But How Will It Be Entered? Nationally or Privately?
(PDF of Memo presented to Trump Administration in original posting : http://adifferentangle.blog/2018/04/09/information-age )
A new Era in the Age of Information and Technology is coming right around the corner, and most people have no idea. The government wants a hand in it too, by nationalizing a project to develop a new network. The new technology of 5G data transfer will revolutionize how we can do almost anything wirelessly. Think 4G LTE speeds are fast? Your not wrong; at 17.45Mbps (megabits per second) top speed for the top carrier it can stream things pretty quickly. It's rare to see the abhorred spinning wheel of buff with those sorts of speeds, so how can 5G be so much better?
How does 4 Gigabits per second (Gbps) sound? Not sure what the technical terms mean? First, don't get these numbers confused with megabytes or gigabytes. Bits are (and actually have been for a very long time) the units used to measure a data transfer rate and are 1/8th of a Byte. A Byte is the unit of measurement for data capacity, not transfer rates. For those not familiar, Bytes are based on a 1,024 unit system, that changes its prefix every 1,024 units from starting with no prefix and progressing through Kilo, Mega, Giga, Terra to Peta. The upper casing and lower casing tell you the difference between a Bit and a Byte, the lower case being for Bit (bps) and the upper case being for Byte (Bps).
Using the above numbers; we can then break down the average fastest cellular network as of August 2017, T-Mobile at 17.45 Mbps, equals out to an actual download speed of 2.18MBps at max. 2.18 doesn't sound nearly as impressive as 17.45 does it? This is part of the reason the communication companies use bits per second rather then bytes. So what does 4 Gbps break down to? A whopping 500 MBps. That's not a typo, 4 Gbps comes out to 500 megabytes per second which is 229 times faster than the absolute fastest LTE network currently in operation in the US. It's faster than our current broadband speeds too, averaging at 76 Mbps, an increase of six and half times of our wired speeds even. Its faster than the fastest broadband in the world as of December 2017... (Singapore – 154 Mbps.)
Still not convinced it's a big deal? This won't just let you stream your favorite music and movies faster and smoother; this could unlock some of the things we only thought possible in science fiction and make those that are already starting to jump from the pages into life much more efficient. Autonomous driving cars like Elon Musk's Tesla, Tesla Semi and Google's Waymo, who depend on Machine Learning, could be sending and receiving data to help them learn and make decisions quicker. RFID (Radio Frequency Identification Reader) technology, useful for tracking nearly anything from your pets collar to entire product catalogs with warehouses worth of inventory and even management of fleet vehicles while in transit, could communicate seamlessly and instantly over incredibly large distances. Real-time AI computing and holographic projections may not be on the sci-fi level quite yet but it's truly not far off, and 5G data transfer speeds may be just the boost we need to take them there. Alternate Reality and Virtual Reality have already made amazing advances in the last few years with products such as Magic Leap from google, the Oculus Rift and Microsoft's Hololens, but 5G could see them reach far greater potential. 5G isn't just for these types of devices either, 5G is aimed at being useful for all sorts of internet connected devices, from requiring this incredible connection speed to simple uninterrupted pings of information.
Recently, Axios got their hands on a memo drafted up by a senior National Security Council official. The article does a decent job of breaking the 30 page memo and power point presentation down, and even has it at the end of the article for you to read as does this one. The memo lays out a plan for the Trump administration to nationalize the development of the 5G networks, within a three year period, and a few options on how to accomplish this idea. The memo it's self equates the project to Eisenhower's National Highway System and the Space Race and what they did for the nation at the time. It does so under two big premises that are correct; economic impact and national security.
There are two types of nationalization, Capitalist Nationalization and Socialist Nationalization. This would be the former of the two. The United States has done this on a few occasions such as the railroads (Amtrak), broadcasting, space exploration and even nuclear fusion. It wouldn't prevent the telecommunication companies from owning and operating 5G networks, it would allow to set aside a portion of the frequencies in the a frequency band for use on a national network. If the companies truly desired to do so they could own their own networks as well then lease extra space on the national network from the government in a nutshell.
The economic affect a nationalized network could have is vast to say the least. It could give manufacturing in the United States a boost in its recovery from 2008, where in two years nearly two million manufacturing jobs were lost (Bureau of Labor and Statistics), and make it a power player on the world stage in not just the production of the hardware required but in the selling of said hardware to other countries. There are only three major manufacturers of the majority of the hardware to date. Hauwei and ZTE, both based in china, have the lions share of the market to date according to the memo (41% combined, 29% and 12% respectively), with Nokia (Finland 26%) and Ericsson (Sweden 24%) close behind. Digging a bit brings mixed results with who is or isn't on top in the market from day to day. Regardless of who you see on top of the lists on a given day though, it's a nearly guaranteed bet it won't be an American company. American manufacturing of telecommunication devices is almost non existent to this point, not even coming to 5% of the global market. There are some companies out there employing around roughly 20,000 employees over 227 companies; but the US industry can't hold a candle compared to China (427,500 employees over 1,565 companies) or the European industries. Nationalization of the networks would bring about a major surge in jobs and revenue to this US industry. Beyond the manufacturing jobs it could create it opens an entire employment base of engineers, service technicians, general labor positions and local offices personnel such as management and customer service representatives. Even further, “Building the network will require new sources of skilled labor. This is an effort that government will need to get in front of in order to develop new sources of training. Department of Education can take the lead in developing training programs that ensure an adequate supply of skilled labor. Like the space race, the transition to the information era will require increased investment in both STEM education as well as increased funding for research and development.” That's from the memo it's self which basically translates to; new types of jobs for industries and more money for educators and researchers.
Beyond the manufacturing boosts and the addition of friendly local government communication offices, what about consumers? What kind of benefits would the small guy see? Consumers would benefit greatly from a nationalized network in a number of ways. To begin with, if the government sets competitive rates and prices for use of their service to the consumer with data and voice plans, the private telecommunication companies won't have a choice but to adjust to compete. This won't be some minor competitor they can muscle or buy out, this will be a major contender who can bully the bullies. The way things are with the private companies building separate, competing networks each company is limited to how much space they can effectively use, severely limiting speeds. Some companies are bragging about rolling 5G networks by the end of the year in select cities but the speeds won't be true 5G speeds by any means. Most companies wont even come to a quarter of the speeds a national network would deliver by the time their fully rolled out. A more realistic estimate of true 5G networks being implemented in the US are between 5-7 years with companies competing in their current fashion. A nationalized project could take only 3 years and ensure full, unhindered 5G speed to consumers while bringing the pricing market on internet connections somewhat under control.
How about the national security issue? It doesn't matter where you stand on the political spectrum, we all think national security is something that should be taken seriously. The memo takes security very seriously. One thing that is noticeable within the points of the memo is that the government puts rule of law over freedom of speech and fair markets as a principle of a network that would reflect their goals, and security over prosperity at another point (the information age getting a small mention at the very end).
The memo paints a pretty clear picture about China. China is on the way to ruling the markets and winning politically and militarily through this. It states that China is the “dominant malicious actor in the information domain”. It further has an entire section about how China is winning the AI arms race, and they are in position to capture all of our data and will gain a strangle hold through this on a few major industries most associated with requiring the new hardware. They say China wants to use their new AI algorithms to implement a global social credit system, to “ensure compliance on all levels of society to CCP edict”. The FBI has even been monitoring Hauwai and ZTE for their impact on the markets. Though shown in an ominous light throughout the memo, it is indeed correct in that China is currently dominating much of the race to the Information Age. China, with or without outside intervention at this point, may well already have its foot on the first step of the staircase.
So what about actually securing the network? We understand China is dominating markets and the government is deeply concerned about this. As sorely disappointing as it is, there is very very little mention of actual security measures to making this “security as a priority” network. Some discussion is put into the differences in security effects to different proposals, and some points are made about the Joint Command wishing to update their systems in essence saying their systems are a tangled mess and would benefit greatly from a single, centralized system. The two big items it actually does mention in terms of increasing security are building the network as a single block (a single, dense spectrum of 500Mhz), compared to a multi-block structure (multiple chunks of spectrum spread out among the private telecommunication companies in blocks of about 100Mhz); and standardizing the siting requirements by forcing municipalities to adhere to “national security standards.” It fails to mention what any standards, or actual security measures at all, would be or how they would be enacted or enforced at all.
There could be one very simple reason for this. Our internet is fundamentally flawed security wise, according to the inventors of the internet. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the man who made the blue prints for the world wide web, has said “the system is failing.” Other respected names within the community have said the internet wasn't designed to handle this sort of volume, and its protocols are dangerously outdated for today's use saying it would need to be completely rebuilt to be fully secure. Which is where the true security concern about the internet lies, the amount of connections to it.
This is why there is little to no mention of what standards or policies would be. The cold truth is, a network is only as secure as every single connection to it. To completely secure the network as thoroughly as the memo hopes to achieve, it would be required to secure each individual connection to the network. What makes it worse, smaller devices like your smartphone use stripped down versions of software to minimize resources used, not leaving space for traditional security measures. Another issue is monitoring the network itself. It can take time before it's known an attack on a network is underway, and that could be the difference between it spreading or simply ending. Spotting such an attack on a national network would be faster than over multiple scattered networks. Should a security threat arise, one of the most effective ways to deal with it, if possible, is just to quarantine it. The great benefit a singular cellular network would have over multiple networks is that when spotted, theoretically, affected and connected parts of the system could be shut off to prevent further damage. This is all a tough task to plan out and accomplish, involving a multitude of factors within the transmitting devices themselves and the devices receiving the signals including; boot procedures, os updates, data protection, communications and tampering detection to list a small few. Security though will always be an issue, as it has been with humans forever, regardless of whether the networks are private or national.
Nationalization of the network(s) would have a great many benefits to both the economy and the consumer, and have few downsides. In the direct short term American manufacturing will see a spike and gain entry to the ring in the power struggle for the markets. It would also cost a large chunk of our infrastructure budget, though numbers are not presented to date. Tax revenues and product use would quickly payback the cost though with it being a 2.86 billion dollar industry by 2020 and projected to hit between 33.72 billion and 1.2 trillion dollars by 2026 depending on the report. Once the networks were operable the economy and the consumers would again see leaps and bounds in increases including new products and new jobs. On a nationalized network, speed would be unhindered while coverage would be consistent and wide ranging. On a privatized network speed would be drastically decreased and initially incredibly expensive. Coverage would be spotty at best to start, and only plans to roll out in select cities. Continuing to build separate private networks may also severely hamper nation wide time lines, taking up to ten years possibly. Local regulations differ from location to location, and purchasing required frequencies can take up to seven years due to FCC regulations. A national network could cut that to 3 years. Through all this, whichever way the networks are built, security will always be an issue whether through private or national networks. Private networks are potentially at an increased vulnerability to security threats by their own monetary interest, often opting to make money rather than truly innovate or invest. A single national network would have the advantage of being able to monitor each connection, monitor the network as a whole, and have security to begin with at the forefront of its purpose rather than monetary gain which would be a secondary purpose. The driving idea of security is what has driven two of our most successful national projects to date, the highways and the space race.
The memo was presented to the white house and other officials about a week before the president's state of the union address. During his speech, the president made a stirring call to rebuild this country's infrastructure to a standing ovation from some and wanted 1.5 trillion dollars to achieve this over a period of two years, perhaps even one. He expressed the need for this because of our economy, and our people. Having read the memo and understood the importance the nationalized network might have on our struggling economy, and our people entering a new age where things will be moving even faster than before; one might have been expecting Trump to mention something about the project. It seemed to fit like a glove with the rest of his plan. Alas, not a single word was mentioned about 5G. Not a single word about telecommunications at all. He not only said nothing on these, but stated he might be privatizing certain parts of our infrastructure, going the completely opposite way of an effective policy in this area and others.
Trump is passing on a possibility of nearly unprecedented occurrence. Few other presidents have had such a rare opportunity drop right into their laps, Kennedy and Eisenhower being the names of note, to usher in a new era. Eisenhower gave us the Age of Travel, which quickly yielded way to Kennedy and the Space Age only five years later. Both of which are still in use through nationalized systems today, and still doing things for our economy and people to make their lives better. Trump now has the chance to make America a prominent leader in a new age again, and seems to want nothing to do with it. If Trump were to but reach his hand out and grab it, the Information Age would usher him right into the names of the greats, standing alongside such figures as Eisenhower and Kennedy and on top of another national project.
Link to PDF version of memo presented to the Trump administration featured in Axios article in original posting.