Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems(defense.gov)
defense.gov
Department of Defense and Department of Commerce to Develop Open 5G Systems
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2467484/department-of-defense-and-department-of-commerce-explore-5g-challenge-to-develo/
54 comments
Sigh, 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."
"...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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who could have forseen this coming?
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.
Who could have forseen this coming?
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.
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.
/end thread
Sorry, but I just had to. This is likely the exact scenario. Well put.
Sorry, but I just had to. This is likely the exact scenario. Well put.
>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...
seebetter(2)
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.
Doesn't sound infantilizing to me. It reads like normal people talk. That's good.
Infantilizing is what 'Frondo refers to, "ninja rock stars" job descriptions. What they have in common with business jargon is using a lot of words to communicate near-zero actual content. They use language to press emotional buttons in the audience to create a desired atmosphere (importance and fun, respectively).
I think GP did a really good job, and I prefer their take.
Infantilizing is what 'Frondo refers to, "ninja rock stars" job descriptions. What they have in common with business jargon is using a lot of words to communicate near-zero actual content. They use language to press emotional buttons in the audience to create a desired atmosphere (importance and fun, respectively).
I think GP did a really good job, and I prefer their take.
Yeah, seems like trying to get away from the business speak got us to job descriptions that call for ninja rock stars. I'll take the business jargon.
[deleted]
in 2020 US AG[1] floated the idea of buying shares in Nokia or Ericsson to be able to have a say in this space (talking about "controlling the means of production" lol). For natsec this isn't enough which seems to be also the conclusion of DoD.
Having worked in this space, a company bidding here will not be able to do this without spending billions on implementing and being part of the non-military commercial market (and paying commercial rates for engineers to build it). It took commercial vendors nearly a decade to build 5G and the only reason they were so "fast" was because they had already experienced engineers on their payroll who understood the basics of 3G/4G.
if they accept bids it would be more realistic to just focus on a MIL spec equivalent documents of 3GPP specs and then have the Nokia or Ericsson sites in the US build it for them. Even they do this there is still the "Outsourced elephant in the room":
"5G: The outsourced elephant in the room" https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/5g-elephant-in-the-room/
If they're really serious about natsec the only way forward would be a complete isolation for the military network.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/1aa61918-48fc-11ea-aeb3-955839e06...
Having worked in this space, a company bidding here will not be able to do this without spending billions on implementing and being part of the non-military commercial market (and paying commercial rates for engineers to build it). It took commercial vendors nearly a decade to build 5G and the only reason they were so "fast" was because they had already experienced engineers on their payroll who understood the basics of 3G/4G.
if they accept bids it would be more realistic to just focus on a MIL spec equivalent documents of 3GPP specs and then have the Nokia or Ericsson sites in the US build it for them. Even they do this there is still the "Outsourced elephant in the room":
"5G: The outsourced elephant in the room" https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/5g-elephant-in-the-room/
If they're really serious about natsec the only way forward would be a complete isolation for the military network.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/1aa61918-48fc-11ea-aeb3-955839e06...
>>It took commercial vendors nearly a decade to build 5G and the only reason they were so "fast" was because they had already experienced engineers on their payroll who understood the basics of 3G/4G.
100% agree. Also, many of the large domain players (Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia, ZTE) actively participated in the 3GPP standards process to ensure they were kept abreast of what was being proposed. This is a pretty steep hill to climb for the US to build out a competitive domestic solution.
100% agree. Also, many of the large domain players (Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia, ZTE) actively participated in the 3GPP standards process to ensure they were kept abreast of what was being proposed. This is a pretty steep hill to climb for the US to build out a competitive domestic solution.
Sure seems like pursuing public source & public development might help generate some of that talent & know-how. If a nation has forgotten how to do something, or never knew in the first place (the Apollo Program), sometimes a climb is worthwhile, not only for where you get, but for what your nation learns & becomes along the way: greater. I'm in extreme favor of public-sourcing America into a nation with more more savvy & more skill at wireless connection. Get the ball rolling on getting better! Thankfully there seem like a lot of interested, civic minded folk out there, whose passion for radio-based connectivity & sharing that information is high.
Meanwhile our nation's cellular networks still run fantastically unsecure SS7, is my understanding.
Some kind of neat undertones of Secret History of Silicon Valley[1] here, except it's a different kind of protection, a different kind of guard for the world: not against military adversaries, but against our own inability to connect ourselves amid the software-run world.
[1] https://steveblank.com/secret-history/
Meanwhile our nation's cellular networks still run fantastically unsecure SS7, is my understanding.
Some kind of neat undertones of Secret History of Silicon Valley[1] here, except it's a different kind of protection, a different kind of guard for the world: not against military adversaries, but against our own inability to connect ourselves amid the software-run world.
[1] https://steveblank.com/secret-history/
FWIW this isn't a RFP for a contract yet, it's a request to answer questions to shape a challenge which could turn into an actual contract.
This 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.
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.
I am an Army signal officer with 5 deployments. The military considers cell phones inherently insecure and not a mission asset, regardless of what you may read.
The DoD, or at least the USAF, has decided that 5G is going to be a critical part of their infrastructure.
https://potomacofficersclub.com/will-roper-announces-larger-...
https://potomacofficersclub.com/will-roper-announces-larger-...
Don't a lot of other devices use the 4G network for data tranfer (with encryption)?
Is that because military-purpose communications is insecure over 4G, or because modern smartphones, full of adtech malware, make it all to easy to leak your location by accident?
It's a variety of factors. Information leaking is one, but a big one is the lack of control. DoD does not control any significant part of the present cellular network, so it might be useful but it oughtn't be part of your critical systems.
5G benefits IIoT and edge processing, and there is little that suggests that 5G is more secure than 4G. It still has the same flaws but only the data rate is so huge that only a well funded and sophisticated lab has the ability to conduct research, but reduces access to doing research for most.
5G has even bigger implications on defense outside the small niche (of MIL spec) smart-phones. The risks are massive for a military to rely on such a consumer-grade tech. But never mind bug/back-doors Trusting foreign (multinational) vendors with this (no matter how friendly) will never work because the trust assumption beneath is already flawed.
Edit: Looking at it from a EU perspective: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/5g-elephant-in-the-room/
"> Just to let that sink in, Huawei (and their close partners) already run and directly operate the mobile telecommunication infrastructure for over 100 million European subscribers."
5G has even bigger implications on defense outside the small niche (of MIL spec) smart-phones. The risks are massive for a military to rely on such a consumer-grade tech. But never mind bug/back-doors Trusting foreign (multinational) vendors with this (no matter how friendly) will never work because the trust assumption beneath is already flawed.
Edit: Looking at it from a EU perspective: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/5g-elephant-in-the-room/
"> Just to let that sink in, Huawei (and their close partners) already run and directly operate the mobile telecommunication infrastructure for over 100 million European subscribers."
Network slicing and Edge computing can change that.
It is possible to have all military traffic either terminate at the edge of the military (for example a 5G installation at an army camp) or use a dedicated slice (fully isolated from the normal user traffic) to reach a trusted cloud. Usually, they use both at the same time, so if the connection to the trusted cloud is lost, you rely on the edge cloud.
As far as I know, NATO has several such projects.
It is possible to have all military traffic either terminate at the edge of the military (for example a 5G installation at an army camp) or use a dedicated slice (fully isolated from the normal user traffic) to reach a trusted cloud. Usually, they use both at the same time, so if the connection to the trusted cloud is lost, you rely on the edge cloud.
As far as I know, NATO has several such projects.
Asking 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.
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.
[deleted]
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...
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...
This is a strange initiative.
Of course it would be good if the telecom infrastructure were open, secure, and auditable. But there are some barriers:
You cannot make communications secure AND enable interception. You are required to provide undetectable (even to network management systems)interception for (IIRC) 1% of traffic. This has to be controlled from an off-site LI console at law enforcement agencies.
And that's just the tip of the surveillance iceberg.
There are parts of a 5G system that could be open source, like most of the RAN, since LI happens in the mobile switching center. But for these parts of the network, the equipment providers could just be required to make their code public and audit it. Possibly needs patent suit protection, but that would get you there fastest.
As others on this thread have pointed out the whole telecom gear game is wildly unsuited for open systems for a whole bunch of other reasons.
Of course it would be good if the telecom infrastructure were open, secure, and auditable. But there are some barriers:
You cannot make communications secure AND enable interception. You are required to provide undetectable (even to network management systems)interception for (IIRC) 1% of traffic. This has to be controlled from an off-site LI console at law enforcement agencies.
And that's just the tip of the surveillance iceberg.
There are parts of a 5G system that could be open source, like most of the RAN, since LI happens in the mobile switching center. But for these parts of the network, the equipment providers could just be required to make their code public and audit it. Possibly needs patent suit protection, but that would get you there fastest.
As others on this thread have pointed out the whole telecom gear game is wildly unsuited for open systems for a whole bunch of other reasons.
I wonder if these will be useful to them:
https://open5gs.org/ https://www.openairinterface.org/
https://open5gs.org/ https://www.openairinterface.org/
Interesting. So basically a state driven economy?
I don't think that is the reasoning. IMO this comment by gostsamo is spot on:
>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.
>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.
You need some cohesiveness and a guiding force/philosophy of where to go. Otherwise you just have a bunch of corps only incentivized to make money, with disjointed ideas etc. Most are only incentivized for short time horizons up to 10-20 years max. Govs can plan a 50-100 year vision for a nation (like China is doing).
Check out the fraction of GDP controlled by government. That train has left the station a long while ago, in all countries.
Better than a market-driven one that fucks up your strategically-important crown jewels like Bell Labs.
What was the actual purpose of ENIAC?
>Although ENIAC was designed and primarily used to calculate artillery firing tables for the United States Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory (which later became a part of the Army Research Laboratory),[6][7] its first program was a study of the feasibility of the thermonuclear weapon.[8][9]
What was the first attempt at a large scale computer network?
>In 1959, Anatolii Ivanovich Kitov proposed to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union a detailed plan for the re-organisation of the control of the Soviet armed forces and of the Soviet economy on the basis of a network of computing centres, the OGAS.[6]
States have always had a strong strategic interest in ensuring they have access and control of critical technology of the time for purposes of power projection.
It's less about "the economy" than ensuring influence over strategically critical tech.
>Although ENIAC was designed and primarily used to calculate artillery firing tables for the United States Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory (which later became a part of the Army Research Laboratory),[6][7] its first program was a study of the feasibility of the thermonuclear weapon.[8][9]
What was the first attempt at a large scale computer network?
>In 1959, Anatolii Ivanovich Kitov proposed to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union a detailed plan for the re-organisation of the control of the Soviet armed forces and of the Soviet economy on the basis of a network of computing centres, the OGAS.[6]
States have always had a strong strategic interest in ensuring they have access and control of critical technology of the time for purposes of power projection.
It's less about "the economy" than ensuring influence over strategically critical tech.
[deleted]
If the U.S. DOD is involved, then no -- it will not be
'open'.
Americans always play weird games with the truth, what they think you'll allow them to get away with when they lie straight to your face.
Americans always play weird games with the truth, what they think you'll allow them to get away with when they lie straight to your face.
(Brought to you on the open internet which grew directly from a DoD project.)
(While your uber eats is in route using GPS)
They're looking for more open technology that they can use as parts of their system. As opposed to, say, the present cellular systems where it's:
1. Hard to create your own cell network (in contrast to a wifi or ethernet network).
2. Limited choice on vendors (again, in contrast to wifi and ethernet).
5G's potential ubiquity and utility, but limited vendors, is an issue for the DoD. They want to use it, but if they can't build out their own 5G infrastructure reliably with a decent variety of vendors it's a no-go.
1. Hard to create your own cell network (in contrast to a wifi or ethernet network).
2. Limited choice on vendors (again, in contrast to wifi and ethernet).
5G's potential ubiquity and utility, but limited vendors, is an issue for the DoD. They want to use it, but if they can't build out their own 5G infrastructure reliably with a decent variety of vendors it's a no-go.
apt-get install 5G
[deleted]
This is great news if they truly go through with open spec hardware and open source 5G firmware, it would be a seismic shift in how cellular modems have been rolled out in the last 30 years.
Truly couldn't care less if it is driven by Europe or China having better tech or whatever geopolitical flavour of the minute caused such things, I would 100% support a US effort if the went down an open source path, where can I sign up to donate development effort? The most widespread bastion of closed source binary blobs left on the planet with no alternatives is cellular baseband firmware. Anyone breaking down those walls should be congratulated regardless of the reasons.
If you are interested in these things don't be put off by the kneejerk comments here, it's fertile land, there are devs who have worked for years on open source cellular modem software and poured significant money/energy into such endeavours knowing they could never realistically get their work approved by regulators anywhere on Earth.
Have some links, honestly surprised many people in 2nd one haven't been arrested. This is a highly regulated space and they've caused a tad bit of trouble over the years for simply trying to be free.
https://www.freecalypso.org/
https://osmocom.org/