Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems

defense.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems

#41

Post by imglorp »

gostsamo wrote: post #10
supernova87a wrote: post #5

Sigh, 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…

To generalize, we are behind in X and we need American presence in a bunch of Xs. Relative to our prior leadership...

We fell down on basic R&D: most of the labs got wiped out by "cost accounting" and short term profit seeking.

We fell down on basic infrastructure: much of the country isn't gigabit, let alone DSL.

We fell down on basic STEM education. Other countries pay for everyone's education as an investment in the future.

We fell down retaining existing leadership areas, offshoring them for short term profit. Now we can't make some of these things and need to buy them back with import tariffs.

Who could have forseen this coming?

Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems

#42

Post by otoburb »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #23

in 2020 US AG[1] floated the idea of buying shares in Nokia or Ericsson to be able to have a say in this space (talking about "controlling the means of production" lol). For natsec this isn't enough which seems to be also the conclusion of DoD. Having worked in this space, a company bidding here will not be able to do this without spending billions on implementing and being part of the non-military commercial market…

>>It took commercial vendors nearly a decade to build 5G and the only reason they were so "fast" was because they had already experienced engineers on their payroll who understood the basics of 3G/4G.

100% agree. Also, many of the large domain players (Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia, ZTE) actively participated in the 3GPP standards process to ensure they were kept abreast of what was being proposed. This is a pretty steep hill to climb for the US to build out a competitive domestic solution.

Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems

#43

Post by gostsamo »

ksec wrote: post #37
gostsamo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ( Autonom…

Yes, and which US company provides the substitutions for the ripped out Huawei 5g stations? Saying that US has 5G presence is the same as pointing at OVH to prove that the EU has cloud capabilities.

Be serious, being in the periphery means that Trump was proposing buying share in Nokia and not investing in Cisco.

Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems

#45

Post by BobbyJo »

imglorp wrote: post #41
gostsamo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To generalize, we are behind in X and we need American presence in a bunch of Xs. Relative to our prior leadership... We fell down on basic R&D: most of the labs got wiped out by "cost accounting" and short term profit seeking. We fell down on basic infrastructure: much of the country isn't gigabit, let alone DSL. We fell down on basic STEM education. Other countries pay for everyone's education as an investment in t…

I mean, the reality is America is too expensive to be successful in commodities markets. We have to prop up farming with subsidies just to keep them afloat. Hardware was commoditized a few decades ago and doesn't provide the margins for a business to thrive here without government help.

It's good, because it means we are generally focused on more profitable endeavors. It's bad because it means most of what we 'need', since commodities are the basis of our lives, get produced elsewere. This was fine when we had the wool of globalism pulled over our eyes, but COVID and the rise of China have shown us it was a pipe dream the whole time.

Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems

#46

Post by wmf »

BobbyJo wrote: post #45
imglorp wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To generalize, we are behind in X and we need American presence in a bunch of Xs. Relative to our prior leadership... We fell down on basic R&D: most of the labs got wiped out by "cost accounting" and short term profit seeking. We fell down on basic infrastructure: much of the country isn't gigabit, let alone DSL. We fell down on basic STEM education. Other countries pay for everyone's education as an investment in t…

I mean, the reality is America is too expensive to be successful in commodities markets. We have to prop up farming with subsidies just to keep them afloat. Hardware was commoditized a few decades ago and doesn't provide the margins for a business to thrive here without government help. It's good, because it means we are generally focused on more profitable endeavors. It's bad because it means most of what we 'need',…

The point of this discussion is that the US is also losing in some high-tech fields like semiconductor fabrication and 5G. Can we survive on just software?

Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems

#47

Post by Zigurd »

This is a strange initiative.

Of course it would be good if the telecom infrastructure were open, secure, and auditable. But there are some barriers:

You cannot make communications secure AND enable interception. You are required to provide undetectable (even to network management systems)interception for (IIRC) 1% of traffic. This has to be controlled from an off-site LI console at law enforcement agencies.

And that's just the tip of the surveillance iceberg.

There are parts of a 5G system that could be open source, like most of the RAN, since LI happens in the mobile switching center. But for these parts of the network, the equipment providers could just be required to make their code public and audit it. Possibly needs patent suit protection, but that would get you there fastest.

As others on this thread have pointed out the whole telecom gear game is wildly unsuited for open systems for a whole bunch of other reasons.

Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems

#48

Post by BelenusMordred »

Somewhat shocked by the responses here.

This is great news if they truly go through with open spec hardware and open source 5G firmware, it would be a seismic shift in how cellular modems have been rolled out in the last 30 years.

Truly couldn't care less if it is driven by Europe or China having better tech or whatever geopolitical flavour of the minute caused such things, I would 100% support a US effort if the went down an open source path, where can I sign up to donate development effort? The most widespread bastion of closed source binary blobs left on the planet with no alternatives is cellular baseband firmware. Anyone breaking down those walls should be congratulated regardless of the reasons.

If you are interested in these things don't be put off by the kneejerk comments here, it's fertile land, there are devs who have worked for years on open source cellular modem software and poured significant money/energy into such endeavours knowing they could never realistically get their work approved by regulators anywhere on Earth.

Have some links, honestly surprised many people in 2nd one haven't been arrested. This is a highly regulated space and they've caused a tad bit of trouble over the years for simply trying to be free.

https://www.freecalypso.org/

https://osmocom.org/

Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems

#49

Post by rcoveson »

wmf wrote: post #46
BobbyJo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the reality is America is too expensive to be successful in commodities markets. We have to prop up farming with subsidies just to keep them afloat. Hardware was commoditized a few decades ago and doesn't provide the margins for a business to thrive here without government help. It's good, because it means we are generally focused on more profitable endeavors. It's bad because it means most of what we 'need',…

The point of this discussion is that the US is also losing in some high-tech fields like semiconductor fabrication and 5G. Can we survive on just software?

That and pizza delivery.

Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems

#50

Post by [deleted] »

BobbyJo wrote: post #45
imglorp wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To generalize, we are behind in X and we need American presence in a bunch of Xs. Relative to our prior leadership... We fell down on basic R&D: most of the labs got wiped out by "cost accounting" and short term profit seeking. We fell down on basic infrastructure: much of the country isn't gigabit, let alone DSL. We fell down on basic STEM education. Other countries pay for everyone's education as an investment in t…

I mean, the reality is America is too expensive to be successful in commodities markets. We have to prop up farming with subsidies just to keep them afloat. Hardware was commoditized a few decades ago and doesn't provide the margins for a business to thrive here without government help. It's good, because it means we are generally focused on more profitable endeavors. It's bad because it means most of what we 'need',…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN