T-Mobile and Sprint to Attempt Merger 22 comments

T-Mobile, Sprint to merge in all-stock deal

"T-Mobile US Inc. and Sprint Corp. agreed on Sunday to merge in an all-stock transaction, following on-again, off-again talks to combine the two companies." foxbusiness.com/markets/t-mobile-sprint-to-merge-in-all-stock-deal

T-Mobile and Sprint to Attempt Merger

T-Mobile and Sprint have reached an agreement to merge. The combined company would be called T-Mobile. Now they face the regulators, and are already arguing for it as a move for America to remain competitive with China on 5G:

T-Mobile and Sprint reached a $26.5 billion merger agreement Sunday that would reduce the U.S. wireless industry to three major players — that is, if the Trump administration's antitrust regulators let the deal go through. The nation's third- and fourth-largest wireless companies have been considering a combination for years, one that would bulk them up to a similar size as industry giants Verizon and AT&T. But a 2014 attempt fell apart amid resistance from the Obama administration.

Consumers worry a less crowded telecom field could result in higher prices, while workers unions are concerned about potential job losses.

In a conference call with Wall Street analysts, Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure acknowledged that getting regulatory approval is "the elephant in the room," and one of the first things the companies did after sending out the deal's news release was to call Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The companies stressed that they plan to have more employees following the combination, particularly in rural areas, than they do as stand-alone companies now. They also emphasized that the deal would help accelerate their development of faster 5G wireless networks and ensure that the U.S. doesn't cede leadership on the technology to China.

And they said the combination would allow them to better compete not only with AT&T and Verizon but also with Comcast and others as the wireless, broadband and video industries converge. "This isn't a case of going from 4 to 3 wireless companies — there are now at least 7 or 8 big competitors in this converging market," T-Mobile chief executive John Legere said in a statement.

T-Mobile press release. Also at Bloomberg.


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

U.S. National 5G Network Plans Killed Off, Funds Promised for Rural Broadband 20 comments

Plans for the U.S. government to build a national 5G network secured against China appear to have been quashed following intense telecom industry lobbying:

The Trump Administration made a few announcements about building super-fast 5G wireless networks on Friday, but the real purpose of the White House event was buried beneath the headlines.

On the surface, President Trump and Federal Communications Commission chair Ajit Pai were promoting the schedule for a new spectrum auction and funds for extending faster Internet service to rural areas. But the auction, now slated to start on December 10, has been on tap for the "second half of 2019" since last year. And the funds for rural Internet connections, which don't have to use 5G technology or even wireless, were just an extension of a long-existing program.

Instead, the real agenda was to try and kill a well-funded lobbying effort to convince the federal government to take over 5G airwaves and build a nationalized network that private carriers would have to lease from the government. Supporters included prominent Republicans Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, as well as Trump 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale.

But the idea has driven the U.S. telecommunications industry, which is spending tens of billions of dollars to build private 5G networks, bonkers.

Ajit Pai talked about "up to" gigabit connections for rural homes.

Also at Engadget.

See also: FCC "consumer advisory" panel includes ALEC, big foe of municipal broadband

Related: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Proposes Raising Rural Broadband Speeds
Ajit Pai's Rosy Broadband Deployment Claim May be Based on Gigantic Error
Ajit Pai Wants to Cap Spending on Broadband for Poor People and Rural Areas


Original Submission

Huawei Open to Selling 5G Modems to Apple 12 comments

Huawei is 'open' to selling 5G chips to Apple for iPhones, marking a big shift in strategy

Huawei is "open" to selling high-speed 5G chips and other silicon to rival smartphone maker Apple, marking a significant shift in the Chinese tech giant's thinking toward its own intellectual property.

The world's largest networking equipment maker has been in the consumer market for a relatively short amount of time with its own-brand smartphones, but it has quickly risen to become the third-largest vendor by market share.

Huawei started by selling phones at low prices but in recent years has shifted focus to increase its market share in the high end of the market, battling Apple and Samsung. As part of that move, Huawei has developed its own chips, including a modem to give smartphones 5G connectivity, and a processor to power its devices. 5G is next-generation mobile internet, which delivers data at very high speeds.

So far, those pieces of technology have been used only in Huawei's devices. That could change. In an interview with CNBC that aired Monday, Huawei founder and CEO Ren Zhengfei said the company would consider selling its 5G chips to Apple. "We are open to Apple in this regard," Ren said. The CEO spoke in Mandarin, which was translated into English by an official translator.

Apple products (e.g. new iPhones) are likely to use 5G modems from Intel, although they won't be ready until 2020. Huawei has been shunned by U.S. companies due to warnings and pressure from the U.S. government claiming that Huawei products enable Chinese espionage. There has even been discussion of the U.S. government developing a 5G network free of Chinese influence. Given that there aren't many places in the country where you can get a "5G" connection yet, is there any point to this offer?

Related:


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday January 30 2018, @11:00AM (3 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 30 2018, @11:00AM (#630274) Journal

    So does it really mean the 5G devices will communicate using encryption without a backdoor?
    Or will they let NSA have their thing with them?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by anubi on Tuesday January 30 2018, @11:29AM

      by anubi (2828) on Tuesday January 30 2018, @11:29AM (#630282) Journal

      And I betcha all the hardware will be made in China... along with all the design specs.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
    • (Score: 5, Touché) by DannyB on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:51PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:51PM (#630406) Journal

      You are missing the point.

      This is a SECURE network. And a national network.

      Therefore you won't need to use encryption any longer for domestic communications. This makes life much simpler.

      The concern about encryption backdoors becomes moot.

      It's a brilliant idea conceived in the mind of like a stable genius.

      --
      Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @05:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @05:48PM (#630492)

      "Or will they let NSA have their thing with them?"

      Well, this is to be a government built 5G network apparently, so no back door will be necessary.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by bradley13 on Tuesday January 30 2018, @11:56AM (4 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday January 30 2018, @11:56AM (#630288) Homepage Journal

    The NSA, FBI and other 3-letter agencies would just love for the government to run a network like that. But don't worry, it won't ever happen. In absolute the best case, the government is too slow and bureaucratic: they might have a network half-deployed (at 10x the cost) by the time the industry has already finished 6G deployment.

    If you want a current example, look at the F-35. Prototypes flew in the previous century, so the design was basically defined when the program started in 2001. The first plane (production test) flew 5 years later in 2006. Nine years later, in 2015, production was finally, actually limping along, at 3 planes/month. We've all heard of the real-world problems - less than 50% availability, etc.. The program is a mess, and by the time it's finally fixed (at astronomical final cost), the planes will be obsolete.

    The US government is simply not capable (perhaps never has been capable) of handling projects on this scale, in any sort of timely and cost-effective fashion. Bureaucracy, politics, over-regulation, frankly corruption - just not possible. I used to work in government procurement on major defense contracts. I've seen the ugliness.

    What would happen is this: The government would commission plans. Request bids. Bids would be selected, there would be protests, adaptations, new rounds of bids. In the background, every Congresscritter will want to bring home the pork, meaning that the contracts will have to be split into subcontracts and sub-subcontracts and sub-sub-subcontracts. Major contracts might be in place in 3 years.

    Each contract and subcontract, of course, brings its own layer of bureaucracy and government oversight on the one side, and additional employees on the other side, whose job is solely to keep the bureaucrats happen. Most of the budget will be expended just setting up the contracting structures. Oh, and there's a whole layer of shell-companies to be created. There probably aren't enough handicapped/female/black/muslim/transgender/fruitarian/whatever business owners in the various areas where subcontracts will be written. So the companies doing the actual work arrange for shell-companies to pass through the contracts (another layer of contracts and profit-skimming).

    Should something actually manage to get produced, the sheer number of subcontracts will lead to system integration nightmares. Need we mention that the requirements will change numerous times along the way? First test deployment, maybe in five years. Problems will be found, more requirements changes...

    Meanwhile, what about industry? Will the government prohibit them from deploying anything competitive? Or better? I'm serious about 6G - it will be old, by the time the government has finished setting fire to piles of money on a project like this.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @12:38PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @12:38PM (#630294)

      "by the time it's finally fixed (at astronomical final cost), the planes will be obsolete."

      The F-35 is already obsolete.

      The MiG-35 can fly rings around it, the Su-57 will make it a practice target, and the S-400 radar can illuminate it quite nicely.

      Added to the plane program cost itself is the need for massive forward C3i, SEAD, and ECM support to make this turkey even remotely survivable in an area-denial environment.

      The F-35 will be relegated to being another stand-off weapons carrier, a role the B-1B can do B-52H better and cheaper, while the F-22 remains our only decent modern fighter. The old F-15 just can't keep up any more, except over medieval desert shitholes.

      The F-35 is a giant boondoggle masquerading as an airplane.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 31 2018, @09:51AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 31 2018, @09:51AM (#630887)

        The MiG-35 is almost as much of a boondoggle as the F-35. It must be the number 35. The MiG-35 is really just a rehash of the MiG-29, which is basically equivalent to an F-18. Most of the high-tech features it was supposed to have ended up not working. At best, it's the equal of the Super Hornet. The Su-57 will probably equal the F-22... if it ever gets built. The Russians probably won't even have as many of those as we do of the F-22, and they certainly won't have enough to export them.

        The real competition for the F-35 is the Chinese J-20. The F-35 tries to do too many different things. The Navy, Marines, and Air Force (and the NATO equivalents) all have different requirements and they pull in different directions. The F-35 is like trying to produce bacon and chicken breasts from the same animal. You just get a pig that can't fly. The Chinese don't have that problem. The J-20 is simply a land-based multi-role fighter, the same thing people have been building since the 1960s, designed and built with the latest technology. It doesn't spend space and weight carrying around provisions for lift fans and carrier landing gear that it doesn't really need. It is a better fighter, and it costs less, and it's going to be available in greater numbers. American pilots may still be better trained, but that's no comfort to export customers. The F-35 should have been cancelled the moment it became obvious that combining every single possible mission into one airplane was not going to work. Which should have been about five seconds after someone first had the idea, but as soon as the design studies were finished would have been good enough.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday January 30 2018, @12:42PM (1 child)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 30 2018, @12:42PM (#630296) Journal

      they might have a network half-deployed (at 10x the cost)

      But of course will be 10x the cost, they'll need to use US components.
      Want it cheaper? Go fab the components in China.
      What it built faster? Go to peopleperhour or whatever hourly-job sites operates in US and you'll get something kept together with duct-tape but done by evening.

      The US government is simply not capable (perhaps never has been capable) of handling projects on this scale, in any sort of timely and cost-effective fashion.

      No, it wasn't always like this.
      But people like Hyman G. Rickover [wikipedia.org] aren't tolerated [wikipedia.org] any more - today, money speak louder than engineering.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by Geezer on Tuesday January 30 2018, @01:03PM

        by Geezer (511) on Tuesday January 30 2018, @01:03PM (#630308)

        God bless NAVSEA 08. May he enjoy green grapes in the Celestial EOS forever.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @12:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @12:22PM (#630291)

    Down with duh EFF CEE CEE.

    Up with duh EEE EFF EFF.

    Soystain freedumbs foreverz!

    Kill the millennials!! Pour their blood into my retirement portfolio!!!

    - Every Soylent Boomer

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Snospar on Tuesday January 30 2018, @02:04PM

    by Snospar (5366) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 30 2018, @02:04PM (#630335)

    There are plenty of ways to send fully encrypted communications over existing "open" networks that are magnitudes cheaper to implement properly than trying to build your own "secure network" based on radio transmission. 5G is just another step on the LTE roadmap and is being used and abused to hype up any old story - this one is pure nonsense from start to finish.

    --
    Huge thanks to all the Soylent volunteers without whom this community (and this post) would not be possible.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:02PM (2 children)

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:02PM (#630379) Journal

    There is an inconsistency here.

    When talking about net neutrality I heard multiple calls for massive investments in nationwide broadband infrastructure. When 'the government' talks about doing that with 5g, the logical technology to build it, the entire internet panics.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:42PM

      by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:42PM (#630401) Journal

      The reasons given for doing this don't make a sense.

      That said, if the government builds and leases a huge 5G network or parts of one, users could use their own responsible end-to-end encryption to stay relatively secure from any built-in govt snooping.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:53PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:53PM (#630408)

      Because 5G is not the wired (fiber) broadband we need. Only proprietary, user-subjugating, locked-down devices will connect to 5G. How many of those devices will support tethering? None? Also remember that the FCC is now dictating binary blobs because everybody uses software-defined radios.

      The cell phone is Orwell's telescreen.

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:47PM (3 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 30 2018, @03:47PM (#630404) Journal

    If Mexico is going to pay for the wall, then China should pay for our national 5G network.

    Maybe China can also provide much of the equipment for the network infrastructure.

    --
    Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man.
    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 30 2018, @04:02PM (2 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday January 30 2018, @04:02PM (#630414)

      Maybe China can also provide much of the equipment for the network infrastructure.

      I fully expect they'd be happy to do that. I mean, if I were the Chinese, there's no way I'd even dream about becoming the lowest bidder on supply contracts for the brand new super-secure American network, and use that as a way to install bugs at American expense.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday January 30 2018, @04:09PM (1 child)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 30 2018, @04:09PM (#630418) Journal

        The Chinese would never install bugs!

        (they're features!)

        --
        Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man.
        • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday January 31 2018, @02:47AM

          by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday January 31 2018, @02:47AM (#630800) Journal

          No, they'd be taps.

          --
          "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
  • (Score: 2) by leftover on Tuesday January 30 2018, @05:48PM (1 child)

    by leftover (2448) on Tuesday January 30 2018, @05:48PM (#630493)

    It is clear, at least to me, that the Fed simply could not actually field a 5G network. A preferable, again to me, option would be for the Fed to specify the comprehensive standard for 5G and require all 'our' wireless utility operators to use that standard without variances. They even have an organization to do this! NIST used to do things just like this before regulatory capture and government by pork.

    As an aside, the 5G standard should include an interface to the sibling fiberoptic broadband standard, similarly required as a condition of operating a public utility.

    --
    Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @06:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @06:37PM (#630519)

      The right way to do it is to allow the market to keep iterating solutions, and then carve out of the results a small system that meets explicit needs, and that will be automatically easy to implement with existing technology.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @06:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @06:51PM (#630523)

    Let's see the list of gov officials with financial ties to the companies that will be awarded the contracts. It's all BS...as others have already said, end-to-end encryption can protect transmissions over existing networks.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @09:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30 2018, @09:57PM (#630654)

    It sounds like they want their own dedicated network, and not be part of the public network.

    A non story really.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 31 2018, @09:55AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 31 2018, @09:55AM (#630890)

    It doesn't seem that different from the pressure the government is putting on phone companies not to sell phones from Huawei. They do this sort of thing all the time. "Build things the way we want, or we'll step in and bring our guns." That's how we got TV and movie and video game ratings, and six strikes copyright, and a zillion other regulations that are actually enforced by private organizations like UL. The computer industry keeps refusing to play ball with encryption, which must be incredibly frustrating, but for most other stuff industry just goes along with it, and there is nothing wrong with it most of the time.

(1)