I’m not even sure I believe in electricity, let alone “spectrum allocation.”
trump has already said, at least in so many words and certainly with his actions, that he doesn't think the US should lead the world. He wants the US to be "great" all by itself and have little or nothing to do with the rest of the world other than mete out punishment to s__hole countries.
9
This is the first honest look at what is going on in 5g. Our corporations are monopolists and are so focused on beating down the consumers in this country, that they are inferior in technical acievements I welcome this discomfort. It exposes the weakness of the whole us communication system and the unwelcome role of the military in controlling the development of new technologies.
26
Two points.
1) Even if correct, concerns about security are, well, hypocritical. Anyone remember the Clipper Chip or the laughable encryption DES would have provided?
2.) The author seems to have forgotten history in writing "Policymakers must grasp that the 'market' in the United States isn’t working the way it should, especially when state actors like China are supporting companies like Huawei." Perhaps DARPA and NIST might serve as reminders. Despite the a-historical beliefs of the gazillionaire geniuses in Silicone Valley today, the computer industry was essentially a DoD creation.
12
Instead we spent our capital on propping up soy bean farmers. The electoral college has to go.
32
Those interested in the issue should listen to professor Susan Crawford, author of "Fiber." 5G wireless technology relies on a fiber optic backbone; the air link is very short. As professor Crawford explains, US service providers, who mostly enjoy monopoly market access, are not motivated to install fiber networks. This is a big factor in the US lagging in 5G. Also, the monopoly market circumstances mean that US consumers pay more and get less than most other consumers in the world.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?455096-1/communicators-susan-crawford
23
1930’s hard times, the great depression and Roosevelt pushes through the WPA (Works Project Administration) and all save some ideologists cheer as many go back to doing useful projects.
'WPA’ reappears under Kennedy and the race to the moon as Sputnik showed what Russia could achieve.
The moral: There are times when an active government really is useful. Now is one of them for the USA.
15
America goes to great pains to be different from the rest of the world. (Consumer protection, environmental quality, health care, unfettered capitalism, foreign policy, even the metric system.) It's what Americans think is leadership and unquestioned evidence of their superiority. In fact, what they are is backward.
I'm not in any position to judge the relative merits of 5G or Huawei or the electromagnetic spectrum. But being outside the US it is easy to see where the US is missing the boat in a lot of important matters. They have always been this way though it's gotten much worse lately. (I don't know why.)
Americans, and their policy makers in particular, have a hard time thinking long-term. A big part of that is the control that the corporate sector has over government policy making. In the process, they are ceding the field to more strategic thinkers like Europe and China. No surprise.
40
It's laughable to see these technologic competitions posed as "the US vs X," as though the United States were a corporation, and the fate of the nation rested with the corporation-state. And in fact, Trump acts as though he were the unelected chairman of the board of....let's see...Apple?...Google?...T Mobile?
The fortunes of capitalists are now seen as identical with the fortunes of nation-states, and any semblance of hands-off, laissez faire, let-the-market-decide, is long gone. "Our" national future resides with the government / tech / military conglomerate, and it's all headed in the direction of a new phase of human enmity and striving for control.
Good luck with that. I see a very dim future for a race of beings who simply cannot share the benefits of technology with, rather than aim its destructive aspects toward, their fellows.
7
@Robert
Actually, it is "us vs x" and x is China. There is no meaningful distinction to be drawn between Huwei, the government, and the military. Huwei is run by a former general, and every corporation in China is working for the CCP and for the motherland. Every Chinese company of any scale operating internationally is an intel gathering apparatus for the govt.
20
“The country that owns 5G will own many of these innovations and set the standards for the rest of the world...”
In that case, then the US is pretty much going to be shunted aside regardless given that we have socialism for the rich, but not the sort of state socialism that could leverage these advances for the common good. The government doesn't own such conglomerations in the US, but perhaps it should.
If so, then government ownership should benefit us all and not a small group of Trump sycophants or even a slightly wider group of capitalists. The existing situation denies society the right to prosper as a whole from the investments it has made in the future. Here the onus is on our own dumb decision to tolerate greed in the hopes it will make us great. Few signs of that as a result recently.
15
Mr. Trump just insured windfall profits for American wireless providers.
AT&T, Verizon, and others offshore research, development, and manufacturing to China. Mr. Trump represents those companies and investors, not American consumers.
8
One can speculate as to the reasons Trump reversed himself on Huawei.
Allow me.
When Trump leaves office remember Trump's reversal when the news comes out that China has agreed to provide real estate and funding for some brand new hotels bearing the Trump name in Shanghai, Hong Kong or Beijing.
20
Allowing Huawei a toehold would be a very bad idea. This has nothing to do with trade - this is about securing safety for our children.
If anyone thinks that the Chinese are going to become more pliant and collaborative as their military might increases...i have a couple of bridges to sell.
10
One of my major takeaways from this article is that the US Military/Industrial complex, once the mainspring of American high tech innovation, is now, when the communications systems of the rest of the globe is moving to 5G, its chief obstacle. What was once the sail of the American ship of state has become an anchor.
6
First class article. However, it did not mention the 1,500+ patents that Huawei claims to have for 5G technology.
Also not mentioned is the fact that Ericsson and Nokia manufacture most of their 5G gear in China. This raises obvious security issues.
Ignoring these patents - or forcibly requiring they be licensed to US companies - would legitimize a practice that the Chinese would enthusiastically use against American companies in China.
8
@scott Ochiltree
I'm glad you used the word "claims" when describing Huawei's 1,500 5G patents. I believe you'll find some companies rush to file "patents" on inventions where the patent will eventually be found, when challenged, to be invalid. Also, if the patent is essential to 5G, it becomes subject to mandatory licensing at fair and reasonable prices. Nokia similarly had thousands of patents essential to cell phone technology, and eventually found (through adjudication and arbitration) that those patents were worth much less than they expected, and were readily available to other companies at low cost.
Bottom-line - 1,500 Huawei patents sounds impressive, but Chinese companies do not have a good record at genuine invention and innovation. I expect those 1,500 patents will eventually prove either invalid, or of low value.
6
Superb article, Mr. Sorkin.
Unfortunately, it looks as if the NYT readership would rather spend their time on Uncle Joe's Faux Pas' and moral outrage of the day.
14
Well, I guess we can steal the Chinese technology and make it a bit better, smaller and cheaper!
I mean, it's not as though the Chinese have't been doing that to us for years...
5
@Jack Lee
Global respect for intellectual property is one of our major foreign economic policies.
The Chinese are indeed guilty as charged, but we do not want to legitimize their actions by copying them.
2
The Chump Administration continues its chaotic zigging and zagging. Nothing newsworthy here.
What impressed me about this article, however, is that (for once) neither the authors nor the commenters accused the Chinese of stealing American intellectual property. Perhaps this reflects a dawning realization that China creates its own intellectual property by investing in technology research and development, and that this is something the United States should emulate.
8
Will 5G make robocalls go away faster?
5
The benefits promised by 5G will only be realized by upgrading the USA's internet infrastructure to throughly interconnect our entire country via ultra-high-speed networks. A high-speed wireless technology is certainly part of the equation for a sophisticated interconnected economy, but 5G with our current infrastructure is just building fast on-ramps to a gravel road. And to continue the analogy, 5G is not the way to upgrade the gravel road.
5G can be part of this goal but the complexity of connecting the country wirelessly via 5G is an expensive and overly complex fantasy being sold to us by…. wait for it… entities selling 5G!
It also feels like the 5G discussion is missing critical consideration as to whether the potential applications 5G promoters are touting are either all that important or achievable only via 5G. Internet of Things? Sure, I suppose you could use 5G for your talking refrigerator, but why not use the far simpler more elegant technology already in use developed by the Internet of Things Consortium? Remote telemedicine robotic surgery? I can’t figure out what 5G brings to that concept that other communication methods cannot facilitate equally well, now, less expensively, and more safely.
Maybe I’m just getting old and jaded about promised technology revolutions, or maybe I’m getting very skilled at detecting promoters and their hype.
9
One of the worst ways to promote US 5G technology is to blacklist Huawei because the Chinese retaliation would be to blacklist US companies. If Intel, Qualcomm, Apple and others were blacklisted in China, US 5G technology would fall well behind from its present lagging position. The pretext for blacklisting Huawei is national security and alleged theft of intellectual propoerty, but the underlying reason is that Trump believes that this gives him leverage in a tariff war with China. National security is indeed a concern, but not exclusive to Huawei. If Huawei folded today, security will still be at risk due to other players. Security has to be assured through a program directed across the whole technology base, not by eliminating one player. As to Huawei's alleged theft of US intellectual property, the accusations should be prosecuted, and Huawei, if found guilty, should answer to the court. Fortunately, Trump has backed away from the Huawei blacklist for now, so perhaps China will continue to grant US companies access to the Chinese market. Trump does not understand that China can bring down US technology, and this would be a natural way to react to US causing Huawei's demise.
1
Arn'te U.S. deficiencies in wireless technology just one of several U.S. deficiencies in its infrastructure?
3
State actors such as the United States have been crucial in the development of high technology from the outset, from support for companies as Boeing, Lockheed and Raytheon and even IBM, to the development of the internet itself.
Without government support, there would be no high tech sector of the economy in any country in the world.
9
Low band will eventually be superseded by the very high data transmission rates (20 gigbit or more) of high band. Yes, it kinda sucks 5G requires unprecendented proliferation of antennas, even more with high band.
Civilization could probably use a massive solar coronal mass ejection, to wipe the slate clean of our digital addiction.
p.s. - I work as a computer scientist for Air Force Space Command, and don't ever plan to own a cell phone, the solution is worse than the problem.
9
@Seldom Seen Smith
I only use one to be able to take emergency calls about family, or an accident. Everything else including this computer is hard wired.
Call me, don't text, don't facebooger. I want to hear the inflections in your voice.
6
@Seldom Seen Smith
Nobody seems to mention the fact that this unprecedented proliferation of antennas will be useless in blackouts without sufficient backup power. That's an awful lot of backup generators, without which there will be no communication when it is needed most. 1 5g antenna every 1000 feet nationwide. Buy stock in generator companies!
2
This is what the Democratic presidential candidates should be asked about, not whether they once favored school busing.
44
I wonder what our allies will say when the US cries 'national security' in the future. And as for that drone that the Iranians shot, was it really in international waters as we have claimed? I just don't believe anything this government says anymore
9
Mr. Trump typed out a message on Twitter: “I want the United States to win through competition, not by blocking out currently more advanced technologies.”
Liar.
His trade war with China has one sole purpose - block out China's more advanced technologies and its manufacturing prowess.
4
"Huawei is the most significant long-term competitive threat to the United States’ dominance of the future of wireless technology. And the United States is woefully — even disgracefully — behind."
Hold on a second.
Are we or are we not the greatest exemplar of free capitalist markets in the history of forever?
I mean we all know we have neither free markets nor a capitalist economic system, but the talk is out there, loud, insistent. providing cover for heinous corporate behavior.
You write as if its news the US telecommunications is an international embarrassment. Vastly more expensive, pathetically slow, unavailable in many places, bereft of features, but still puffing up and preening as if they're tech leaders of some kind.
Being good capitalists, we trust American laggards will fall behind to be replaced by superior products and better service. Right?
It must be so because they're hauling in wads of cash, so much its depressing developments across the social and economic spectrum. So much cash they buy Senators at will, make policy conform to their selfish needs in direct opposition to the good of the country.
If we're being honest about the economic game in the US, our technology leaders will soon (read: tomorrow) present us with at least acceptable cell and information service or go the way of those apocryphal buggy-whip makers.
Unless we haven't been honest for long, long time.
11
To allow this technology to be shared with China is comparable to the British sharing the enigma technology with Germany.
3
"If the United States is going to lead the world..."
What an absurd thought these days.
13
First Trump creates a crisis out of thin air with claims that anything made in China, even a pair of socks, is feeding our "intellectual property" directly to China, after all they never invented anything without stealing it from us. And Chinese-Americans! Spies, the lot of them! Crisis! Embargo! But wait.... we don't even have the intellectual property to build a 5G network, how can they have stolen it? Then Trump announces he has found a solution. He'll forget about it! He's a genius.
6
We as Americans really need to re-think our priorities if we want to maintain a led on some of the technologies we have today. Funding to research and education are being cut everywhere in this country so it makes it so hard for research companies to find the right people to come up with the next generation technologies. So much money is spent on military today that are used to protect other countries that I think those funding could be better directed to educating the next generation of American Scientist and Engineers.
Also another one of my pet peeves about american companies, don't get business & marketing involved with engineering & research for new technology. As my old boss once said, you cannot schedule invention.
3
I agree that the high band 5G is short range compared to low band which means a whole lot more access points need to be built which then means more fiber backhaul. I work for a company that just bid on some high band frequencies and appears to not understand what they bought. I also am a lead engineer for this company on fiber backhaul from cell towers and I can tell you that infrastructure is SEVERELY overcommitted and a lack of money and will to invest in more fiber optic DWDM backhaul is going to impact the ability to even get good 4G performance with all the people hitting towers today.
7
Huawei has a brilliant strategy for dominating the communications business. Spying on our kids when they call us asking for money? No, this is even more devious! Their strategy is to make communications equipment that is inexpensive and performs well, so that their customers will want to buy their products! It's the American way! That's what China stole from us.
6
So the concern is not broad societal benefits, but rather someone Non U.S. being the next zillionaire. Regardless, you can bet that the current telecom oligopoly will charge increasing tolls on their highway for its use. Corporations are people my friend - only more greedy, and less caring. US based corporations will do anything for anyone for money including licensing their precious intellectual property.
There is no public interest policy in this administration, only tilting the market for making money by big business.
8
Having a thriving 5G market will allow increased competition with local cable internet providers who generally have monopolistic pricing and low innovation histories. The benefits to consumers will be lower costs and higher speeds. We have the ability to raise enormous amounts of capital in this country for potentially profitable projects, but the government first has to make a low band 5G network available. Where is leadership in Congress on this?
1
I'd like to see more attention given to the conflicts inherent in the proposed spectrum allocations for 5G technology and the needs of weather forecasting satellites. The precise measurement of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on the physical properties of water as it affects electromagnetic waves and those physical properties are not changing. But we require a part of the proposed 5G spectrum allocation - without interference from human communications - to measure the water vapor content of the air. So I think we might want to have the most precise forecasting we possibly can for increasingly frequent severe storms. And the US government needs to get its act together on that rather than giving priority to the roll-out of 5G technology as fast as they possibly can. I think the weather guys need to be given priority over the clowns who have blown net neutrality apart and would like to fowl up weather forecasting next. The solution is to re-allocate 5G spectrum and that is a problem for the whole world and that needs US cooperation and could greatly benefit from US leadership if it were any good - not so much these days.
4
Our FCC is too politically partisan, it's incapable of advancing our national interests.
I had proposed elsewhere the value of having an independent center to evaluate and monitor Huwawei's technology so we can use it here.
Glad to hear the UK is already doing it, per post below.
Our 5G deployment is taking too long. We do not have 5G capable smartphones/handsets available yet.
1
Ronald Reagan's use of the old Russian proverb "Doveryai, no proveryai" (Trust, but verify) comes to mind. Something similar with Huawei is possible... how can you be sure?
The UK's Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre in Banbury, Oxfordshire opened in November 2010 under an agreement between Huawei and Her Majesty’s Government to identify and mitigate risks arising from the involvement of Huawei equipment and software in UK infrastructure.
HCSEC provides security evaluations of Huawei products that could be used in the UK telecommunications market, certifying them as safe to use and occasionally identifying weaknesses and potential "exploits" that require alteration before deployment or use. The Centre also provides the UK government (and specifically its secret "signals" organisation, GCHQ) with insight into Huawei’s strategies and product ranges. Who knows how many back doors they have identified and are either currently or planning to use in the future?
Cutting yourself off is not going to work well in our connected world. All this has been going on for 8 years already and at Huawei's cost.
It makes you wonder if there might be an alternative agenda at play here.
3
@longsummer -- Did you go to the Yankees-Red Sox game?
1
Thanks for the great article and getting to the core of the issue for US. The only way to solve this issue and put US in the forefront of this revolution is, as always, for our country to take leadership and pioneer this front. It is really sad that there is not a single US company leading in this domain and collectively we need to change this right away. Else, all other talk or actions will be from the Emperor with no clothes!
1
The NA manufacturers and developers of wireless broadband technologies (Lucent, Nortel, etc) crashed and burned 20 years ago and were sold off in pieces to others (Cisco, Nokia, Ericsson, etc) to satisfy the debt acquired in the dot com boom. The US has no industrial policy that is forward focused but, instead, touts “the market of ideas” and puts government action into saving industries that barely matter or really don’t need the subsidies. So, we sit and wait on China and the EU to define standards and create the equipment needed for communications because “the markets “ have spoken. The large defense contractors could enter this market and supply the US and its allies, just as it does with combat equipment if the US Govt really took this issue seriously. Unfortunately, it does not.
3
This is what happens when we lack a "national industrial policy" (picking "winners and losers" is scorned here), whereas the Chinese do. The Japanese did too, in the 80s and 90s. Remember the debate about supercomputers?
No American company is poised to bootstrap their operation and to become in short order a global player in 5G network/handset technologies as Huawei is.
2
@Jay
DOD is allowed to have an industrial policy, although not to call it such. No other government agency seems to have that forward-looking approach.
1
The only solution is for the FCC to re-allocate low band spectrum instead of trying to force 5G into millimeter waves (high band). Too many people didn't understand the physics and were sold a load of baloney that millimeter waves would work. Unfortunately, the FCC is about 10-15 years too late. However, if we want to reap the benefits of 5G (which may be oversold) - spectrum reallocation is the only way to do it.
1
If Trump were an astute and master negotiator, dangling Huawei could be a tactic. So would subsidizing American companies to step up and develop their own 5G capability.
Back when 3G was coming online, I worked for companies that developed telecom equipment. Several of them did very well with developing transmission equipment, but crashed and burned when they tried to expand into switching equipment. Now, for whatever reasons (including the spectrum allotment), transmission equipment has become a problem.
You can't expect Americans to worry about losing the competitive edge when 1) most Americans don't and wouldn't benefit from American dominance, and 2) consumer telecom rates will reflect the prevailing monopolies, not where the technology originates or who profits from selling it.
What you've offered here is plaint of the typical shareholder, not the typical citizen. Or is the typical shareholder just finding out now that American executives don't discriminate and will happily stiff other rich people with short-sighted quarterly goals and worries about stock price?
8
We all have to understand that our system, that is based in quarterly profits, simply doesn’t work. The system based on tax cuts for millionaires doesn’t work. The system based on private health care coverage and privatized education doesn’t work as well as it could otherwise. The system based on corporations and billionaires funding elections doesn’t work. Eventually, when the only thing we have left is just useless military with 25 aircraft carriers, no matter how high tech, our system will collapse.
What next? People will revolt. Two choices, either fascism or communism, take your pick.
This election cycle is the most important since Abe Lincoln. Does America see the true dangers ahead or not.
26
We all have to understand that our system, that is based in quarterly profits, simply doesn’t work. The system based on tax cuts for millionaires doesn’t work. The system based on private health care coverage and privatized education doesn’t work as well as it could otherwise. The system based on corporations and billionaires funding elections doesn’t work. Eventually, when the only thing we have is just useless military with 25 aircraft carriers no matter how high tech, our system will collapse.
What next? People will revolt. Two choices, either fascism or communism, take your pick.
This election cycle is the most important since Abe Lincoln.
2
@CarolinaJoe: We all know what happened after Lincoln was elected. To say that it was painful is the understatement of the century, but in the long run, it worked for the good of all in spite of a few holdouts who still refer to it as "the war of Northern aggression."
Both sides believe that victory for themselves in the last chance to preserve the union. This is not likely to end well.
2
This article implies that what Trump says and tweets are important. His "agreement" with Xi Jinping is based on nothing of substance. He will use this topic and others to manipulate the media. Next week he will likely renege on the Huawei statement. China and all the countries of the world know that an agreement or treaty with Trump and the U.S. is not worth the paper it is written on.
49
Is this yet another example of “American exceptionalism?” Meanwhile, the world passes by.
13
Trump doesn't care about American companies, or any companies. Everything is about him, and only him. He'll sell you down the drain. But you already know that.
40
I work for a Swedish startup that is developing music and audio applications that will take advantage of 5G's increased speed and reduced latency. This relatively small corner of the coming 5G universe represents a HUGE opportunity and there are countless others being developed or dreamed up right now. While the Swedish Government is developing policy based on a clear understanding of the technology and it's potential. the US Government is setting policy based on what will win the day's new cycle. That's why a company from a country of 9M people is the clear #2 in 5G infrastructure, a country of 5.5M is #3 and the US isn't even on the spectrum. Mr. Trump, if you want to crow about bringing jobs back to the US, get behind 5G in a big way. You can bash the Chinese and Scandinavian socialists while creating tons of high paying tech and manufacturing jobs. This will require some long term thinking....oh, never mind.
91
Sorkin continues to shill for the war with China propaganda group. "None of this is meant to suggest that Huawei does not represent a national security threat if the Chinese government were to use it to spy on foreign adversaries in the future." How can it be that "Huawei does not represent a threat..." IF ...the Chinese WERE TO" This has nothing to do with potential spying and everything to do with competition between the ruling rich of the US and China. Not only has there been not a single actual case, but no one has offered a single plausible example of how this alleged spying would be performed. What about all the Chinese toys? Perhaps they might spy on the children! The problem with Trade and Tariff wars is that even when the parties step back from the brink for the moment, the damage is done. The gun has been blandished and even if momentarily holstered everyone in the world views everything differently. The Chinese will now bend every effort to never again be put in a similar bind. The advantage of their state capitalist economy is precisely that it can quickly mobilize assets on a national campaign footing. Mr. Sorkin whining about the lack of such unified purpose of mobilization in the US is risible. Has he forgotten the anarchic nature of capitalism? I thought he was an economics reporter.
5
Trump doesn’t have a clue. Sorry he doesn’t “know more about tech than everyone else”
Spending hours taking cheap political shots on Twitter doesn’t make you a tech expert.
Unfortunately for the US with no leadership we will continue to fall behind.
Vote my friends for a better future.
31
@Steven definitely time for mayor pete as either president or VP.
SELL OUT; pure and simple.
Desperation (on Trump's part) about getting re-elected is going to cost us "bigly."
5G, nukes in NK, next he will bomb Iran (like in the song). All to mollify his base base.
On July 4th, Americans should hang their flags upside down to demonstrate opposition to the phony criminal in the WH.
15
What utter nonsense. The so-called Race for 5G is nothing but hype. In no particular order:
- The US carriers are right up with South Korea, Japan and China on early deployment. If one country’s operators get a few months ahead or behind, so what?
- US spectrum policy leaves much to be desired, but has not yet been a barrier to deployment. Longer term, the messy process will work itself out.
- You can have high speeds, wide coverage or reasonable cost, but not all three. Midband 5G will be modestly faster than 4G. High band 5G delivers much higher speeds over much shorter distances, so it takes lots of antennas to get coverage. Both are needed for different uses. Verizon and AT&T chose to focus first on the more challenging high band. That was a strategic decision, not a bow to flawed spectrum policy.
- US companies like Qualcomm, Intel and Cisco, and US research universities, especially NYU, are no less significant contributors to the technology than any others. Qualcomm is the leader in the semiconductor sector, which is arguably more important than infrastructure systems.
- Truthfully, the impact of 5G is over-hyped. For example, autonomous cars, smart cities and remote surgery will happen with or without 5G.
US leadership in technology is being undermined by a lot of things. 5G isn’t one of them.
2
This seems like a reasonable response from someone knowledgeable about the market, but I remained concerned. I’m not a market expert, so exactly what 5G components does Hauwei make? Can these components be accessed by the Chinese post-sale to disrupt or access communications? Who makes the 5G transmission towers? Are they also potential disrupters and spies?
1
@Tolerant Reader Huawei has a much more devious strategy to dominate the telecommunications business. They plan to build reliable products and sell them at at affordable prices! Where did they get that idea? They could never have thought of it on their own, they must have stolen it from us.
1
While the author has a point, this is nothing new for 5G. It has been like this at least since the US mobile phone companies totally underestimated the GSM standard. Over 15 years ago, with 3G being deployed around the world, mobile communication in the US finally started turning around, but all the equipment of course came from Europe, with Huawei following suit later.
Given the development timelines, there is nothing to gain anymore on 5G tech, thousands of patents already granted, US tech is simply too late again. If this article's message should make some sense, US tech has to jump on 6G right now, that's the only change for a national activity. And again, it will only work, if US tech works closely with European tech. But it is actually more likely, that even Ericsson and Nokia will be out of the game by then, with Huawei becoming a global monopoly on mobile network infrastructure.
And yes, that is strategically frightening.
11
The US is the greatest threat to the world right now. Its attacks on international law and institutions has been a persistent problem since the end of the Cold War (and before, too). Under the Trump administration, the US' attacks on the world economy have hit an unprecedented level. The US has weaponized its economy to abuse and blackmail the entire planet, friends and foes alike. The US has also done everything that it accuses China of doing. It has used its position as the center of the internet to spy on the entire planet. The NSA has not exactly been big on privacy and the US record of spying on its allies is well known. All of this is to say that the US cannot be trusted to use the technologies of tomorrow in a responsible and beneficial way. Quite frankly, I have more faith in China's willingness to do this, given it has shown a far greater commitment to a liberal, rule-driven world economy than the US. At the least, there is no credible reason to believe that the US is any more trustworthy than China. So, if China dominates 5G technology, that's just fine. The US needs to be balanced and checked in the world and this is one way to do it. When the US proves that it can act in a responsible way with the power that it has, then we can talk.
74
I agree with these comments.
I am also incensed that Canada is stuck with the US request for the deportation of the Huawei executive while Trump changes his mind and says okay, we will end the ban on the US use of Huawei equipment.
Because we honoured the US extradition request, China has imprisoned 2 Canadians, ordered the death penalty for another, banned Canadian exports of canola oil, pork and other items. Does Trump or the US care?
Its time for the Canadian Government to stop playing its Boy Scout role, release Meng Wanzhou. Tell the US we will no longer suffer over their technological failures to keep pace with China.
10
The United States has been behind much of the rest of the the world. in digital communication, from the early days of cell phone technology. Part of that is due to the preference of US communications companies for monopolistic and primitive technology, and part is due to a government obsession with obstructing privacy of communications, or as noted here, dedicating (band then, not even adequately exploiting) bandwidth for military or other governmental objectives.
A large part of our technological progress was due to World War II and the US space program, which spun off a great deal that would not otherwise have occurred. My point is that progress for the people or for international competition has not often fueled development in the United States.
Free and quality basic, college and graduate education, and substantial funding for quality of life can do great things for the United States and its people.
22
If the US government [Trump, the Republicans, the Kochs] is involved in civilian industry you know that there is money involved. Look at the US and 4G like the US and "we dig coal".
7
When you say the United States needs to dominate 5G, surely you mean US companies, not the government or the country itself. So please explain why what's good for Cisco is necessarily good for the people of the US.
17
The same reason the development of consumer available electricity was good for Edison and good for us all. It’s the driver of all future tech.
2
" Huawei is the top threat to American dominance in wireless technology. And the U.S. is woefully, even disgracefully, behind. " Lately, companies such as Verizon and At & t have directed their affairs in the political sphere, neglecting research and development in the telecommunications sphere, while the Chinese today are more concerned with technology than Marx and Lenin!
52
How about the health danger of 5G that no one,s talking
about like cancer and so on, is this worth the health risks???
@bdmart
There are no health care risks from 5G.
Try learning some basic physics. You can buy a FLIR camera for 200 dollars and use it to look at yourself. FLIR looks at infrared radiation. Your body naturally emits a lot of infrared radiation. Infrared radiation has over a thousand times more energy than the radio waves used in 5G. The only people who worry about this stuff are health researchers who find a hint of a problem, but don't know understand physics. Their job security depends on them finding a hint of a problem. You make the call....
5