Trump team considers nationalizing 5G network

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: MteWamp
I don't really know enough about the issue yet to suggest a viable solution, but I tend to think that putting the government in charge of ANYTHING in the commercial sector should be the absolute last option considered. As a general rule, letting the government be be in charge of pretty much ANY commercial venture outside of National Defense is much more likely to end up destroying or ruining it as opposed to helping it.

That being said, at this point in time there are lots of big companies that I distrust ALMOST as much. Although, all things being equal, I tend to think putting the the government in charge of ANYTHING is a recipe for absolute disaster, and generally a really, REALLY bad idea. They have a nasty tendency to to destroy anything they touch. Or at the very LEAST bloat and corrupt it enough that it's either unrecognizable or damn near unusable.

So, yeah, 99% convinced it would be a bad idea.

This is a whole new level of ignorance.

The Gov built the highways that connected America during WW2. They also built the fiber lines that exist to this day and are still in use. All Broadband Wireless is regulated already by the FCC and you must be licensed to operate in that space with some exceptions.

Private anything FK's it up completely. You are all brainwashed.

I just...Wow.

Wow. And people wonder why the world is the shape it's in.

Who thinks like that?

How do you even GET to a place where you can think like that?

And BTW, I didn't SAY that the government wasn't capable of, or had never, done anything good. Some endeavors, in some cases, can potentially thrive under government control, but those cases have a much greater tendency to be the exception, as opposed to the rule. The most obvious example, of course, being national defense.

originally posted by: MteWamp

originally posted by: SR1TX

originally posted by: MteWamp
I don't really know enough about the issue yet to suggest a viable solution, but I tend to think that putting the government in charge of ANYTHING in the commercial sector should be the absolute last option considered. As a general rule, letting the government be be in charge of pretty much ANY commercial venture outside of National Defense is much more likely to end up destroying or ruining it as opposed to helping it.

That being said, at this point in time there are lots of big companies that I distrust ALMOST as much. Although, all things being equal, I tend to think putting the the government in charge of ANYTHING is a recipe for absolute disaster, and generally a really, REALLY bad idea. They have a nasty tendency to to destroy anything they touch. Or at the very LEAST bloat and corrupt it enough that it's either unrecognizable or damn near unusable.

So, yeah, 99% convinced it would be a bad idea.

This is a whole new level of ignorance.

The Gov built the highways that connected America during WW2. They also built the fiber lines that exist to this day and are still in use. All Broadband Wireless is regulated already by the FCC and you must be licensed to operate in that space with some exceptions.

Private anything FK's it up completely. You are all brainwashed.

I just...Wow.

Wow. And people wonder why the world is the shape it's in.

Who thinks like that?

How do you even GET to a place where you can think like that?

And BTW, I didn't SAY that the government wasn't capable of, or had never, done anything good. Some endeavors, in some cases, can potentially thrive under government control, but those cases have a much greater tendency to be the exception, as opposed to the rule. The most obvious example, of course, being national defense.

I run a private company. They don't care to spend $ where they don't have to, the telecoms. It's not greed, it's self interest. The Government has a self interest as well, and it see's 5G as a need, not a luxury, as I do.

The CIA has overthrown democratically elected governments across the globe for less....

Oh, I also see 5G as a luxury, and very expensive, but that won't always be the case. There will most likely be a point, sometime along the way, that enough factors will change in order for it to be cost-effective, or at least not AS expensive. Does that impact the argument, in some way?

a reply to: MteWamp

welp, with the IoT making massive market gains every year with an expected 70 million or something devices they expect to add to the network backbone this year we may need the network to be faster... apparently Nokia believes that the backbone will reach full capacity in ten years and they are trying to solve that problem.

runononon sentence

before I forget, this may have a lot to do with emerging technologies you are not aware of yet as well

a reply to: seasonal

If you like this idea, just look how good the internet works for people in, say, North Korea, with their governments controlling the communication lines.

Seriously, who would want this who is paying attention to the abuse that governments do in nation's with such a thing?