Jump to content

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Opposes White House Plan For Government Run 5G Network

Max_Settings

The Trump Administration has put forward a plan to implement a government run 5G cellular network to compete with China. However they are facing opposition from the Internet’s favorite person, Ajit Pai.

He said in a statement 

Quote

“I oppose any proposal for the federal government to build and operate a nationwide 5G network. The main lesson to draw from the wireless sector’s development over the past three decades—including American leadership in 4G—is that the market, not government, is best positioned to drive innovation and investment. What government can and should do is to push spectrum into the commercial marketplace and set rules that encourage the private sector to develop and deploy next-generation infrastructure. Any 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.”

Source: https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/1/29/16944666/fcc-chairman-government-5g-network-ajit-pai-spectrum?utm_campaign=theverge&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The most hated person on the internet, is about to become even more hated. xD

CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K | Motherboard: AsRock X99 Extreme4 | Graphics Card: Gigabyte GTX 1080 G1 Gaming | RAM: 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws4 2133MHz | Storage: 1 x Samsung 860 EVO 1TB | 1 x WD Green 2TB | 1 x WD Blue 500GB | PSU: Corsair RM750x | Case: Phanteks Enthoo Pro (White) | Cooling: Arctic Freezer i32

 

Mice: Logitech G Pro X Superlight (main), Logitech G Pro Wireless, Razer Viper Ultimate, Zowie S1 Divina Blue, Zowie FK1-B Divina Blue, Logitech G Pro (3366 sensor), Glorious Model O, Razer Viper Mini, Logitech G305, Logitech G502, Logitech G402

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy he has to be a glutton for punishment...

CPU: Intel i7 7700K | GPU: ROG Strix GTX 1080Ti | PSU: Seasonic X-1250 (faulty) | Memory: Corsair Vengeance RGB 3200Mhz 16GB | OS Drive: Western Digital Black NVMe 250GB | Game Drive(s): Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, Hitachi 7K3000 3TB 3.5" | Motherboard: Gigabyte Z270x Gaming 7 | Case: Fractal Design Define S (No Window and modded front Panel) | Monitor(s): Dell S2716DG G-Sync 144Hz, Acer R240HY 60Hz (Dead) | Keyboard: G.SKILL RIPJAWS KM780R MX | Mouse: Steelseries Sensei 310 (Striked out parts are sold or dead, awaiting zen2 parts)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

I don't think he's doing it for that reason.  He's pretty much one of those puppets to distract you from what's going on with Trump.  I fucking hate politics.

Yeah.. no..

 

In this instance, he is wholly correct for all the right reasons. This isn't a distraction, this is him pointing out the obvious. What you have here is the hive mind being mad he said anything about what they think might create progress.

 

News flash everyone, the government fucking sucks at making stuff.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this in the public view just because people don't like him? Someone has to be the opposition to this, so is he right or is he wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I mean most governments do suck at making stuff.  Australia is one example of this.  Didn't they invite wifi yet have the worst net?  Ours is notorious for fucking up at everything it touches.  My point was about the timing, though.

-White House has idea
-Pai says it's a bad idea

 

TIMING FUNKY!!11!!1!!

385167208319418388.png?v=1

 

Also I don't think it's possible to distract from Trumpisms, we have CNN to keep track of all that.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

To be fair, Pai is right. The government trying to do anything with infrastructure is a fucking disaster. And it'll end up costing tax payers more money than if you just let companies do it themselves.

*the FEDERAL government trying to do infrastructure is a disaster.

 

Look at Chattanooga, TN. They have municipal broadband (EPB), and it's worked out amazingly well.

 

Quote

EPB spent about $220 million developing its fiber-optic system, and that’s translated into more than $865 million in economic growth for the city. 

Quote

By offering gigabit connections at $70 a month and providing discounts for low-income residents, EPB has taken tens of thousands of customers from the Internet behemoth Comcast, which offers service that is about 85 percent slower at twice the price. 

 

There are downsides, like the fact that this would allow government snooping on your internet a lot easier, but it's not like Comcast and other ISP's treat your data with any privacy and respect anyways. Regardless of provider, a VPN is a must these days.

 

 

Source Article

I am conducting some polls regarding your opinion of large technology companies. I would appreciate your response. 

Microsoft Apple Valve Google Facebook Oculus HTC AMD Intel Nvidia

I'm using this data to judge this site's biases so people can post in a more objective way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how Trump will react now that the corporate shill he put in power in exchange for a free vote is opposing his administration's proposals...

4 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Is this in the public view just because people don't like him? Someone has to be the opposition to this, so is he right or is he wrong?

I don't have the data to know if it would be economically viable for the US government to do this, and the fact that this would be done for the purpose of "competing with China" and not to benefit citizens is ridiculous, but I know that Pai doesn't oppose this because he actually believes it isn't. Pai is against this because it would be competition for his sugar daddies the ISPs that bought him. He is dead wrong (or rather, he's lying) when he claims that "the market... is best positioned to drive innovation" since in the US there is a localized monopoly when it comes to ISPs.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, CommandMan7 said:

*the FEDERAL government trying to do infrastructure is a disaster.

 

Look at Chattanooga, TN. They have municipal broadband (EPB), and it's worked out amazingly well.

 

 

There are downsides, like the fact that this would allow government snooping on your internet a lot easier, but it's not like Comcast and other ISP's treat your data with any privacy and respect anyways. Regardless of provider, a VPN is a must these days.

 

 

Source Article

Man that made a nice whizzing noise as it flew over your head. I think the White House checkmarks the "Federal" box, does it not?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5G?  so is this a 5G in name only or do they plan to utilize the 5ghz frequency for cellular transmission.  If so 5G range is so limited they would need an antenna base at every power pole. . . sounds like something dumb the Government would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.axios.com/trump-team-debates-nationalizing-5g-network-f1e92a49-60f2-4e3e-acd4-f3eb03d910ff.html

 

The original article that started this off.

 

Quote

Why it matters: We’ve got our hands on a PowerPoint deck and a memo — both produced by a senior National Security Council official — which were presented recently to senior officials at other agencies in the Trump administration.

Show less

The main points: The documents say America needs a centralized nationwide 5G network within three years. There'll be a fierce debate inside the Trump administration — and an outcry from the industry — over the next 6-8 months over how such a network is built and paid for. 

That would be an insanely expensive, really stupid idea to roll out something like that.

 

This story stinks of someone pushing an agenda at the NSC for some purpose. The only way to do something like this would be to remove the 5G licenses already sold. This is either pure Fake News or something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Beowulff83 said:

5G?  so is this a 5G in name only or do they plan to utilize the 5ghz frequency for cellular transmission.  If so 5G range is so limited they would need an antenna base at every power pole. . . sounds like something dumb the Government would do.

It's not the same as 5GHz WiFi, it's the name of the generation of wireless carrier technology.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

To be fair, Pai is right. The government trying to do anything with infrastructure is a fucking disaster. And it'll end up costing tax payers more money than if you just let companies do it themselves.

not necessarily . Its true that letting the private sector deal with it has some advantages.But long term investments often aren't touched by private firms because of slow ROI rate . Investors usually aren't interested in a project if it takes 20+ years to turn a profit , so it isn't done. You end up with lackluster infrastructure , especially in lower density ( ie less profitable) sectors .

 

For example , here in France ( and similarly , in the UK and germany ) we have a robust high-speed railway network that was government funded , built and largely operated. It took decades to get an ROI , but in turn we can now go nearly anywhere in the country for cheap and in a minimal amount of time . That's simply not the case in the US . The railways are often old , do not support high speed travel and are largely fragmented between several companies who are not willing to invest in the infrastructure needed for high speed travel because they don't see the investment as profitable .

AMD Ryzen R7 1700 (3.8ghz) w/ NH-D14, EVGA RTX 2080 XC (stock), 4*4GB DDR4 3000MT/s RAM, Gigabyte AB350-Gaming-3 MB, CX750M PSU, 1.5TB SDD + 7TB HDD, Phanteks enthoo pro case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

not necessarily . Its true that letting the private sector deal with it has some advantages.But long term investments often aren't touched by private firms because of ROI rate . Investors usually aren't interested in a project if it takes 20+ years to turn a profit , so it isn't done. You end up with lackluster infrastructure.

For example , here in France ( and similarly , in the UK and germany ) we have a robust high-speed railway network that was government funded , built and largely operated. It took decades to get an ROI , but in turn we can now go nearly anywhere in the country for cheap and in a minimal amount of time . That's simply not the case in the US . the railways are often old , do not support high speed travel and are largely fragmented between several companies who are not willing to invest in the infrastructure needed for high speed travel because they don't see the investment as profitable .

Let me stop you at the point where you talk about a country other than the US..

 

It doesn't work here. This isn't about a slow ROI, this is that the US Government is completely incapable of providing a product or service by any useful means for how much was spent on it. Budgets for projects go out the window immediately and Lowest Price Technically Acceptable gets you the worst quality product you could imagine.

 

And this is completely ignoring the fact that we have so much ground to cover for infrastructure. Costs would be astronomical.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best solution is to have the infrastructure be publically owned (in whatever form that takes) while having organisations buy access and sell it to customers. Critical infrastructure should not depend on the whims of profit.

 

It can be done but I don't think the US government is up to the task. Every community driven internet access I've had have been far superior and cheaper than the service provided by large companies. Wireless is a bit different but likewise I have better experience with MVNOs than anything else. Of course it's difficult to compare across markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Coaxialgamer said:

But long term investments often aren't touched by private firms because of slow ROI rate . Investors usually aren't interested in a project if it takes 20+ years to turn a profit , so it isn't done. You end up with lackluster infrastructure , especially in lower density ( ie less profitable) sectors

If the private sector will not do it because of slow roi and its not profitable, where do you think the funding will come from?  Our taxes will go up and the Government will borrow even more money it cannot pay back.  We have been doing this in the US for far too long.  You can only kick that can so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Beowulff83 said:

If the private sector will not do it because of slow roi and its not profitable, where do you think the funding will come from?  Our taxes will go up and the Government will borrow even more money it cannot pay back.  We have been doing this in the US for far too long.  You can only kick that can so far.

Funding comes from the very people who make up the country and use the service. Better to go that route than to siphon more funding from them in the form of paying customers for a private company.

I don't know why people would be more comfortable with paying more money out of pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pai is opposing state-run 5G because the telecoms who control him oppose it.

 

That doesn't mean that a state-run 5G network is a good idea, although that largely depends on the motives.  Municipal broadband is great, because it's an answer to telecom duopolies that's dictated by making services accessible, not about profit.  This isn't about accessibility at all -- it's about some vague promises of better security for technology like self-driving cars.  There's a good chance it could be expensive, limited or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×