Wow, Nationalized 5G Network?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 29, 2018 - 7:06pm

I don’t see how the US goverment would build and operate the network.
What about the Telecom carriers?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...

Submitted by moneymaker on January 29, 2018 - 9:04pm.

How about a military version? Like how arapanet got going. They could use it to mesh control assassin drones.

Submitted by ucodegen on January 30, 2018 - 12:53am.

I wonder if this (nationalized 5G network) is actually a feint. I have noticed that Trump sometimes use 'feints' by putting out an extreme position, which he "may" have the authority to set, to coerce people to work together who would rather push their individual agendas to the cost of everyone else.

If you have noticed, the US Cellular telecom is partially balkanized. It seems to worse for a short time every time a new standard is developed. Each telecom pushes their own variant.

As it presently stands, there is multiple coverage in some areas while other areas are completely ignored.

Personally, I don't think it is a good idea - though there may be a way to have it work. It might also allow the gov to spy on everyone.

Submitted by SK in CV on January 30, 2018 - 8:31am.

OPM. Government builds it. Gives it to private industry (I dunno, maybe to Ivankaco or something) to make lots of money and exploit the taxpayers.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 31, 2018 - 12:27pm.

SK in CV wrote:
OPM. Government builds it. Gives it to private industry (I dunno, maybe to Ivankaco or something) to make lots of money and exploit the taxpayers.

Sounds like a page from Russia.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on January 31, 2018 - 4:27pm.

We can Nationalize Telecom but we cannot Nationalize Health Care LOL.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 1, 2018 - 1:06pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
We can Nationalize Telecom but we cannot Nationalize Health Care LOL.

Because health care is not national security. We do however care about our secrets.

Seriously though, I can't wait for the Internet of things and self driving cars. I will need it in my old age.

Submitted by gzz on February 1, 2018 - 8:03pm.

I don't need my phone data to be any faster. I want to see an improvement in reliability and decrease in price. The improvement in peak speed from 100k to 1000k/sec, even though by a factor of 1000%, only really improved the experience by maybe 1%. On HD videos are big enough to notice the faster peak speed, and you barely notice the difference on a cell phone screen between SD and HD, even on a 6 inch HD one.

Submitted by spdrun on February 1, 2018 - 8:53pm.

The network isn't for you and me. It's for "them" to deploy more sensors, cameras, connected cars, and other forms of intrusion into the environment, cheaply.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 2, 2018 - 11:29am.

gzz wrote:
I don't need my phone data to be any faster. I want to see an improvement in reliability and decrease in price. The improvement in peak speed from 100k to 1000k/sec, even though by a factor of 1000%, only really improved the experience by maybe 1%. On HD videos are big enough to notice the faster peak speed, and you barely notice the difference on a cell phone screen between SD and HD, even on a 6 inch HD one.

I used to think that before 3G. At that time, I was thinking cheap talk and text and check email was enough.

But, new phone networks are more efficient and cheaper to operate once the capital improvements are made. And new networks spur innovation that make us all richer. Look at this wealth created thanks to 4G, especially in China with mobile ecommerce and payment. The adoption of new tech happened within a span of about 5 years.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 2, 2018 - 11:49am.

spdrun wrote:
The network isn't for you and me. It's for "them" to deploy more sensors, cameras, connected cars, and other forms of intrusion into the environment, cheaply.

If we don't buy then it won't work. But consumers want to buy.

Anyway, I'm willing to give up privacy for safety. I changed my mind since I started owning real estate in low income areas. We need sensors and facial recognition cameras to get rid of all the riffraff behavior. Don't you want NYC to be a clean, resplendent city thanks to smart city technology?

BTW, I know the downsides, but wealth creation is more important.

We need to support Qualcomm
Content from Qualcomm: 5G and IoT Technologies for Smart Cities
https://youtu.be/Vxcubrc1CoA

Submitted by spdrun on February 2, 2018 - 3:40pm.

absolutely not. I empathise more with the riff raff than wealth creating techbros. frankly, NYC was better in the early 90s pre Rudy.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 3, 2018 - 1:06am.

spd, life does not stand still for what you're comfortable with. It's not even about Rudy -- NYC has no choice but to evolve in relation to London or Hong Kong. Else NYC will die a slow death.

I have no simpathy for riff raff.
RE example: I have been battling a deplorable who keeps on parking in my tenant's spot. We were very nice to leave notes of warning with contact phone number.... then he called to cuss me out because he thinks it should be free-for-all. 5G and IoT would fix that real quick.

Submitted by spdrun on February 3, 2018 - 7:44am.

Jeez - I grew up in a complex that had first-come-first-served parking as long as you lived there. It worked fine. Why does everything need to be assigned, marked, and enforced 100%? I'd just park in his spot.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 21, 2019 - 1:53pm.

Really, what is the big fuss over 5G? We should just the markets decide to allocate resources. It’s not a good idea for the government to intervene, is it?
Private companies know better what demand is and they will most efficiently calculate return on investments. Let the invisible hand do its job.

Trump says he wants ‘5G, and even 6G’ wireless tech. But what is 6G?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolog...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.