{"id":66165,"date":"2018-02-08T00:13:02","date_gmt":"2018-02-07T16:13:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp-productionenv-bjg9h2g2bgg5b8aa.southeastasia-01.azurewebsites.net\/news\/why-nationalization-of-5g-doesnt-look-promising\/"},"modified":"2018-02-08T00:13:02","modified_gmt":"2018-02-07T16:13:02","slug":"why-nationalization-of-5g-doesnt-look-promising","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/news\/why-nationalization-of-5g-doesnt-look-promising\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Nationalization of 5G Doesn\u2019t Look Promising"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

The National Security Council official who lobbied for a U.S. government takeover of 5G deployment has been removed from his White House position, the Washington Post <\/em>reported. According to an undisclosed administration official, Air Force Brig. Gen. Robert Spalding was not responsible for leaking the memo (which was first picked up by Axios<\/em>) but his tenure has not been renewed nonetheless. Frankly, though, facing staunch opposition from nearly every corner of the telecommunications industry, the proposal seemed dead on arrival.<\/p>\n

In the memo, Spalding justifies government nationalization of 5G deployment as a bulwark to the threat of China, which he identifies as \u201cthe dominant malicious actor in the information domain.\u201d In order for the U.S. to leapfrog China\u2019s technological and economic advantage, he says, the U.S. government should intervene to provide Americans with \u201csecure and reliable infrastructure\u201d within the next three years.<\/p>\n

But as Satellite Industry Association<\/strong> (SIA) President Tom Stroup pointed out in an interview with Via Satellite<\/em>, the proposal is problematic on a number of levels. Most saliently, the three-year timeline it sets is \u201chorribly unrealistic,\u201d Stroup said, \u201ceven if one were in the business of constructing networks.\u201d Stroup pointed to the slow progress of the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) as first-hand evidence of the vast amount of time and resources it takes to build out a new network. Even after six years and $7 billion in funding, only last year did FirstNet confirm all 50 states would opt-in the public safety broadband network. AT&T<\/strong> signed on in 2017 to help build out the network, but a solid deadline for when it will be completed has yet to emerge; it could take years.<\/p>\n

Additionally, that the proposal suggests current users of C-band spectrum \u2014 including satellite operators \u2014 could simply transition to fiber is \u201cnonsensical,\u201d Stroup said. Both satellite operators and wireless carriers have been lobbying fiercely to get as much spectrum as they can for 5G. Some have gotten creative in their sharing agreements \u2014 such as Intelsat and Intel\u2019s previously announced joint proposal \u2014 but it\u2019s hard to imagine any company would be willing to sacrifice the licenses they already have.<\/p>\n

In fact, many private companies are already waist-deep in their 5G deployment efforts, meaning they would beat the government to the punch on their own. Sprint<\/strong> just announced, during a Feb. 5 investor call, that it intends to launch its nationwide 5G services during the first half of 2019. Verizon<\/strong> and AT&T <\/strong>aren\u2019t far behind, planning to rollout 5G hotspots in major cities within the next year or two.<\/p>\n

And although some have accused the Federal Communications Commission<\/strong> (FCC) of being biased in favor of wireless carriers, satellite operators are also contemplating where they will fit in the 5G ecosystem. \u201cWhen you look at various use cases it is hard to imagine the services being deployed without satellites\u2019 involvement. One of the examples that drive it home most clearly is the automated car,\u201d Stroup said. \u201cYou can\u2019t just have the car stop when it loses signal from a cell tower \u2026 There\u2019s a perfect role the satellite industry to play there, and that\u2019s just one of many examples.\u201d<\/p>\n

The FCC seems to agree that natural market forces should dictate the evolution of 5G. In a statement released Jan. 29, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai unequivocally rebuked the nationalization proposal: \u201cThe main lesson to draw from the wireless sector\u2019s development over the past three decades \u2014 including American leadership in 4G \u2014 is that the market, not government, is best positioned to drive innovation and investment,\u201d Pai said. \u201cAny 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other critics have been similarly withering in their initial responses.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile I\u2019m glad that the Trump Administration recognizes that maintaining American leadership in the information age requires a significant investment commitment, I\u2019m concerned that constructing a nationalized 5G network would be both expensive and duplicative, particularly at a time when the Administration is proposing to slash critical federal investments in R&D and broadband support for unserved areas,\u201d U.S. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) said in a Jan. 29 press release.<\/p>\n

\n

It’s worth reading the actual @POTUS Nat’l Security Council proposal on #5G \u2013 it’s shockingly naive and uninformedhttps:\/\/t.co\/gakovgK6L9.
If the gov’t wants to help they should commit to working with operators to make our networks as secure as they can be.<\/p>\n

\u2014 John Byrne (@Byrneingman) January 29, 2018<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n