Isn’t this about 8 years late...
What do today's 5G innovations look like? Can't the DoD jumpstart to get there. BTW DoC includes NOAA which has pretty advanced networking, and I think purposely have held off from 5G due to large uncertain risks
Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
31–40 of 55 posts
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part true, but to be precise: Public, notably 4G infrastructures, have been used as underlying networks for day to day military and security activity. The overlay network itself is still encrypted and resilient by using other networks if public network is not available. With 5G, it even accelerates. Therefore it justifies part of the ban of Huawei and the security needed for 5G networks. So this program does not look…
I am an Army signal officer with 5 deployments. The military considers cell phones inherently insecure and not a mission asset, regardless of what you may read.
Is that because military-purpose communications is insecure over 4G, or because modern smartphones, full of adtech malware, make it all to easy to leak your location by accident?
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#33If the U.S. DOD is involved, then no -- it will not be 'open'. Americans always play weird games with the truth, what they think you'll allow them to get away with when they lie straight to your face.
(Brought to you on the open internet which grew directly from a DoD project.)
(While your uber eats is in route using GPS)
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#34Interesting. So basically a state driven economy?
You need some cohesiveness and a guiding force/philosophy of where to go. Otherwise you just have a bunch of corps only incentivized to make money, with disjointed ideas etc. Most are only incentivized for short time horizons up to 10-20 years max. Govs can plan a 50-100 year vision for a nation (like China is doing).
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part true, but to be precise: Public, notably 4G infrastructures, have been used as underlying networks for day to day military and security activity. The overlay network itself is still encrypted and resilient by using other networks if public network is not available. With 5G, it even accelerates. Therefore it justifies part of the ban of Huawei and the security needed for 5G networks. So this program does not look…
I am an Army signal officer with 5 deployments. The military considers cell phones inherently insecure and not a mission asset, regardless of what you may read.
The DoD, or at least the USAF, has decided that 5G is going to be a critical part of their infrastructure.
https://potomacofficersclub.com/will-roper-announces-larger-...
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am an Army signal officer with 5 deployments. The military considers cell phones inherently insecure and not a mission asset, regardless of what you may read.
Is that because military-purpose communications is insecure over 4G, or because modern smartphones, full of adtech malware, make it all to easy to leak your location by accident?
It's a variety of factors. Information leaking is one, but a big one is the lack of control. DoD does not control any significant part of the present cellular network, so it might be useful but it oughtn't be part of your critical systems.
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#37Sigh, these always read like such PR department unclear jargony press releases. "...The 5G Challenge would leverage the innovative capabilities of the software development and telecommunications technology communities to enable more open implementations of 5G systems, including end-user equipment, the radio access network, and the core network, with a focus on the 5G protocol stack software. " How about: "We want to…
Or you can read this as: We are behind in the game and we don't have anyone capable in this sphere. Nokia, Erikson, Huawey, and Samsung have all the market now and we need american presence there. We can't create a state company, so we will try to break the leaders either by sanctions or by diminishing the value of their IP through open standards until the moment when the standards are open enough to favorite our pro…
It is Ericsson and Huawei. In case anyone reading and not well versed on the subject.
While the 3GPP Profile and Spec aren't exactly "Open" by Open Source and HN's Standard, It is definitely not closed or proprietary. You can implement a working 3G / 4G / 5G system. It just wouldn't be competitive with commercial offering.
And US actually has plenty of IP via Qualcomm in Core Standards. Ignoring IoT and AV ( Autonomous Vehicle ). Also partly via Nokia when acquired Alcatel-Lucent, where Lucent is from AT&T Bell Labs.
So No, US aren't out of the 5G circle. They just dont have any companies making specific part of the 5G infrastructure.
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I'll have the former style of business jargon over the latter. Sure, "leverage the innovative" doesn't mean anything, but at least it's not actively infantilizing.
Yeah, seems like trying to get away from the business speak got us to job descriptions that call for ninja rock stars. I'll take the business jargon.
[deleted]
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#39I wonder if these will be useful to them:
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#40If the U.S. DOD is involved, then no -- it will not be 'open'. Americans always play weird games with the truth, what they think you'll allow them to get away with when they lie straight to your face.
They're looking for more open technology that they can use as parts of their system. As opposed to, say, the present cellular systems where it's:
1. Hard to create your own cell network (in contrast to a wifi or ethernet network).
2. Limited choice on vendors (again, in contrast to wifi and ethernet).
5G's potential ubiquity and utility, but limited vendors, is an issue for the DoD. They want to use it, but if they can't build out their own 5G infrastructure reliably with a decent variety of vendors it's a no-go.