Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I would think many liberals would love this because it brings us one step closer to nationalizing industries and communication services. They will claim it takes profiteering out of services and lowers costs. Some also claim we need to do this to electricity as well. The idea of nationalizing industries is one of the pillars of socialism. It's funny that Trump is touting it. I’m not in favor of this at all for many reasons, but I’d think it would get support from many on the left.
Since Trump is proposing it, the Left will hate it.
 
It's a somewhat (understatement) complicated issue.

On the one hand, the case can be made that too much competition in the US cellular market has led to spotty performance and higher prices. There is a great deal of duplication of communications infrastructure from competing companies in markets, and a relative paucity of infrastructure in lower populated areas. In Europe most mobile carriers are required to lease capacity to their competitors, so you don't end up with multiple cellular towers. That is one reason mobile phone plans, as a rule, are much cheaper in Western Europe than they are in the US.

On the other hand, the redundancy of multiple networks we have in the US gives the overall system a resilience to attack and natural disaster most other countries don't have.

A truly efficient 5G nationwide network would be a tremendous boon to consumers and businesses here in the US. The difficulty will be in the execution.
 
Oddly, a common 5G network would promote a de facto net neutrality. The carriers would need to compete on something other than network quality and speed.

That is true. It would also lower the barrier-of-entry for any new telecoms that wanted to enter the market. Of course this all hinges on the federal government being able to pull off a good implementation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: harriska2
Nope not me. If you’re online or chose to live a digital lifestyle there already is no such thing as privacy. It’s a falsehood.

Assume it all already.

Seriously, unless you’re engaged in some kind of criminal activity or are a suspected spy the government isn’t going to waste resources closely monitoring your sexting and cat video watching habits. Besides, they can already access you data anyhow. Once you go online, privacy just doesn’t exist and 3 letter agencies can track you anytime they please.
 
There's a difference though between access and unfettered access.

Are you sure about that when it comes to this regard ?

Seriously, unless you’re engaged in some kind of criminal activity or are a suspected spy the government isn’t going to waste resources closely monitoring your sexting and cat video watching habits. Besides, they can already access you data anyhow. Once you go online, privacy just doesn’t exist and 3 letter agencies can track you anytime they please.

Completely agreed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlandUsername
That is true. It would also lower the barrier-of-entry for any new telecoms that wanted to enter the market. Of course this all hinges on the federal government being able to pull off a good implementation.
What they might do, as the leaked presentation suggests, is require the 4 main carriers to work together to build a single network that is open to all carriers.
 
What they might do, as the leaked presentation suggests, is require the 4 main carriers to work together to build a single network that is open to all carriers.

I don't think the government contracting process would work this way. They would put it out for bid, and the winner would build the network in that location.
 
This is what bothers me about both parties. Both say they will spend less and help with the deficit. Instead they spend their time choosing which part of the government to grow.
One problem is that when any party tries to attack the deficit there are protests about people's funding being taken away and all the jobs that will be lost. There is no way to cut spending without hurting someone but who volunteers to have their funding cut? With social media any cuts turn into major controversies.
 
Maybe the government can incentivize private entities to get going on 5G. I’m not sure I understand the China argument, but I understand even less how the government would do this. They’re not exactly known for being swift and efficient.
 
Wait, your a democrat in 2018. Feel sorry for you.

Why? The Democratic party have had a wonderful few months recently - picking up victories in some of the most unlikely of places at the expense (and in many cases horrendous embarrassment) of not only the GOP, but the Führer himself.

Don't feel sorry for us because right now, we're doing just fine, thanks very much!
 
Wait a second. Something doesn’t add up. Not trying to get political, but we do have a republican government and they always steer toward less government, in theory at least, and more privatization.

So, either this is a clever way of using public money as a handout to corporate telecom or it has more sinister motives behind it. Censorship? Central monitoring of all private communication? Relying on corporations for data is risky for a number of reasons.

If this was truly about building public infrastructure, then no reasonable government leader would start with advanced high speed telecom network. Roads, rails system, bridges, painfully outdated air traffic controls. All those things are in dire need of investments.

So, something is up.
 
I would think many liberals would love this because it brings us one step closer to nationalizing industries and communication services. They will claim it takes profiteering out of services and lowers costs. Some also claim we need to do this to electricity as well. The idea of nationalizing industries is one of the pillars of socialism. It's funny that Trump is touting it. I’m not in favor of this at all for many reasons, but I’d think it would get support from many on the left.

This is correct. As a progressive I do support this because anything that helps more people (lower class) gain access to the network is a good thing. However privacy is a high concern for me. I would hope it is regulated. I believe the “protect against China” bit is propaganda to sell the right-leaders in.
 
Oddly, a common 5G network would promote a de facto net neutrality. The carriers would need to compete on something other than network quality and speed.

This is a really good point that I had not thought about. In theory its a great point. The problem which has already been mentioned is that the government screws up just about everything it touches. One used to be able to exclude the military, but it seems politics has even destroyed it, at least the Navy which can't seem to pilot their ships without crashing into other ships on calm peaceful waters.

Imagine going to the DMV (Department Motor Vehicles) to sign up for your 5G internet account. But now that I think about it, that is only slightly more frustrating than dealing with any of the carriers. Of course, the carriers all used to be a part of government run monopoly. Thats probably why they all suck now.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.