Sunday, January 28, 2018

Jesse — US Government Considers Nationalizing US Cellular Network And Unifying Upgrade to 5G Next Generation Wireless


Speculation at his point, but if the US doesn't do something like this, China will leave the US seriously in the dust.

Jesse's Café Américain
US Government Considers Nationalizing US Cellular Network And Unifying Upgrade to 5G Next Generation Wireless

See also
President Donald Trump’s national security team is looking at options to counter the threat of China spying on U.S. phone calls that include the government building a super-fast 5G wireless network, a senior administration official said on Sunday….
Earlier this month, AT&T (T.N) was forced to scrap a plan to offer its customers handsets built by China’s Huawei [HWT.UL] after some members of Congress lobbied against the idea with federal regulators, sources told Reuters....
"We want to build a network so the Chinese can’t listen to your calls,” the senior official told Reuters. “We have to have a secure network that doesn’t allow bad actors to get in. We also have to ensure the Chinese don’t take over the market and put every non-5G network out of business.”
Tyler Durden

15 comments:

Noah Way said...

"We have to have a secure network that doesn’t allow bad actors to get in."

The NSA has a blanket order to spy on your domestic phone calls. It collects information about the date and time of numbers dialed and the length of call. There is no evidence that it is currently storing recordings of the phone calls, though it is widely suspected to be occurring.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/15-facts-about-the-nsas-domestic-spying-program/203014/

NSA spying flap extends to contents of U.S. phone calls

National Security Agency discloses in secret Capitol Hill briefing that thousands of analysts can listen to domestic phone calls. That authorization appears to extend to e-mail and text messages too.

Greg said...

Right Noah

Hilarious how all these "bad intentions" are projected onto China while US citizens are under siege from their own govt agencies.

Could you imagine the outrage if HRC were prez and suggesting nationalizing a critical element of something as large and profitable as cellular phone networks?

Matt Franko said...

It’ll be a PPP... not govt owned & operated...

Greg said...

Doesn't matter Matt, its still "nationalizing". Why was that "figure of speech" used?

It is still a new budget item for the govt, and they will have to "find the money for it" somewhere. Some rich guys taxes will be cut and some poor guys help will be eliminated in order to fund it...... guaranteed!!

Matt Franko said...

"something as large and profitable"

It will be MORE profitable AND with guarantees..

The network itself presently is not very profitable... its is operated like a REIT (rent seeking...) and has to pay out 90% of rent profits as dividends .... ie no munnie for securing the network from the China hackers....

govt will step in and impose security regulations and put some USDs in and provide guarantees to the other partners to put their munnie in... Fed PPPs are like 80/20 where govt takes the 20% position and the private partners run it for fees and returns...

Greg said...

"govt will step in and impose security regulations and put some USDs in and provide guarantees to the other partners"

You sound just like the washed up old actors on Faux News pushing reverse mortgages to their watchers. They get told during broadcast time how evil and incompetent govt is but to seal the deal for the latest scam to fleece them the actor says "Fully insured by US Govt"

Governments IMPOSING or GUARANTEEING is supposed to make conservatives run the other way screaming....... the irony is too delicious. Thats how they are going to MAGA..... copying the Chinese!!!

Jeff65 said...

Matt,

Where were you on the Carrillion posts? Why weren't you in there talking up the PPPs in the face of that utter failure?

PPP = Completely discredited. Losing credibility fast here.

Matt Franko said...

I think in the Carillon thing govt didn’t put the munnie in I think Carillon actually bought the business (paid munnie to govt) and didn’t get any guarantees... not ideal... for it to work best you have to get govt to pay in AND provide some minimum guarantees to the private partners...

Jeff65 said...

Matt, what? Surely they can bring in some materially competent folks and hot shot managers and make money from nothing. Why is a guarantee from government necessary?

This is exactly what is wrong with a PPP. If the government is taking on the risk, the private sector shouldn't make money out of it. Or at the very least, it should be in the contracts exactly how much the top assholes get to pay themselves, i.e. not very much. Certainly no more than a public servant administering the same.

Matt Franko said...

They only make a return on the original investment and so does the govt...

The private/managing partner are paid fees to construct/operate/MAINTAIN the infrastructure FIRST and then if there is munnie left over the investment return is paid to both partners... usually the private partner also has a first position on the investment return also...

In my area they have been very successful in real terms, iow the roadways are the best in the state, but what the problem has been is that the return to the govt partner has not typically met projections... so the state govt is not "making money!" as much as they thought but this is right out of the "govt as firm" context and is meaningless in actuality...

Maryland is considering doing a big new one based on some past success:

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/09/22/maryland-governor-larry-hogans-bogus-fiscal-conservatism-doesnt-apply-to-highways/

"Hogan announced a $9 billion plan to widen three highways used by the state’s suburban car commuters. He called the widening of Interstate 270, the Capital Beltway, and Maryland Route 295/Baltimore-Washington Parkway “massive and unprecedented” and, even more outrageously, “efficient & cost-effective.”

Hogan’s claims rest on the fact that the new lanes will be tolled and privately financed. But counting on tolls to cover the cost of expensive new roads is often a bad bet, and if things go belly up, the public will be on the hook."

BOTH partners have to put $$$ in.

In the Carillon thing, the govt didnt put any GBP in but the OPPOSITE the govt sought to make munnie from Carillon... that's not the way it works...

Matt Franko said...

See here: "a $9 billion plan" is identifying what the state govt is going to put in...

Then the Private partners put in the rest...

Carillon not only put in ALL the munnie but they actually PAID the govt for the franchise and got no guarantees... not ideal... it was a bad deal...

Then like the moron journo writes "often a bad bet.... public on the hook..." this is how this journo describes the history where the public partner will often not get the return that was projected when they were trying to get it approved thru the legislature... which we know is not really a problem because the govt doesnt really NEED the munnie...

But for the public we get absolutely FABULOUS roadways out of it and MUCH easier commuting... which should be the bottom line..

You guys politicize it though just like the MMT people are always politicizing everything and havent had a new thought in 20 years and are getting NOWHERE meanwhile crypto is now kicking the shit out of MMT...



Tom Hickey said...

Principle for municipalities and states (currency users) should be that if the government puts in $, the private return cannot exceed the government return. Why should taxpayers subsidize private capital and top managers that get paid at a much higher rate than government officials. It's another form of legal corruption.

Tom Hickey said...

.meanwhile crypto is now kicking the shit out of MMT...


Not yet.

An government is still the authority.

All a government has to do is rule that that use of crypto is prima facie evidence of money laundering and racketeering, supporting terrorism, etc. and the game is over. All internet activity is traceable by security services.

Jeff65 said...

You haven't answered the question Matt.

If the return must be guaranteed, why do the top guys get paid so much? For doing a deal that tilts the table into their open mouths? This isn't behaviour worthy of reward whether public or private sector.

Tom Hickey said...

The reason that justifies economic rent extraction as "profit" in capitalism is risk.

Government guarantees, bailouts, etc., reduce or eliminate risk.

If there is no risk to bear, then the return should be limited to that of risk-free assets.