Live data from Hacker News

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

defense.gov

51–55 of 55 posts

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

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Aham, so, why don't they break Oracle, if licenses are such an evil? I admire your patriotism, but the rest of us are not bound by it. At least I think that the nice thing about liberal democracy is that it is easy for one to defend it when they are also the one who has entitled themselves to define what it is. TBH, I'm okay with open 5G and even more, I'm just pointing that the sudden desire of the US government to…

I am generally not a fan of the MIC, and I am not particularly impressed by the promise of this initiative, but I don't have any issue with an open, or a pseudo-open, or even open-with-favoritism approach to R&D.

It's hard to compete with free, but that doesn't mean the world should be stuck paying rents to proprietary vendors from now to the end of time. Sometimes your business model gets disrupted by a VC dumping a billion dollars into a money-losing startup. Sometimes it gets disrupted by a nation state dumping a billion dollars into money-losing R&D, that they then gift to their domestic firms. It's fine when Europe does it, it's fine when China does it, it's fine when the US does it.

The reason it's fine is because there's nothing about capitalism or markets that require your competitors to be profitable... Just like there's nothing about capitalism or markets which forbids arbitrary, regional advantages, be they related to your geography, your access to human capital, a unique regulatory environment, or your access to a friendly government that will subsidize your business (With grants, or R&D credits, or tech transfers, or just by buying a lot of stuff from you.)

To put another way - if some other government funded the development of a drug that cured cancer for $2/dose, I wouldn't shed any tears for the trillions of dollars of wasted R&D, and lost profits for existing vendors of cancer medication. I'd still feel that way, even if they went ahead and gifted the IP to a domestic vendor, that sold it at a hefty markup.

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

#52

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…

FWIW this isn't a RFP for a contract yet, it's a request to answer questions to shape a challenge which could turn into an actual contract.

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

#53
post #7

Interesting. So basically a state driven economy?

What was the actual purpose of ENIAC?

>Although ENIAC was designed and primarily used to calculate artillery firing tables for the United States Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory (which later became a part of the Army Research Laboratory),[6][7] its first program was a study of the feasibility of the thermonuclear weapon.[8][9]

What was the first attempt at a large scale computer network?

>In 1959, Anatolii Ivanovich Kitov proposed to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union a detailed plan for the re-organisation of the control of the Soviet armed forces and of the Soviet economy on the basis of a network of computing centres, the OGAS.[6]

States have always had a strong strategic interest in ensuring they have access and control of critical technology of the time for purposes of power projection.

It's less about "the economy" than ensuring influence over strategically critical tech.

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

#54
post #46
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?

Just because it's high tech doesn't mean it isn't commoditized.

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

#55
post #42

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…

Sure seems like pursuing public source & public development might help generate some of that talent & know-how. If a nation has forgotten how to do something, or never knew in the first place (the Apollo Program), sometimes a climb is worthwhile, not only for where you get, but for what your nation learns & becomes along the way: greater. I'm in extreme favor of public-sourcing America into a nation with more more savvy & more skill at wireless connection. Get the ball rolling on getting better! Thankfully there seem like a lot of interested, civic minded folk out there, whose passion for radio-based connectivity & sharing that information is high.

Meanwhile our nation's cellular networks still run fantastically unsecure SS7, is my understanding.

Some kind of neat undertones of Secret History of Silicon Valley[1] here, except it's a different kind of protection, a different kind of guard for the world: not against military adversaries, but against our own inability to connect ourselves amid the software-run world.

[1] https://steveblank.com/secret-history/

Post reply on HN