Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
1–10 of 55 posts
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#2Asking for "comments" to an email may not end so well for them, especially when it comes to "strengthening [...] warfighting capabilities".
Seems like they might be trying to spin this "Challenge" as a sort of AES-style competition, but merely requesting comments en masse seems like it will go the way of the Net Neutrality comments on the FCC site - lots of spam drowning out legitimate input, leading to powerful entities feeling justified in ignoring all submissions.
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#3Asking for "comments" to an email may not end so well for them, especially when it comes to "strengthening [...] warfighting capabilities". Seems like they might be trying to spin this "Challenge" as a sort of AES-style competition, but merely requesting comments en masse seems like it will go the way of the Net Neutrality comments on the FCC site - lots of spam drowning out legitimate input, leading to powerful enti…
[deleted]
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#4Asking for "comments" to an email may not end so well for them, especially when it comes to "strengthening [...] warfighting capabilities". Seems like they might be trying to spin this "Challenge" as a sort of AES-style competition, but merely requesting comments en masse seems like it will go the way of the Net Neutrality comments on the FCC site - lots of spam drowning out legitimate input, leading to powerful enti…
Public comments are a standard feature of this sort of rule change. If you look closely at this press release, you'll also find a link to the accompanying Federal Register page: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/11/2021-00...
In the top right corner is a button marked "SUBMIT A FORMAL COMMENT." I assume that sending an email is treated identically to submitting a formal comment.
Here's more information about the rulemaking process: https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaki...
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#5Sigh, 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 run a game with a big reward. A game that gets people to come up with the most innovative, clever, secure, resilient ways to use 5G for our military that we haven't seen before.
Do you have ideas for how 5G can be implemented in open hardware or software? Do you have ideas for how we can structure a game and its reward to achieve something like that?
Let us know if you have ideas, and you may be able to be a part of something big."
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#6This is highly unusual from a technology perspective. Cellular communications are distinctly and deliberately not part of DOD missions outside the US because those transmissions are easily intercepted and not encrypted. Any use of international cell phones by DOD personnel is purely a matter of urgency and convenience severely limited in what they can be used for.
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#7Interesting. So basically a state driven economy?
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#8Sigh, 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…
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.
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#9This is highly unusual from a technology perspective. Cellular communications are distinctly and deliberately not part of DOD missions outside the US because those transmissions are easily intercepted and not encrypted. Any use of international cell phones by DOD personnel is purely a matter of urgency and convenience severely limited in what they can be used for.
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 so astonishing.
Re: Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
#10Sigh, 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 proprietary IP using them.