> "government owned" also gets condescendingly asserted as if the reader isnt familiar with how a planned economy under post soviet marxist theory works.
Most readers of the article can be fairly assumed to know this. Most consumers (including b2b) outside of various tech and policy circles cannot, and the policy is aimed at short circuiting the banned functionally SOE’s from embedding themselves into the communications infrastructure. Gathering intelligence from automotive and aerospace dominance yields substantially less actionable information than from dominance of communications infrastructure.
The subsidies you are comparing are fundamentally, qualitatively different.
It isn’t just the FCC. The entire US government at all levels down to local is captured by corporate business interests. Doesn’t mean every policy decision solely caters to those interests and ignore national defense interests. Also doesn’t mean the US intelligence apparatus isn’t in bed with Western communications technology manufacturers.
Most readers of the article can be fairly assumed to know this. Most consumers (including b2b) outside of various tech and policy circles cannot, and the policy is aimed at short circuiting the banned functionally SOE’s from embedding themselves into the communications infrastructure. Gathering intelligence from automotive and aerospace dominance yields substantially less actionable information than from dominance of communications infrastructure.
The subsidies you are comparing are fundamentally, qualitatively different.
It isn’t just the FCC. The entire US government at all levels down to local is captured by corporate business interests. Doesn’t mean every policy decision solely caters to those interests and ignore national defense interests. Also doesn’t mean the US intelligence apparatus isn’t in bed with Western communications technology manufacturers.