Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 893

Should the President Create an Inter-Agency Strategy to Secure 5G for the U.S. and its Allies?

Argument in favor

5G will usher in a new wave of products and services for telecommunications customers, but the shift has to be managed well through a coordinated federal-level strategy. This bill will help ensure that the government has a plan to oversee 5G’s secure deployment both domestically and abroad.

John 's Opinion
···
06/01/2019
If democrats are against it... it must be good for America!!
Like (27)
Follow
Share
Justin's Opinion
···
06/01/2019
It’s the governments responsibility to provide the communication infrastructure. The telecom businesses shouldn’t be building them at all. They should have to pay rent to use them like truckers paying tolls on a federally built road.
Like (10)
Follow
Share
TexasTRex's Opinion
···
06/01/2019
Let’s definitely work toward increasing g our technology capabilities and also securing them.
Like (7)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

A government-led effort on 5G implementation in the U.S. is needed to respond to the challenges posed by China’s aggressive 5G deployment efforts. By blocking the consideration of nationalized 5G, this bill hamstrings the federal government’s ability to adequately respond to telecommunications challenges.

DrCindyBean's Opinion
···
06/01/2019
I do not trust this administration - nor this GOP Senator - nor the GOP dominated senate to do anything- and especially not something this important. So, no.
Like (92)
Follow
Share
NoHedges's Opinion
···
06/01/2019
Restore Net Neutrality 1st please And then....Only if moving to the 5G network increases overall National network security AND reduces our current National risk level of cyber threats. 🧩Tax payers should not have to fund infrastructure for corporations and 1%er network upgrades, while being the primary target of corporate predatory practices. ⏱Otherwise, wait until after the 2020 election: then, maybe, we won’t have to change the codes and find/remove all of President Putin’s back door access points. Besides, are Trump’s allies and the US’ allies even on the same list? Moreover, is Trump mentally capable of distinguishing the difference? 🧠Hint: Trump doesn’t have allies, he uses friend and foe alike: as a tool to assist, access, and/or achieve his primary target. The lack of authentic empathy is one of the primary characteristics of his mental illness: NPD. On a side note and to prevent the future opportunities for misinformation campaigns surrounding the 5G debate: “Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that RT, the Russia-backed television network based in the U.S., has been peddling unverified stories claiming that 5G wireless technology can be linked to cancer, autism, Alzheimer's and other health problems. "Hundreds of blogs and websites appear to be picking up the network’s 5G alarms, seldom if ever noting the Russian origins," the Times notes. "Analysts call it a treacherous fog." -Axios
Like (62)
Follow
Share
John's Opinion
···
06/01/2019
Anything this man does turns to shit so I’m going to have to respond with a no. A panel of his best men is only going to protect this interest of the profit makers. He’s too stupid and behind the times that when he gets around to putting together a panel that things will have changed so much that they will be so far behind they will need a panel to figure out what to do next.
Like (40)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The house has not voted
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
    IntroducedMarch 27th, 2019

What is Senate Bill S. 893?

This bill — the Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2019 — would require the president to create an inter-agency strategy to secure 5th generation (5G) and future generation technology and infrastructure in the U.S. and with the U.S.’ strategic allies. The president would be required to help foreign allies in maximizing their telecommunication networks’ security.

It would also designate the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) as the Executive Agent to coordinate the strategy’s implementation. The NTIA would work with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman, Homeland Security Secretary, Director of National Intelligence, Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement the strategy.

This bill would also require that the inter-agency strategy doesn’t include a recommendation to nationalize the deployment of 5G or future generations or mobile telecommunications infrastructure in the U.S.

Impact

Wireless customers; wireless networks; 5G networks; NTIA; FCC Chairman; Homeland Security Secretary; Director of National Intelligence; Attorney General; and the Secretary of Defense.

Cost of Senate Bill S. 893

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-DepthSen. John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced this bill to require the president to develop a strategy to ensure next-gen mobile telecommunications systems and infrastructure security in the U.S. and assist U.S. allies in maximizing their systems’ security, infrastructure and software:

“Our telecom systems continue to advance at a rapid rate, and it’s critical that we develop a strategy to protect potential vulnerabilities from being exploited by our adversaries. I’m proud to partner with my colleagues on this legislation to ensure we can defend our national security interests as we develop future technologies.”

Original cosponsor Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) notes that a comprehensive strategy addressing 5G networks is needed to ensure these networks’ risks and opportunities are properly managed:

“5G promises to usher in a new wave of innovations, products, and services. At the same time, the greater complexity, density, and speed of 5G networks relative to traditional communications networks will make securing these networks exponentially harder and more complex. It’s imperative that we have a coherent strategy, led by the President, to harness the advantages of 5G in a way that understands – and addresses – the risks.”

Both Democratic and Republican members of the FCC oppose the idea of a nationally built 5G network. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has expressly stated his opposition to a nationally-built 5G network. In a March 2018 statement, he said:

“I oppose any proposal for the federal government to build and operate a nationwide 5G network. The main lesson to draw from the wireless sector’s development over the past three decades—including American leadership in 4G—is that the market, not government, is best positioned to drive innovation and investment. What government can and should do is to push spectrum into the commercial marketplace and set rules that encourage the private sector to develop and deploy next-generation infrastructure. Any federal effort to construct a nationalized 5G network would be a costly and counterproductive distraction from the policies we need to help the United States win the 5G future.”

CTIA, a trade association representing the U.S. wireless communications industry, also supports privately built 5G networks. Meredith Attwell Baker, CTIA’s president, says, “The wireless industry agrees that winning the race to 5G is a national priority. The government should pursue the free market policies that enabled the U.S. wireless industry to win the race to 4G.” Building on this idea, USTelecom President Jonathan Spalter says:

“There is nothing that would slam the breaks more quickly on our hard-won momentum to be the leader in the global race for 5G network deployment more quickly than the federal government stepping-in to build those networks. The best way to future-proof the nation’s communications networks is to continue to encourage and incentivize America’s broadband companies -- working hand-in-glove with the rest of the internet ecosystem, and in partnership with government, to continue do what we do best:  invest, innovate, and lead.”

Air Force Brig. Gen. Robert Spalding, who formerly served as the National Security Council senior director for strategic planning, floated a draft presentation suggesting that China’s potential 5G dominance requires a domestic response in the form of a U.S.-controlled 5G network with access to the network leased to private carriers. Harvard Law School professor Susan Crawford, author of “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,” argues that a national initiative to expand 5G coverage to all Americans would benefit customers in the form of faster speeds and lower costs.

This bill has 10 bipartisan cosponsors, including six Republicans and four Democrats.


Of NoteAlthough most observers consider the question of 5G nationalization to be a settled issue, some Trump administration advisors have recently proposed a nationally-built 5G network as a means to guarantee network security and streamline buildouts that’ll otherwise happen along multiple wireless carriers’ individual timelines and directives. While White House officials have said they don’t support efforts to nationalize the 5G network, a document leaked in January 2018 suggested that the administration was considering the idea. However, the pushback to this idea appears to have caused the administration to put this idea on the back burner.

Some people connected to the Trump administration and re-election campaign notably support nationalized 5G. Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove and Trump re-election campaign manager Brad Pascale are among those who support a government-backed plan to have the federal government manage 5G airwaves’ sharing with wireless providers. However, others in the Trump administration, such as White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow, don’t support nationalized 5G.

In March 2019, despite the Trump administration’s apparent walkback of its nationalized 5G network suggestion, the Trump re-election campaign backed a plan to give the government a role in managing 5G wireless networks. As reported by Politico, the re-election campaign’s plan would entail the government taking 5G airwaves and designing a system to allow its sharing with wireless providers on a wholesale basis. Kayleigh McEnany, national press secretary for the Trump 2020 campaign, said, “A 5G wholesale market would drive down costs and provide access to millions of Americans who are currently underserved. This is in line with President Trump’s agenda to benefit all Americans, regardless of geography." However, the Trump campaign walked back its position shortly after announcing it, saying that there was “no daylight” between the campaign’s and administration’s positions on nationalizing 5G.

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. has already been actively involved in lobbying foreign governments to secure their 5G networks against potential risks from Chinese government-backed communications equipment suppliers. As of November 2018, the U.S. had asked the Australian, Canadian, South Korean, German, Italian and Japanese governments to block Huawei hardware’s use in their 5G networks.

In response to the U.S. request, one major Italian carrier said it would be “a very tough call” to avoid Huawei equipment. Citing Huawei’s leadership position in the telecom industry, the Italian carrier suggested that it may not be possible to cooperate with the U.S. on its initiative to keep Huawei equipment out of U.S. allies’ 5G networks.


Media:

Summary by Lorelei Yang

(Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com / sarayut)

AKA

A bill to require the President to develop a strategy to ensure the security of next generation mobile telecommunications systems and infrastructure in the United States and to assist allies and strategic partners in maximizing the security of next genera

Official Title

A bill to require the President to develop a strategy to ensure the security of next generation mobile telecommunications systems and infrastructure in the United States and to assist allies and strategic partners in maximizing the security of next generation mobile telecommunications systems, infrastructure, and software, and for other purposes.

    If democrats are against it... it must be good for America!!
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    I do not trust this administration - nor this GOP Senator - nor the GOP dominated senate to do anything- and especially not something this important. So, no.
    Like (92)
    Follow
    Share
    Restore Net Neutrality 1st please And then....Only if moving to the 5G network increases overall National network security AND reduces our current National risk level of cyber threats. 🧩Tax payers should not have to fund infrastructure for corporations and 1%er network upgrades, while being the primary target of corporate predatory practices. ⏱Otherwise, wait until after the 2020 election: then, maybe, we won’t have to change the codes and find/remove all of President Putin’s back door access points. Besides, are Trump’s allies and the US’ allies even on the same list? Moreover, is Trump mentally capable of distinguishing the difference? 🧠Hint: Trump doesn’t have allies, he uses friend and foe alike: as a tool to assist, access, and/or achieve his primary target. The lack of authentic empathy is one of the primary characteristics of his mental illness: NPD. On a side note and to prevent the future opportunities for misinformation campaigns surrounding the 5G debate: “Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that RT, the Russia-backed television network based in the U.S., has been peddling unverified stories claiming that 5G wireless technology can be linked to cancer, autism, Alzheimer's and other health problems. "Hundreds of blogs and websites appear to be picking up the network’s 5G alarms, seldom if ever noting the Russian origins," the Times notes. "Analysts call it a treacherous fog." -Axios
    Like (62)
    Follow
    Share
    Anything this man does turns to shit so I’m going to have to respond with a no. A panel of his best men is only going to protect this interest of the profit makers. He’s too stupid and behind the times that when he gets around to putting together a panel that things will have changed so much that they will be so far behind they will need a panel to figure out what to do next.
    Like (40)
    Follow
    Share
    No. First, I don’t think this Administration knows who it’s allies are and would immediately hand the tech over to Russia and Saudi Arabia. Second We do not have the ability to properly build 5G at this time. China does but we keep accusing them of spying and stealing our tech pretty much without solid proof and insisting neither we nor other countries do business with them. Third, I have concerns over whether we have studied this tech well enough prior to jumping into it. This is nothing like the last generation and there are cons as well as pros. I do not believe the cons have been discussed at all in the rush to jump to 5G yet numerous weather services have stated they believe it will interfere with their ability to accurately report weather in a timely basis and to track storms. That alone might affect a couple people. Lastly, I don’t believe trump knows what 5G is, nor what cooperation is. This would just be the latest shiny toy to play with. We have far more important issues right now. Should you wish to secure something, secure our elections and our Constitution.
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    Republicans from this Congress have met with Russians in secret. They traveled to Russia on our Independence Day 2017! All you have to do is Google this. Republicans cannot be trusted, particularly with our communications systems, because of their close and secret connections to our most dangerous foreign adversary.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    Securing networks is the responsibility of network providers. Not government. Additionally... with Prism STILL in place, this government has zero credibility on this topic. They will use this opportunity to increase there illegal surveillance efforts.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    This president? No, a competent president maybe, ask me again when America comes to it’s senses and we impeach him, then elect a progressive.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    This is too loosely worded. And we have physical infrastructure that is crumbling without recourse, let’s work on that first.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes the FCC is supposed to set and enforce standards and violations of the rules. So go ahead and set standards. This bill however and Cornyn in particular reeks of pandering to the telecommunications giants who have effectively created an untouchable monopoly in the last 3 years!! So vote NO on this. American businesses won the global 4G race but were too slow off the mark to get a foot in the door for this. It was Huawei who pursued this actively and hence why there are now “problems” with them. This is pure government by corporation or in other words. Either let the free market work or step out. But stop taking your orders and money from corporations to give them benefits that your constituents don’t get.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    This president and his administration are not to be trusted. Their goal is to become a dictatorship. The members of Congress that support him and his administration need to be voted out. They are not serving the American people, and they most certainly are not living up to their oath of office.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Other priorities are much more important than this.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    It’s the governments responsibility to provide the communication infrastructure. The telecom businesses shouldn’t be building them at all. They should have to pay rent to use them like truckers paying tolls on a federally built road.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    The market and technology for 5G will evolve with or without government oversight-and will evolve faster without government oversight. Setting up oversight panels, committee etc. will only assure that we will be left behind as rest of the world is free to adapt new tech. I do support our intelligence agencies constant monitoring the 5G evolution to protect us from those who would find ways to exploit it. I don’t think it possible to administrate how the evolution will develop.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Programs work better without ”I’m from the Government and I'm here to help.” Is this question really about having the Government take over the telecommunications architecture of G5? Didn't hear talk about G4. Best leave the G5 infrastructure to cellular companies. Let China worry about China.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Let’s definitely work toward increasing g our technology capabilities and also securing them.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    👍🏻👍🏻 Senate BILL S.893 AKA “the Secure 5G and Beyond Act”👍🏻👍🏻 Of course the Leftist Leaning commentators on the site will not agree that I recommend and support the passage of this Senate BILL S.893 AKA the Secure 5G and Beyond Act of 2019 which would require the president to create an inter-agency strategy to secure 5th generation (5G) and future generation technology and infrastructure in the U.S. and with the U.S.’ strategic allies. The president would be required to help foreign allies in maximizing their telecommunication networks’ security. 5G will usher in a new wave of products and services for telecommunications customers, but the shift has to be managed well through a coordinated federal-level strategy. This bill will help ensure that the government has a plan to oversee 5G’s secure deployment both domestically and abroad. SneakyPete..... 👍🏻👍🏻S-893👍🏻👍🏻. 6*1*19.....
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    One, I don’t trust Trump’s Administration has the ethics to take on such a task. Two, the implementation of small cell antennas every 750 feet - not miles - to support the 5G networks is an infrastructure issue that will likely involve the cooperation between service providers, local, state and federal property owners, governments and the FCC. I would imagine that smaller communities will need a financial stimulus package to support this undertaking. Also, how do you support 5G in large, unpopulated areas such as National Parks and Forest Preserves?
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    This president should sit quietly in the corner for the remainder of his term let alone decide what the future holds in telecommunication when he can't even understand what's bot on Twitter is
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, as long as the president isn’t Trump!
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE