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.
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 ( Autonomous Vehicle ). Also partly via Nokia when acquired Alcatel-Lucent, where Lucent is from AT&T Bell Labs.
So No, US aren't out of the 5G circle. They just dont have any companies making specific part of the 5G infrastructure.
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.
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.
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.
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?
>Having dropped the ball on cisco being shit, the DOD is now willing to spend some cash to look like they are holding at least one ball in this market...
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 create it is not from the purity of their hearts. The bad thing will be if they try to shape the openness in such a way that it will favoritize the US companies and hinder anyone else.
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.
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.