Britain knows it’s selling out its national security to Huawei(foreignpolicy.com)
foreignpolicy.com
Britain knows it’s selling out its national security to Huawei
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/31/boris-johnson-britain-knows-its-selling-out-its-national-security-to-huawei/
198 comments
> US and Five Eyes countries following US are banning Huawei for strategic reasons, not for technical reasons. Telecom infrastructure is strategic industry and US want's to prevent Chinese getting ahead.
Despite the current president's personal crusades, this is not about US protectionism. Companies in the US wouldn't benefit from a ban on Huawei equipment anyway, it would be Finland and Sweden who do.
Supply chain trust has always been a primary concern of any kind of critical resource/infrastructure defensive strategy. Every time a country relies on another for a critical ongoing need, it introduces an inherent power imbalance that the supplying country can use as a leverage. This kind of stuff is centuries-old geopolitical strategy, and it's still in the news every day when we're talking about energy, food, minerals, etc. (e.g. Russian pipelines) Why is communications infrastructure any different? It's not.
Despite the current president's personal crusades, this is not about US protectionism. Companies in the US wouldn't benefit from a ban on Huawei equipment anyway, it would be Finland and Sweden who do.
Supply chain trust has always been a primary concern of any kind of critical resource/infrastructure defensive strategy. Every time a country relies on another for a critical ongoing need, it introduces an inherent power imbalance that the supplying country can use as a leverage. This kind of stuff is centuries-old geopolitical strategy, and it's still in the news every day when we're talking about energy, food, minerals, etc. (e.g. Russian pipelines) Why is communications infrastructure any different? It's not.
> Despite the current president's personal crusades, this is not about US protectionism. Companies in the US wouldn't benefit from a ban on Huawei equipment anyway
Why are you limiting US strategic interests to protectionism of private companies? It is in the American Interest (both private and public spheres) if "Made in China 2025" were to fail: Huawei is a just one front in that war. In this light, minimizing Huawei's market access with (even in the absence of domestic competitors) makes strategic sense: less experience in the market, less revenue, less R&D). Technological expertise tends to bleed into military applications
Why are you limiting US strategic interests to protectionism of private companies? It is in the American Interest (both private and public spheres) if "Made in China 2025" were to fail: Huawei is a just one front in that war. In this light, minimizing Huawei's market access with (even in the absence of domestic competitors) makes strategic sense: less experience in the market, less revenue, less R&D). Technological expertise tends to bleed into military applications
OP said it’s strategic, not that it’s protectionist for US companies (in fact, they pointed out that no US companies are competing in the next sentence that you didn’t quote). I think you’re both saying essentially the same thing.
Do you mean NOKIA and Ericsson?
Yes, those are the only cellular infrastructure companies besides Huawei. There was Alcatel-Lucent, but Nokia bought them a while back.
There's an emerging trend of service providers trying to virtualize their core network. Rakuten in Japan is a leading example.
"They have assembled a small army of suppliers to build a virtualized network built on x86 hardware. ... Rakuten has no dedicated hardware except in its antennas, ensuring the upgrade to 5G will be straightforward. ... Chief Architecture Officer Tareq Amin said the network has "virtualized everything," including radio access, core, transport, IP, billing and operational support systems."
I'm not sure who this army of suppliers is though.
"They have assembled a small army of suppliers to build a virtualized network built on x86 hardware. ... Rakuten has no dedicated hardware except in its antennas, ensuring the upgrade to 5G will be straightforward. ... Chief Architecture Officer Tareq Amin said the network has "virtualized everything," including radio access, core, transport, IP, billing and operational support systems."
I'm not sure who this army of suppliers is though.
All the “American” products are made in China, too, so I don’t see what the difference is.
The supply chain for one of these products consists of more than hardware manufacturing. You’ve got software, support, maintenance, governance, etc.
The hardware is the easier part to account for, it’s both physical and a constant.
The hardware is the easier part to account for, it’s both physical and a constant.
There are European vendors like ericcson. This is about being cheap.
This is a strange case where for some reason the EU isn't doing exactly what it very obviously should be doing: looking after its own self-interest and pushing European technology aggressively [1]. The EU should have taken the opportunity to severely deflate Huawei in the EU and push European alternatives.
Europe needs to gain in tech and this is one easy way to do it, by supporting their own players, their own ecosystem. And it's a self-interest freebie at that: the US and EU interests are mostly aligned, there will be no push-back for supporting Ericsson & Co. The US would rather everyone use Ericcson than Huawei.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/29/21113289/european-union-e...
Europe needs to gain in tech and this is one easy way to do it, by supporting their own players, their own ecosystem. And it's a self-interest freebie at that: the US and EU interests are mostly aligned, there will be no push-back for supporting Ericsson & Co. The US would rather everyone use Ericcson than Huawei.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/29/21113289/european-union-e...
That's a short-sighted view of the EU's self-interest. If EU countries ban Huawei from their markets, then China bans EU car companies from its market.
So, is it worth it to sacrifice VW and BMW in order to help Nokia and Ericsson?
So, is it worth it to sacrifice VW and BMW in order to help Nokia and Ericsson?
Cars are not national communication infrastructure. I am sure China will prefer Huawei for their own mobile gear over nokia and ericcson as well.
> Cars are not national communication infrastructure.
Sure, but are you saying the tradeoff is worth it? It's fairly simple: if Europe begins taking protectionist measures that harm Chinese companies, then China will respond in kind.
Sure, but are you saying the tradeoff is worth it? It's fairly simple: if Europe begins taking protectionist measures that harm Chinese companies, then China will respond in kind.
In many ways the EU plays by the rulebook of free trade : not discriminating between economic agents based on provenance, but on norms instead.
I don't know about that in this case. There EU members are supposed to have free tradr which means EU goods should have priority due to tax,tariffs and other issues I thought?
I agree.
This thread discusses that with a historical perspective: https://twitter.com/mikebutcher/status/1221842546881679360?s...
It's not just about privacy and security. It's about not entangling your communications infrastructure with a Chinese company that - like all Chinese companies - is completely beholden to and embedded in the framework of CCP governance.
Regardless of whether using Huawei tech makes you vulnerable to spying or not, it still means you are bound to Huawei products and infrastructure through vendor lock in. Maintenance may involve Huawei technicians, etc.
We should be actively trying to separate from China, and it's unfortunate many seem eager to do the opposite.
Regardless of whether using Huawei tech makes you vulnerable to spying or not, it still means you are bound to Huawei products and infrastructure through vendor lock in. Maintenance may involve Huawei technicians, etc.
We should be actively trying to separate from China, and it's unfortunate many seem eager to do the opposite.
There is no vendor lock in in mobile network infrastructure. Everything is standardized trough and trough. You can buy components from different suppliers and they work together.
>Maintenance may involve Huawei technicians, etc.
Who are not Chinese nationals. Working for foreign company subsidiary does not change your national allegiance.
>Maintenance may involve Huawei technicians, etc.
Who are not Chinese nationals. Working for foreign company subsidiary does not change your national allegiance.
I don’t think anyone is saying they can’t purchase from someone other than Huawei. They’re saying that they aren’t purchasing from someone other than Huawei (at least for some proportion of the network which is, obviously, manufactured by Huawei).
Vendor lock-in is not the issue. If we get into conflict with China and it takes, say, 6 months to swap out all the now-compromised Huawei hardware (which is obviously insanely optimistic), that’s a problem. Wars have been won and lost with much less than 6 months of technological/infrastructural head start.
Vendor lock-in is not the issue. If we get into conflict with China and it takes, say, 6 months to swap out all the now-compromised Huawei hardware (which is obviously insanely optimistic), that’s a problem. Wars have been won and lost with much less than 6 months of technological/infrastructural head start.
> If we get into conflict with China and it takes, say, 6 months to swap out all the now-compromised Huawei hardware
Do you think a nation-state like China will have great difficulty compromising non-Huawei hardware? This seems overblown because Huawei components will be a small fraction of the attack surface in very connected environment. The best defence would be vendor-agnostic, which might be what the UK government is planning on.
Do you think a nation-state like China will have great difficulty compromising non-Huawei hardware? This seems overblown because Huawei components will be a small fraction of the attack surface in very connected environment. The best defence would be vendor-agnostic, which might be what the UK government is planning on.
No matter how powerful a nation-state is, it would still be infinitely easier for them to exploit a known CVE by sanctioning a patch than it would be to find a zero day chain that works.
Also, it would afford them the additional political benefit of deniability in their attack.
Also, it would afford them the additional political benefit of deniability in their attack.
>>There is no vendor lock in in mobile network infrastructure. Everything is standardized trough and trough. You can buy components from different suppliers and they work together.
There technically isn't, but 3GPP standardized interfaces leave enough room for there to be a smoother deployment and operational efficiencies gained from a single vendor deploying RAN and Core together. Few suppliers can do this -- Huawei is one of them.
>>Who are not Chinese nationals. Working for foreign company subsidiary does not change your national allegiance.
Maybe this is region specific, but I believe most (all?) initial Huawei deployments are performed by Chinese nationals working directly for Huawei. To your point, maintenance (i.e. post-deployment, live production) can be a mix of foreign company employees and Chinese nationals.
There technically isn't, but 3GPP standardized interfaces leave enough room for there to be a smoother deployment and operational efficiencies gained from a single vendor deploying RAN and Core together. Few suppliers can do this -- Huawei is one of them.
>>Who are not Chinese nationals. Working for foreign company subsidiary does not change your national allegiance.
Maybe this is region specific, but I believe most (all?) initial Huawei deployments are performed by Chinese nationals working directly for Huawei. To your point, maintenance (i.e. post-deployment, live production) can be a mix of foreign company employees and Chinese nationals.
The nationality of the worker-bees is completely irrelevant when they don't show up because of sanctions or a shift in corporate policies.
What about banning them for philosophical principles? Why would I buy anything from someone who denies Enlightenment principles and views human rights as “Western rights”?
On a long enough timeline, authoritarianism always wins.
On a long enough timeline, authoritarianism always wins.
You might not like China's internal policy but US foreign policy is not nice too.
sand_castles(3)
Plus there is likely a fair number of chinese nationals employed by all their competitors. All it takes is one line of code.
>>Interfaces are standardized and you can buy different components from different vendors.
You can buy components from different vendors, except that the overhead of working with thousands of different suppliers for your network is a non-starter, hence network operators around the world have moved to a model where they prefer large domain players to provide packages (e.g. 5G Access, 5G Core, 4G RAN, 4G EPC, etc.) to streamline purchasing, coordination, responsiveness and costs.
>>Operating services, network control, visitor and location registers, mobile switching centers, network monitoring, and rest of the software that deals with the core network can be bought from others.
Such extra components can be bought from others, except it should be noted that Huawei seems to provide very attractive prices for their "good enough" offerings in these other categories.
You can buy components from different vendors, except that the overhead of working with thousands of different suppliers for your network is a non-starter, hence network operators around the world have moved to a model where they prefer large domain players to provide packages (e.g. 5G Access, 5G Core, 4G RAN, 4G EPC, etc.) to streamline purchasing, coordination, responsiveness and costs.
>>Operating services, network control, visitor and location registers, mobile switching centers, network monitoring, and rest of the software that deals with the core network can be bought from others.
Such extra components can be bought from others, except it should be noted that Huawei seems to provide very attractive prices for their "good enough" offerings in these other categories.
> There is magical thinking involved if someone thinks that base stations alone completely break national security.
One thing that base stations need, by their nature, is total surveillance of location and unique identification of devices. It seems to me that these together are a major threat to national security, ignoring all the other things base stations have access to.
One thing that base stations need, by their nature, is total surveillance of location and unique identification of devices. It seems to me that these together are a major threat to national security, ignoring all the other things base stations have access to.
I don't even know the level I should answer.
To cut it short. No, those databases are not stored in base stations, not even close. They are part of core network.
In LTE your handset talks to base transceiver station who talks to eNB who talks to MME who talks to HSS where the data is physically located. MME (Mobility Management Entity) is already part of the evolved Core Huawei has no access to that. Even MME keeps data just temporarily. This all happens in control plane.
If Huawei supplies transceiver stations or eNB's it's nowhere near the point where it could store and distribute user information or track them and not be noticed immediately.
To cut it short. No, those databases are not stored in base stations, not even close. They are part of core network.
In LTE your handset talks to base transceiver station who talks to eNB who talks to MME who talks to HSS where the data is physically located. MME (Mobility Management Entity) is already part of the evolved Core Huawei has no access to that. Even MME keeps data just temporarily. This all happens in control plane.
If Huawei supplies transceiver stations or eNB's it's nowhere near the point where it could store and distribute user information or track them and not be noticed immediately.
It is not about where your metrics are conventionally stored. Your base station is measuring your gain, all the time; if all your base stations are Huawei, then you can be located quite reliably, then add the other signals the network gives the base station for QoS, this does not seem all that difficult. There is no reason that information can't be gathered through a different channel and analyzed.
I don't know why y'all are lacking imagination all of a sudden on this one matter, but I hope you come around.
I don't know why y'all are lacking imagination all of a sudden on this one matter, but I hope you come around.
It would be prudent to push secure protocols that didn't require these things. eg scrap the IMSI, rotating ephemeral IMEI, network-independent VOIP, and blinded bearer tokens for payment.
But governments intrinsically see surveillance as an unquestioned good and likely wouldn't even approve such protocols for overt telecom use, never mind helping to develop them. The public has already been pwnt by design - this whole topic is just squabbling over who gets the proceeds.
But governments intrinsically see surveillance as an unquestioned good and likely wouldn't even approve such protocols for overt telecom use, never mind helping to develop them. The public has already been pwnt by design - this whole topic is just squabbling over who gets the proceeds.
No association however to the identity of the phone owner.
Phone billing records seem a lot jucier for that.
Phone billing records seem a lot jucier for that.
How hard do you think it is, really, to get somebody's IMEI?
Whatever provider of 5G hardware the UK picked - it was always going to be open to foreign power abuse.
What they have done is take all three offerings and limit what percentage of the market they can have - effectively having the country 5G networks provided by a three supplies all having an equal amount of kit in the field.
They are also taking the approach of presuming it is potential bad-actor and proactively planning around that.
So a bit like putting an IDS/Firewall in place before you realise you need one, you could say.
Is it ideal - nope, but the lack of local offering make that impossible anyhow. So plan for the worst and hope for the best, is not a bad plan of action in this instance.
What they have done is take all three offerings and limit what percentage of the market they can have - effectively having the country 5G networks provided by a three supplies all having an equal amount of kit in the field.
They are also taking the approach of presuming it is potential bad-actor and proactively planning around that.
So a bit like putting an IDS/Firewall in place before you realise you need one, you could say.
Is it ideal - nope, but the lack of local offering make that impossible anyhow. So plan for the worst and hope for the best, is not a bad plan of action in this instance.
> Whatever provider of 5G hardware the UK picked - it was always going to be open to foreign power abuse.
Wait, you think the Swedish secret service is going to coerce Ericsson into installing backdoors that let them spy in the UK?
I mean, sure, possible, but a bit further fetched than China doing exactly that, no?
Wait, you think the Swedish secret service is going to coerce Ericsson into installing backdoors that let them spy in the UK?
I mean, sure, possible, but a bit further fetched than China doing exactly that, no?
https://www.zdnet.com/article/fortinet-removes-ssh-and-datab...
Fortinet is American.
Fortinet is American.
Maybe the Swedes backdoored the Beam VM and are laughing now. Since everybody in Telecom uses it.
For what it's worth, backdoors have been discovered in Ericsson switches, see [1], it's fascinating reading. It's unclear who put them there. Wikipedia [2] alleges that the US embassy in Athens was behind the telephone intercepts. Naturally, Wikipedia is n o t a reliable source in such matters.
I used to work in telecoms myself about 20 years ago, and at least at the time, much of infrastructure was insanely insecure -- I could have backdoored much of the internet's backbone as a lone programmer had I wanted to: our software was used by most big telcos. Not once was our code audited (at least openly). I very much hope that security is taken more seriously now.
[1] V. Prevelakis, D. Spinellis, The Athens Affair. https://web.archive.org/web/20070704193410/http://www.spectr... The pdf is also available through Spinellis' Google Scholar page.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004%E2...
I used to work in telecoms myself about 20 years ago, and at least at the time, much of infrastructure was insanely insecure -- I could have backdoored much of the internet's backbone as a lone programmer had I wanted to: our software was used by most big telcos. Not once was our code audited (at least openly). I very much hope that security is taken more seriously now.
[1] V. Prevelakis, D. Spinellis, The Athens Affair. https://web.archive.org/web/20070704193410/http://www.spectr... The pdf is also available through Spinellis' Google Scholar page.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004%E2...
> I very much hope that security is taken more seriously now.
I've got some bad news ...
I've got some bad news ...
You mean like how Oracle backdoored the JVM and how Israel backdoored PHP? Just checking, this is what you mean, right?
Even if the Swedes did do it, I'd prefer them far more than the authoritarian CCP.
Craighead(1)
Sounds entirely reasonable as you put it there. Does seem unlikely a British supplier is going to just magically deliver a 5G product that competes with Intel, Broadcom, Hauwei. All the talk that “this should just be open and free” just aren’t being realistic for the telecom industry.
As someone who works in retail, a large number of the UK population support this decision, as they also buy Huawei phones. Huawei phones are incredibly popular and customers tell me they're very angry at the current anti-Huawei/China feeling at the moment. For those who don't have a lot of money, they really appreciate that Huawei makes phones for all kinds of incomes, not just £40,000+ a year. A lot of them (rightly imho) perceive the US action against Huawei to be out of fear that the US may not be topdog in an area of technology.
>If the British government was truly concerned about market failures, it would not reward Huawei, which profits from unfair support by Chinese state capitalism, giving it advantages over its competitors from market economies.
Is this not outrageous? That we're so intolerant of other kinds of economies that we must try and band and block so that people don't realise the disadvantages of our own system? If your system is so superior, let it compete on its own merits.
>If the British government was truly concerned about market failures, it would not reward Huawei, which profits from unfair support by Chinese state capitalism, giving it advantages over its competitors from market economies.
Is this not outrageous? That we're so intolerant of other kinds of economies that we must try and band and block so that people don't realise the disadvantages of our own system? If your system is so superior, let it compete on its own merits.
> Is this not outrageous? That we're so intolerant of other kinds of economies that we must try and band and block so that people don't realise the disadvantages of our own system? If your system is so superior, let it compete on its own merits.
Is this a criticism of the West or China? Because China does this currently with multiple Western companies.
Is this a criticism of the West or China? Because China does this currently with multiple Western companies.
> Is this not outrageous? That we're so intolerant of other kinds of economies that we must try and band and block so that people don't realise the disadvantages of our own system? If your system is so superior, let it compete on its own merits.
Any country with any sort of economic system can toss money (or labor at least) around. If you want to dominate the tire industry for some reason, you can just give them money, favorable government contracts, or whatever else.
That doesn't prove your system is superior, just that you can tax people and write checks.
Any country with any sort of economic system can toss money (or labor at least) around. If you want to dominate the tire industry for some reason, you can just give them money, favorable government contracts, or whatever else.
That doesn't prove your system is superior, just that you can tax people and write checks.
> Is this not outrageous? That we're so intolerant of other kinds of economies that we must try and band and block so that people don't realise the disadvantages of our own system? If your system is so superior, let it compete on its own merits.
What are you arguing? Would you want to live in an economic system similar to Chinas? Many economists believe there is a genuine merit to China's economic system, but that doesn't mean it's something we in the West should support. There is a social cost to China's state intervention. The largest being that it leads to corruption. Do you think Huawei can ever take a stance against the Chinese government? Of course not. China's economic system is basically just corrupt capitalism. It's not about who's got the best economic system, it's about who has the right values.
What are you arguing? Would you want to live in an economic system similar to Chinas? Many economists believe there is a genuine merit to China's economic system, but that doesn't mean it's something we in the West should support. There is a social cost to China's state intervention. The largest being that it leads to corruption. Do you think Huawei can ever take a stance against the Chinese government? Of course not. China's economic system is basically just corrupt capitalism. It's not about who's got the best economic system, it's about who has the right values.
[deleted]
If the UK is limiting a vendor because it believes it to be malign, or more likely to be malign, or more susceptible to being turned malign by its Government, then limiting it to 30% or 3% isn’t going to help much. One fox in the henhouse is enough.
As for being able to mitigate a “man in the vendor”, whether the “man” is acting according to the vendor or whether the vendor themselves have been coercively controlled or infiltrated matters very little. Mobile operators generally don't even run their own networks today, they outsource the management of the critical platforms to the vendors themselves who often finance the deal too.
UK dropped the ball on this, but it dropped it 10-20 years ago, and now this kind of problem is going to keep coming up again and again.
Some of you might enjoy this examination I made of the topic and the context for all this. https://blog.eutopian.io/huawei-5g/
As for being able to mitigate a “man in the vendor”, whether the “man” is acting according to the vendor or whether the vendor themselves have been coercively controlled or infiltrated matters very little. Mobile operators generally don't even run their own networks today, they outsource the management of the critical platforms to the vendors themselves who often finance the deal too.
UK dropped the ball on this, but it dropped it 10-20 years ago, and now this kind of problem is going to keep coming up again and again.
Some of you might enjoy this examination I made of the topic and the context for all this. https://blog.eutopian.io/huawei-5g/
From the NCSC themselves:
The cap at 35% ensures the UK will not become nationally dependent on a high risk vendor while retaining competition in the market and allowing operators to continue to use two Radio Access Network (RAN) vendors.
In other words, the limit isn’t there to mitigate the risk of Huawei being malign (there are other mitigations in place for that risk, such as keeping them away from sensitive network functions). The limit is there to prevent the operator from becoming entirely beholden to Huawei.
The cap at 35% ensures the UK will not become nationally dependent on a high risk vendor while retaining competition in the market and allowing operators to continue to use two Radio Access Network (RAN) vendors.
In other words, the limit isn’t there to mitigate the risk of Huawei being malign (there are other mitigations in place for that risk, such as keeping them away from sensitive network functions). The limit is there to prevent the operator from becoming entirely beholden to Huawei.
In general no single supplier should provide more than 35% of any source. Anyone beholden to a single supplier is opening themselves up to be ripped off at best.
Problems of course come when suppliers merge. I have contracts with 8 different supplier for my business, one goes bust, or jacks up prices, and I simply increase supplies of the other 7.
Then those 8 companies start merging, and before long you're left with a single supplier, or at best a cartel.
Problems of course come when suppliers merge. I have contracts with 8 different supplier for my business, one goes bust, or jacks up prices, and I simply increase supplies of the other 7.
Then those 8 companies start merging, and before long you're left with a single supplier, or at best a cartel.
Can't we just buy Chinese stuff... and copy it?
I'm only half joking. History teaches us that any technological shortfall can be remedied fairly quickly if you have a clear priority and the audacity to steal.
5G doesn't require imploding plutonium.
I'm only half joking. History teaches us that any technological shortfall can be remedied fairly quickly if you have a clear priority and the audacity to steal.
5G doesn't require imploding plutonium.
> 5G doesn't require imploding plutonium.
Reading HN, I was under the impression that we didn't need 5G anyway (except for people streaming videos in stadium, which I haven't really understood why yet).
Reading HN, I was under the impression that we didn't need 5G anyway (except for people streaming videos in stadium, which I haven't really understood why yet).
5G's very high bandwidth and other features help to solve the following issue: when you get a huge population close together all communicating, (as in stadiums, conventions or during emergencies in very dense population centers) the airwaves become too congested to get more than a few KB/s with older tech.
Or even just in dense cities. I see 4G speeds as high as 90 Mbps at (eg) 6AM, but at 9PM on a weeknight it can slow to 2 Mbps or less due to congestion. Too slow to stream video with decent quality or to download anything, and it’s very frustrating!
I can stream Netflix on my 25mbit/s. For personal use I absolutely don't care about 5G. For professional use it might give me better picture quality when I remote into work, but I think my work's VPN server is more of a bottleneck currently.
> ”I can stream Netflix on my 25mbit/s. For personal use I absolutely don't care about 5G.”
I can stream at 25 Mbps just fine on 4G+/LTE too. At off-peak times. I’ve even seen it hit 70, 80, 90 Mbps occasionally.
The problem happens at peak times, usually starting around 6pm, when the network slows to a crawl and I can’t stream things reliably despite having 5/5 signal strength, because my carrier (Three UK) has sold too many cheap unlimited data plans and their 4G network is highly congested.
5G is needed because it greatly improves the data carrying capacity of given blocks of spectrum, meaning more users and higher speeds in areas that currently suffer capacity constraints.
And honestly, 5G’s 200 Mbit+ speeds would just be nice to have to speed up things like downloading multi-GB OS updates and the like.
I can stream at 25 Mbps just fine on 4G+/LTE too. At off-peak times. I’ve even seen it hit 70, 80, 90 Mbps occasionally.
The problem happens at peak times, usually starting around 6pm, when the network slows to a crawl and I can’t stream things reliably despite having 5/5 signal strength, because my carrier (Three UK) has sold too many cheap unlimited data plans and their 4G network is highly congested.
5G is needed because it greatly improves the data carrying capacity of given blocks of spectrum, meaning more users and higher speeds in areas that currently suffer capacity constraints.
And honestly, 5G’s 200 Mbit+ speeds would just be nice to have to speed up things like downloading multi-GB OS updates and the like.
That might be less to do with your carrier's cellular edge capacity (are you in a densely populated area with lots of people on the same cell station as you?) and more to do with your carrier's intenet edge capacity (3 has lots of customers using a lot of internet)
If it's the former, 5G helps you. If it's the latter, 5G makes zero difference to you.
If it's the former, 5G helps you. If it's the latter, 5G makes zero difference to you.
Yes, I can’t say for sure but I assume it’s the former. It’s certainly a dense area (Central London) and there are certainly many people around here with 3 unlimited data plans.
If I monitor my router’s status page I can see it start to bounce between several different Cell IDs when the congestion hits, and the SINR drops to low single digits (from 16-20dB when it’s fastest).
In any case, as I understand it, backhaul upgrades will be a part of 3’s 5G rollout anyway.
If I monitor my router’s status page I can see it start to bounce between several different Cell IDs when the congestion hits, and the SINR drops to low single digits (from 16-20dB when it’s fastest).
In any case, as I understand it, backhaul upgrades will be a part of 3’s 5G rollout anyway.
I tried 5G in Shenzhen on a demo phone, still only 10 mb/s to Hongkong, but you can have 300mb/s to the nearest NX.
Unless your server sits right beside the cell tower, you will never see that promised 1gb/s
Unless your server sits right beside the cell tower, you will never see that promised 1gb/s
Is that much of an improvement on 4G? I often see 250 mbps on LTE during off-peak hours
Your internet speed and latency may be fast enough for the current media/mediums on the internet, but I think it would be naive to assume (without strong evidence/reasoning) that "there's nothing left to be invented" which might consume more bandwidth, or require lower latencies in the near future.
Reading some of the comments I see that I don't have the same use case (data cap, so never streaming video ; and rarely need to vpn or do remote work with only a mobile connection available).
I am excluding future usage though (biggest I could see is "That smartphone is your only mean of connection to the net, either via the device or when acting as a modem.").
I am excluding future usage though (biggest I could see is "That smartphone is your only mean of connection to the net, either via the device or when acting as a modem.").
This. Especially because 4G is far, from being deployed everywhere.
Well if it made VOIP a great experience instead of an so-patchy-you-have-to-survey-users-after-every-call experience then it might be a big deal.
This requires a supply chain that the US no longer has, AFAIK. I mean, do know of any electronics still made in the USA? Shenzen is the world's 3D printer, and its non-trivial to clone it.
Yes, lack of manufacturing capacity in western nations is the root of the problem, not the particular technological fetish de jour. This is the chickens coming home to roost of chasing shareholder value maximisation rather than keeping some spare capacity in the system for a rainy day.
China is not the enemy, we should work with them to build a healthy middle class existence for all the world's citizens. Having one a country mono-culture doing the lions share of the advanced manufacturing is just asking for another dark age when that society suffers a catastrophe.
China is not the enemy, we should work with them to build a healthy middle class existence for all the world's citizens. Having one a country mono-culture doing the lions share of the advanced manufacturing is just asking for another dark age when that society suffers a catastrophe.
I’d like to believe this vision of superpowers working together for the betterment of humanity. But I feel like the moment anyone gets a slight advantage they leverage that to squeeze everyone else - economically, technologically, fiscally, geopolitically, you name it.
As is having one country doing the lion’s share of advanced software. No?
> Yes, lack of manufacturing capacity in western nations is the root of the problem
The reality here is this quickly leads to a discussion about regulations some people would be furious at the even the thought of re-examining.
The reality here is this quickly leads to a discussion about regulations some people would be furious at the even the thought of re-examining.
> This requires a supply chain that the US no longer has, AFAIK....and its non-trivial to clone it.
The US (and other countries) lost much of its electronics supply chain (and manufacturing in general) due to political priorities, and it can regain it by shifting those priorities and enacting new policy. This idea of "it's gone and never coming back" is false and a result of an over-attachment to certain ideas and certain policies.
The US (and other countries) lost much of its electronics supply chain (and manufacturing in general) due to political priorities, and it can regain it by shifting those priorities and enacting new policy. This idea of "it's gone and never coming back" is false and a result of an over-attachment to certain ideas and certain policies.
>it can regain it by shifting those priorities and enacting new policy
that would require a fundamental rethinking of economics and trade away from free-marketeering towards an understanding more similar to the Chinese who put these questions into the context of national (security) interest, and that is very unlikely to happen, in particular in the US in which private interest groups wield significant power over a largely weak and incoherent government. In Europe, it may be possible if France would have more of a say but countries like Germany or the Netherlands would be significantly hurt by the inevitable retaliation so it's probably a nonstarter here too.
that would require a fundamental rethinking of economics and trade away from free-marketeering towards an understanding more similar to the Chinese who put these questions into the context of national (security) interest, and that is very unlikely to happen, in particular in the US in which private interest groups wield significant power over a largely weak and incoherent government. In Europe, it may be possible if France would have more of a say but countries like Germany or the Netherlands would be significantly hurt by the inevitable retaliation so it's probably a nonstarter here too.
It feels to me like the US as a whole is getting more protectionist over the last decade, and that the free trade everyone is welcome, export to our market for free is seeing some massive attacks.
This is a feeling shared by both the left and right in the populist portions of both parties.
People are looking for ways to get more solid middle class jobs back into the USA, and protectionist trade policy is an obvious place to start for many.
Prior to Bretton Woods there had never been a system of free trade between (nearly) all countries enforced by a singular superpower.
There's nothing fundamental saying that America won't swerve away from providing the service of protecting and enforcing global trade. If that ever happens, it will have many serious consequences, but the US could still decide it is in its best interest.
This is a feeling shared by both the left and right in the populist portions of both parties.
People are looking for ways to get more solid middle class jobs back into the USA, and protectionist trade policy is an obvious place to start for many.
Prior to Bretton Woods there had never been a system of free trade between (nearly) all countries enforced by a singular superpower.
There's nothing fundamental saying that America won't swerve away from providing the service of protecting and enforcing global trade. If that ever happens, it will have many serious consequences, but the US could still decide it is in its best interest.
> ...in the US in which private interest groups wield significant power...
AFAIK, those interest groups don't actually wield very much power, but they've been very effective at promoting the fatalistic attitude that their favored polices are inevitable and permanent.
For proof, look at the current president who started a major tariff war that was very much against a major leg of free-market policy. What paused it wasn't those interest groups, it was political uncertainty caused by retaliation that targeted farm states by the other party in that war.
AFAIK, those interest groups don't actually wield very much power, but they've been very effective at promoting the fatalistic attitude that their favored polices are inevitable and permanent.
For proof, look at the current president who started a major tariff war that was very much against a major leg of free-market policy. What paused it wasn't those interest groups, it was political uncertainty caused by retaliation that targeted farm states by the other party in that war.
Unless the manufacturing industry was heavily subsidized I doubt it could compete with the Chinese.
it is not just political priorities. either the onshored industries would have to be as competitive as those in asia and europe, or they would have be subsidized. these are not trivial matters.
Or they could be neither but protected by tariffs or other means. The decision is one about political priorities, in this case: free trade vs. other considerations.
[deleted]
Arduino was originally Italian, made in EU. There are modern power tools, car electronics, and coffee machines made in Hungary - I'm only listing the ones I know for sure. The components however - IC, resistor, capacitor, etc - are nearly all from China.
Semiconductor fabs, especially for high-tech stuff, still are somewhat spread around the world at least (even though the later chain isn't, i.e. you might see a fab in Germany, and the cut wafers then being flown to Vietnam to put them in the plastic IC cases because that's cheaper).
For simpler components (resistors, capacitors) special types still have some manufacturers in the west (e.g. high-precision, especially robust variations, ...). Cheap mass-production not so much.
I remember trying to find out if you can get EU-made LEDs, and the result was that maybe some high-power ones by OSRAM would fit the bill, but it wasn't clear what was made where.
For simpler components (resistors, capacitors) special types still have some manufacturers in the west (e.g. high-precision, especially robust variations, ...). Cheap mass-production not so much.
I remember trying to find out if you can get EU-made LEDs, and the result was that maybe some high-power ones by OSRAM would fit the bill, but it wasn't clear what was made where.
Japan still has components if I'm not mistaken, LEDs especially.
> I mean, do know of any electronics still made in the USA?
Most Intel chips are still being made in the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_si...
Most Intel chips are still being made in the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_si...
This shift is largely due to the cost of human capital. If automation advances exponentially like many believe it will, should we expect much of this manufacturing to move back to the US? At that point, shipping would probably be the largest variable cost in getting goods to market.
No, shipping is such a small component of most product costs that it can never have a huge effect. (Except perhaps for heavy, bulky low value goods.)
My understanding is that the Huawei's hardware is just way cheaper.
It is. Ludicrously cheap. Not just in capital expenditure terms but also in terms of operating costs, as they’ll run it all for you, if you want. There are lots of possible reasons ranging from business pragmatics, to work practices through to the tin foil hatted. As far fetched as any of these might seem, none are as far fetched as that they’re giving you a great deal out of pure kindess.
Take note that the ludicrously cheap prices only apply if its end-to-end Hauwei: i.e. If you plug pne piece of Hauwei kit into another.
If you add non-Hauwei kit, you not only have to buy the more expensive gear but you also have to buy a more expensive licence for the protocol on the Huawei kit.
Source: adding SMSCs, GMLCs, SMLCs, etc to HW networks.
If you add non-Hauwei kit, you not only have to buy the more expensive gear but you also have to buy a more expensive licence for the protocol on the Huawei kit.
Source: adding SMSCs, GMLCs, SMLCs, etc to HW networks.
Yes I work in this space too, and as a 3P vendor their monolothic architecture concerns me greatly. Note that this approach goes directly against the spirit of the GSM “culture” (for want of a better term) of modularity to date.
It's more like they bought it from us.
ARM used to be owned by Westerners.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/softbanks-arm-holdings-to-sell-...
Nokia is currently extremely cheap. P/S 0.85 and it includes Bell Labs, and Lucent and Motorola wireless networks assets in the US.
It's really not about owning.
It's really not about owning.
This is a really good article, worth reading all the way through. For me, this was the line that sums it up:
> After Brexit, London sees itself as dependent on Beijing’s goodwill.
> After Brexit, London sees itself as dependent on Beijing’s goodwill.
Having more freedom to adjust regulations and needing new business/investments while still being part of Europe post-Brexit Britain can possibly find its future as the Chinese base and tunnel into Europe .
[deleted]
There’s a lot of speculation in the comments here around exactly what the UK is or isn’t doing, and why. The NCSC’s Technical Director has laid it out in detail: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/the-future-of-telecoms-in-.... The linked article points to the blog post, but then largely ignores the points it makes.
Telecom equipment should be free as in freedom if we’re going to give it exclusive use of portions of the spectrum. Proprietary wireless equipment is harmful surf-like enslavement of the people.
> telecom equipment should be free as in freedom
The author agrees with you:
“The U.K., for example, could force providers to work with open coding standards (“OpenRAN”) that would ensure interoperability between providers, thus lowering market entry barriers to future market entrants and disadvantaging Huawei, which has heavily bet on closed proprietary solutions.”
The author agrees with you:
“The U.K., for example, could force providers to work with open coding standards (“OpenRAN”) that would ensure interoperability between providers, thus lowering market entry barriers to future market entrants and disadvantaging Huawei, which has heavily bet on closed proprietary solutions.”
Where is the part that explains why using Huawei equipment sells out national security? I have heard zero satisfying arguments. What is the proposed attack? How does it not apply to the penetration of Chinese made chips everywhere. Why should we trust US made chips and their companies' obligations to US national security apparatus any more? Or other countries? If strong trust in certain hardware is the requirement for some level of trust in the network then I think we are already lost.
The truth is that if China wants to hack the UK, it will. It might possibly be easier when 5G is built on Huawei equipment, however, other suppliers will inadvertentlg introduce security weaknesses which can be exploited by China as well.
From what I understand, using Ericcson(european) instead would delay it by around a year and £4B.
It is guaranteed the CCP will wage information warfare against the UK in the future. If there's a global war, China is the most powerful country based on current politics that will be the UK's adversary. Ability to limit or interfere with public communicarion infrasructure is an invaluable war-time advantage.
For those that say this is just edge gear, I say that makes it even worse. Redundancy and access control is easier at the core than at the edge which lives in the field and direcrly interfaces with possibly hostile end devices. Even just a dumb antenna can be built in a way that makes it easier tl cripple or help with jamming/DOS.
It is guaranteed the CCP will wage information warfare against the UK in the future. If there's a global war, China is the most powerful country based on current politics that will be the UK's adversary. Ability to limit or interfere with public communicarion infrasructure is an invaluable war-time advantage.
For those that say this is just edge gear, I say that makes it even worse. Redundancy and access control is easier at the core than at the edge which lives in the field and direcrly interfaces with possibly hostile end devices. Even just a dumb antenna can be built in a way that makes it easier tl cripple or help with jamming/DOS.
Thanks, you triggered an interesting thought: is the U.K. really likely to be an adversary of China? Based on reading James Rickard’s Aftermath and also Gaft Luft’s and Anne Klein’s De-Dollarization, I can list out how different the UK’s and the USA’s situations are re: China:
China and Russia (with many smaller countries who are growing more resentful of the advantage we get having the dollar as the world reserve currency) are actively trying to undermine the dollar (let’s hope they fail, or that it takes a long time!) but they probably view the U.K. as a trading partner and as much as possible be cordial with.
England is done with being the world mono polar superpower so they don’t show up strategically as a real adversary.
For financial and ego reasons, the USA is trying to hold on to its status (although by over using tariffs and sanctions, we are being incredibly clumsy - we need to get our act together!)
China and Russia (with many smaller countries who are growing more resentful of the advantage we get having the dollar as the world reserve currency) are actively trying to undermine the dollar (let’s hope they fail, or that it takes a long time!) but they probably view the U.K. as a trading partner and as much as possible be cordial with.
England is done with being the world mono polar superpower so they don’t show up strategically as a real adversary.
For financial and ego reasons, the USA is trying to hold on to its status (although by over using tariffs and sanctions, we are being incredibly clumsy - we need to get our act together!)
Dumb question: why is Huawei the only available provider of 5G technology? Are all other companies too far away?
They are not. From the article:
>Yet Europe is home to two of the world’s leading vendors, Ericsson and Nokia; Samsung offers yet another alternative from a trustworthy democracy.
>Yet Europe is home to two of the world’s leading vendors, Ericsson and Nokia; Samsung offers yet another alternative from a trustworthy democracy.
Though I'm not sure if they are more secure, they also have offices in China.
Why are there no US vendors?
It is rare to see a cutting-edge sector without the US.
It is rare to see a cutting-edge sector without the US.
Cisco and Motorola are not interested in this market, and Lucent is no longer American. To answer your question: maximizing shareholder value is why there are no US vendors (that in turn, might be because of lack of competition behavior between Verizon and AT&T leading to lowered investment in infrastructure)
[deleted]
No for example Swisscom in Switzerland is using Ericsson for their 5G network and Huawei for their IP core transport network. A lot of households got upgraded to Huawei G.Fast technology for example.
So it's also about price. Huawei is just cheaper than Nokia and Ericsson. I don't know how the technology of the different providers compare but it probably won't be that much of a difference. It probably also depends on your existing 4G infrastructure since 5G can sometimes be rolled out as a software upgrade using existing antennas. So if your existing infrastructure uses Huawei you don't want to switch.
So it's also about price. Huawei is just cheaper than Nokia and Ericsson. I don't know how the technology of the different providers compare but it probably won't be that much of a difference. It probably also depends on your existing 4G infrastructure since 5G can sometimes be rolled out as a software upgrade using existing antennas. So if your existing infrastructure uses Huawei you don't want to switch.
What is the price point? Exactly how much cheaper is Huawei vs. Nokia/Ericsson?
Some rumors say that Huawei has 4,000 software engineers that they can throw at a problem, like their current goal to replace Google services.
If an average software engineer in China makes $10,000 USD, vs. an average software engineer at Google making $160,000 USD. Then Huawei will spend $40 million USD, vs. Google spending $640 million USD.
That’s a pretty significant difference. Huawei’s operating cost is 6% of Google’s.
Huawei can afford to throw a lot of human brain power at solving an engineering problem. And especially when a lot of Chinese companies are operating in start-up mode and working 60+ hours a week.
Some rumors say that Huawei has 4,000 software engineers that they can throw at a problem, like their current goal to replace Google services.
If an average software engineer in China makes $10,000 USD, vs. an average software engineer at Google making $160,000 USD. Then Huawei will spend $40 million USD, vs. Google spending $640 million USD.
That’s a pretty significant difference. Huawei’s operating cost is 6% of Google’s.
Huawei can afford to throw a lot of human brain power at solving an engineering problem. And especially when a lot of Chinese companies are operating in start-up mode and working 60+ hours a week.
> an average software engineer at Google making $160,000 USD
Average software engineer at Google makes well over $200K USD.
Average software engineer at Google makes well over $200K USD.
It's the most viable at the lowest price point I believe. Other companies like Ericsson can also provide 5G but I think Huawei is furthest ahead yes. This has really been poor planning on the part of the UK government going back a few years - this decision has been coming for a long time but not enough effort seems to have gone into creating a better set of choices. Instead we are accepting Huawei despite believing they are a bad actor and only now starting to seriously plan for reducing our dependence on them.
Huawei is apparently just far and way cheaper.
Serious question, as an European why would I trust say Cisco more than Huawei?
Surrounding culture the company is embedded in. As an European I'd always favor an US company over a Chinese one that's linked to a dictatorship.
I just saw this story regarding Afghanistan:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/28/admission-colos...
Were any of the war criminals that lied us into Iraq prosecuted? Nope. Did the NSA modify Cisco routers and tap the phones of its EU allies? Yes.
Is Guantanamo Bay still open? Did the U.S. just commit an international crime by assassinating a top Iranian diplomat?
Am asking all these questions, because while the U.S. is still better domestically, (be it with huge cracks, even on that front), I'd say that internationally it isn't as clear cut as I'd once have agreed with you it is.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/28/admission-colos...
Were any of the war criminals that lied us into Iraq prosecuted? Nope. Did the NSA modify Cisco routers and tap the phones of its EU allies? Yes.
Is Guantanamo Bay still open? Did the U.S. just commit an international crime by assassinating a top Iranian diplomat?
Am asking all these questions, because while the U.S. is still better domestically, (be it with huge cracks, even on that front), I'd say that internationally it isn't as clear cut as I'd once have agreed with you it is.
But it wont get any better if people keep supporting dictatorships. Dictatorships are like cheatcodes for economic growth, countries like China can move much faster because of that, and put pressure on other countries that aren't dictatorships to become more dictatorship like to be able to keep up. You make things worse in your own country by supporting them and giving them even more power.
You know there's a 3rd option right?
I do not support China, but neither do I 'support' the U.S. That's a false choice.
I have a bit more nuanced view of things. For example I do not support the government of Iran, but I also think the U.S. does not have any right to vilify it 24/7 like it does, as long as they're so closely buddy, buddy with Saudi Arabia, since Iran is, for all its faults, more democratic than KSA is.
So if anything, I'd support the EU becoming more independent of U.S. influence and providing a proper counter-balance on the international stage to both the U.S. and China.
I do not support China, but neither do I 'support' the U.S. That's a false choice.
I have a bit more nuanced view of things. For example I do not support the government of Iran, but I also think the U.S. does not have any right to vilify it 24/7 like it does, as long as they're so closely buddy, buddy with Saudi Arabia, since Iran is, for all its faults, more democratic than KSA is.
So if anything, I'd support the EU becoming more independent of U.S. influence and providing a proper counter-balance on the international stage to both the U.S. and China.
If you asked those same questions in China you would risk police visiting your house and taking you in for "questioning."
This false equivalence between the USA and China is really obnoxious. It's not even close.
This false equivalence between the USA and China is really obnoxious. It's not even close.
Domestically the U.S. is still better, abet getting more repressive by the day.
Internationally however, and since I don't live in China more relevant to me, it's not so clear cut.
I'm not saying China is more moral than the U.S., I am simply saying that when it comes to international behavior the case for the U.S. being clearly more moral isn't as clear.
Personally, I'd prefer the EU to assert itself more independently from the U.S. so there's some counterbalance to it from democratic countries as well.
As for specifically Huawei, I don't want the NSA to have my data, but I know they already do, per Snowden. The case for Huawei having them is a lot less clear.
I know for some people it's 'obvious' that they do, but I'd like to work with cold, hard evidence.
Now, the U.S. is known for its outrageous overreach far, far outside its borders, just look at the Kim Dotcom raid, so the NSA having all the data has been demonstrated to have extremely negative implications.
The case against Huawei has not been made so convincingly and no, I do not trust the NSA/FBI to make the case.
Internationally however, and since I don't live in China more relevant to me, it's not so clear cut.
I'm not saying China is more moral than the U.S., I am simply saying that when it comes to international behavior the case for the U.S. being clearly more moral isn't as clear.
Personally, I'd prefer the EU to assert itself more independently from the U.S. so there's some counterbalance to it from democratic countries as well.
As for specifically Huawei, I don't want the NSA to have my data, but I know they already do, per Snowden. The case for Huawei having them is a lot less clear.
I know for some people it's 'obvious' that they do, but I'd like to work with cold, hard evidence.
Now, the U.S. is known for its outrageous overreach far, far outside its borders, just look at the Kim Dotcom raid, so the NSA having all the data has been demonstrated to have extremely negative implications.
The case against Huawei has not been made so convincingly and no, I do not trust the NSA/FBI to make the case.
And as an Australian living in Europe I think both options suck but at least I'm yet to see any evidence of China putting backdoors into networking equipment. In fact, less biased countries have evaluated Huawei's equipment and found no issues.
Now, but what about updates to the software for those appliances? Or do they only aquire the hardware and write their own software on top of it? How would you even find a bug that you don't know the existence of, that wasn't fixed or overlooked intentionally if you aren't the developer and can't be aware of all the inter-dependencies of the software stack?
General trust is more important here than finding something or not finding something now. Dictatorships are just not trustworthy, and they wont change into non dictatorships with continued support.
The "we didn't find backdoors bs" is a pseudo argument, in reality it's fear of economic retailiation against other industries that sell there.
General trust is more important here than finding something or not finding something now. Dictatorships are just not trustworthy, and they wont change into non dictatorships with continued support.
The "we didn't find backdoors bs" is a pseudo argument, in reality it's fear of economic retailiation against other industries that sell there.
What does it matter if China is a dictatorship and America is nominally democratic?
America has planted backdoors. We have evidence of this. American equipment cannot be trusted. America cannot be trusted.
Perhaps China's government has planted a well-hidden backdoor or perhaps it will order one planted in the future. We don't know. What we do know is that America has definitely done it.
It's a choice between a 0% chance of equipment without backdoors and some nonzero chance of equipment without backdoors. The nonzero chance is clearly better.
America has planted backdoors. We have evidence of this. American equipment cannot be trusted. America cannot be trusted.
Perhaps China's government has planted a well-hidden backdoor or perhaps it will order one planted in the future. We don't know. What we do know is that America has definitely done it.
It's a choice between a 0% chance of equipment without backdoors and some nonzero chance of equipment without backdoors. The nonzero chance is clearly better.
It's about the goals and intentions of governments, not backdoors. Backdoors are a cheat for them, to reach their goals easier. What you should ask yourself is which model of society you actually prefer.
I think that's the part where we fundamentally disagree, or at least weigh things differently.
I don't see buying Chinese networking equipment as a choice about society. I see it as a choice about which device best serves my needs. So long as China isn't morally bankrupt (which I do not believe to be the case), I give zero weight to their societal model.
Even if I were weighing models of society against each other, America is only barely ahead of China in my mind. China may do some messed up things like their detention camps but America is no bastion of morality either. America fabricates evidence to invade its enemies, causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the process, holds people without trial or due process, tortures people, commits war crimes through assassination, arbitrarily pulls out of international deals, to the detriment of all, and refuses to respect international law to the point where it has declared it will invade one of its allies should one of its people be tried for war crimes.
Maybe China is morally worse, I'm not sure if I believe that at the moment. Whatever the case, I see America as far more dangerous.
I don't see buying Chinese networking equipment as a choice about society. I see it as a choice about which device best serves my needs. So long as China isn't morally bankrupt (which I do not believe to be the case), I give zero weight to their societal model.
Even if I were weighing models of society against each other, America is only barely ahead of China in my mind. China may do some messed up things like their detention camps but America is no bastion of morality either. America fabricates evidence to invade its enemies, causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the process, holds people without trial or due process, tortures people, commits war crimes through assassination, arbitrarily pulls out of international deals, to the detriment of all, and refuses to respect international law to the point where it has declared it will invade one of its allies should one of its people be tried for war crimes.
Maybe China is morally worse, I'm not sure if I believe that at the moment. Whatever the case, I see America as far more dangerous.
Summed up my feelings better than I have. I don't think China is 'better' than the U.S. I just think that automatically assuming all Chinese tech is automatically bugged, while the U.S. can be trusted is a naive view to hold, especially since we outright know the NSA intercepted Cisco HW and modified it, with Huawei, there's been a lot of accusations made by U.S. officials with vested interests, less actual evidence.
I imagine the UK weighs Huawei equipment with potential Chinese introduced backdoors vs Cisco equipment with potential US introduced backdoors. Probably cases exist where Huawei is the safer choice. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/photos-of-an-nsa...
Feels like there's a niche market for a UK, French, German, Australian, etc, line of equipment.
Feels like there's a niche market for a UK, French, German, Australian, etc, line of equipment.
This is only true if you naively believe that being compromised by the US carries even remotely similar risk to being compromised by the CCP.
One key difference: China is an adversary to the US and UK. The US is not an adversary to the UK. This strategic relativism is tired and indefensible in any version of reality.
One key difference: China is an adversary to the US and UK. The US is not an adversary to the UK. This strategic relativism is tired and indefensible in any version of reality.
"The US is not an adversary to the ...UK."
Not generally, but there are cases where they are. Ask Assange, for example. Surely the UK has information they would rather not share with the US in some cases.
Not generally, but there are cases where they are. Ask Assange, for example. Surely the UK has information they would rather not share with the US in some cases.
Not tactically aligned 100% of the time != an adversary.
To act otherwise - or to act like China ought to enjoy a similar relationship - is downright dangerous in the face of escalating geopolitical tensions.
To act otherwise - or to act like China ought to enjoy a similar relationship - is downright dangerous in the face of escalating geopolitical tensions.
That just sounds very black and white to me. Why would the UK blindly follow the US in all cases? Surely there's room for their own interests.
I don’t believe I proposed that the UK “blindly follow” the US, nor did I even say it’s a-okay that the US might engage in espionage against allies. I said that the US-UK relationship is absolutely nothing like the UK-CCP relationship, and therefore US efforts to project power are in no way comparable to Chinese efforts (as far as the UK is concerned).
However, if you really want an answer, there are two reasons that the UK ought to align itself with the US (and vice versa). Those two reasons are Russia and China. We are fortunate to be living in an era of widespread peace, but that is not guaranteed indefinitely. Should, god forbid, widespread warfare break out once again (as it has since tribal days up until the last 80 years or so), any westerner with a modicum of understanding of Putin’s or Xi’s ideal world ought to be on the side of the US/UK.
However, if you really want an answer, there are two reasons that the UK ought to align itself with the US (and vice versa). Those two reasons are Russia and China. We are fortunate to be living in an era of widespread peace, but that is not guaranteed indefinitely. Should, god forbid, widespread warfare break out once again (as it has since tribal days up until the last 80 years or so), any westerner with a modicum of understanding of Putin’s or Xi’s ideal world ought to be on the side of the US/UK.
> US efforts to project power are in no way comparable to Chinese efforts (as far as the UK is concerned).
The UK conducts extensive trade with both the US and China, so the potential for trade disputes with either country is there. At the moment, I think it's fair to say that a major trade dispute with the US is more likely than a trade dispute with China.
> Should, god forbid, widespread warfare break out once again (as it has since tribal days up until the last 80 years or so), any westerner with a modicum of understanding of Putin’s or Xi’s ideal world ought to be on the side of the US/UK.
Whatever you think of China, you can't claim that it's been more belligerent than the US in the past several decades. Blindly backing the US and giving in to its demands (backed by sanctions against its own allies, as in the case of Germany) to cut off ties with China and Russia might not be the best way to promote global peace.
The UK conducts extensive trade with both the US and China, so the potential for trade disputes with either country is there. At the moment, I think it's fair to say that a major trade dispute with the US is more likely than a trade dispute with China.
> Should, god forbid, widespread warfare break out once again (as it has since tribal days up until the last 80 years or so), any westerner with a modicum of understanding of Putin’s or Xi’s ideal world ought to be on the side of the US/UK.
Whatever you think of China, you can't claim that it's been more belligerent than the US in the past several decades. Blindly backing the US and giving in to its demands (backed by sanctions against its own allies, as in the case of Germany) to cut off ties with China and Russia might not be the best way to promote global peace.
It seems like you’re missing my point. A trade dispute with China (or the US) is not the primary risk we should have in mind when thinking about this.
Becoming technologically dependent upon China puts the western world at strategic risk, which we have every reason to believe China will eventually cash in on when the time is right. When they cash in on it, it will not be for the advancement of liberal democracy or basic human dignity. As reckless and shameful as American policy has been of late, it continues to be the most powerful benefactor of liberal democracy the world over. I do not believe that China is belligerent. I know that it is ideologically opposed to liberal democracy. It’s apparently hard for many westerners to believe that there are those who truly do not believe in democratic ideals, but there are and they are growing in power and ambition.
It is naive to believe that our current state of affairs is guaranteed and one need only worry about maximizing the economic prosperity of a society that they see as guaranteed to be democratic. Do you think that millions of people died in WW2 in the name of trade regimes? Or was there a more substantial threat that was being addressed? Is that threat wholly eradicated, and will it always be so?
Becoming technologically dependent upon China puts the western world at strategic risk, which we have every reason to believe China will eventually cash in on when the time is right. When they cash in on it, it will not be for the advancement of liberal democracy or basic human dignity. As reckless and shameful as American policy has been of late, it continues to be the most powerful benefactor of liberal democracy the world over. I do not believe that China is belligerent. I know that it is ideologically opposed to liberal democracy. It’s apparently hard for many westerners to believe that there are those who truly do not believe in democratic ideals, but there are and they are growing in power and ambition.
It is naive to believe that our current state of affairs is guaranteed and one need only worry about maximizing the economic prosperity of a society that they see as guaranteed to be democratic. Do you think that millions of people died in WW2 in the name of trade regimes? Or was there a more substantial threat that was being addressed? Is that threat wholly eradicated, and will it always be so?
> When they cash in on it, it will not be for the advancement of liberal democracy or basic human dignity. As reckless and shameful as American policy has been of late, it continues to be the most powerful benefactor of liberal democracy the world over.
I don't see any evidence of that.
> I know that it is ideologically opposed to liberal democracy.
The Chinese government doesn't care about the existence or nonexistence of liberal democracy in the UK, US, or really anywhere other than in China itself. They're not out to destroy democracy in the UK. They care about their interests, which in regards to the UK are mostly economic.
> Do you think that millions of people died in WW2 in the name of trade regimes?
The CCP fought on the same side as the US and UK in WWII.
> Is that threat wholly eradicated, and will it always be so?
It was largely eradicated for a long time, though the far right is making a comeback in many countries. The major threat I see now, however, is the increasing conflict between the US and China, and the extreme recklessness of American foreign policy.
I don't see any evidence of that.
> I know that it is ideologically opposed to liberal democracy.
The Chinese government doesn't care about the existence or nonexistence of liberal democracy in the UK, US, or really anywhere other than in China itself. They're not out to destroy democracy in the UK. They care about their interests, which in regards to the UK are mostly economic.
> Do you think that millions of people died in WW2 in the name of trade regimes?
The CCP fought on the same side as the US and UK in WWII.
> Is that threat wholly eradicated, and will it always be so?
It was largely eradicated for a long time, though the far right is making a comeback in many countries. The major threat I see now, however, is the increasing conflict between the US and China, and the extreme recklessness of American foreign policy.
Sure, you didn't explicitly say either. Apologies for that. But from my point of view, you implied it. I recognize it's a fuzzy area. But using 100% US gear does imply some acceptance of blindness. We (US govt) are pretty up front about our manipulation.
No apologies necessary, just trying to clarify - that was an unintentional implication.
I do not even want the UK to use 100% US gear, never mind think they strategically should use 100% US gear. My argument is only that becoming reliant (whether defined as a critical 1% of the network or the entire 100% of the network) upon the US is not analogous to the same level of reliance upon the CCP - at least from the perspective of the UK.
I do not even want the UK to use 100% US gear, never mind think they strategically should use 100% US gear. My argument is only that becoming reliant (whether defined as a critical 1% of the network or the entire 100% of the network) upon the US is not analogous to the same level of reliance upon the CCP - at least from the perspective of the UK.
As far as I'm aware most of the US installed backdoors were via interception of the hardware en-route to its point of installation without the vendor's knowledge. Hardware being a direct product from Huawei doesn't by itself prevent this from happening.
Cisco doesn’t make mobile network equipment. Motorola also got out of the business. The alternatives to Huawei are Ericsson (Sweden), Nokia (Finland) and Samsung (South Korea)
But the UK is part of the 5 eyes, it makes more sense to use US backdoors than Chinese backdoors, despite both being undesirable to say the least.
That's weird and funny to me. Doesn't the UK have its own foreign policy that's distinctly different from the US view? Isn't there room for some selective divergence? Consider, for example, Ukraine, Syria, or Iraq. I wouldn't trust US sanctioned intelligence at all in those areas. Chinese influenced info might (sometimes/often) be more neutral.
isn't huawei already powering every country's 4g/lte offering?
Yes and it's not that 5G is completely different from 4G anyway. Very much hyped up.
>>Yes and it's not that 5G is completely different from 4G anyway. Very much hyped up.
5G RAN (access) is very different.
I'd agree that 5G Core not be that different at the most abstract levels compared to 4G LTE packet core, but the reality on the ground is that they are still sufficiently different enough that network operators are using 5G as a strong reason to re-evaluate suppliers and put major network components up for tender.
5G RAN (access) is very different.
I'd agree that 5G Core not be that different at the most abstract levels compared to 4G LTE packet core, but the reality on the ground is that they are still sufficiently different enough that network operators are using 5G as a strong reason to re-evaluate suppliers and put major network components up for tender.
Britain is sending a signal to the US that is time to negotiate trade.
I don’t thank anyone anywhere disagrees that now is the time for UK and US to work on trade. You could be the most strict “remainer” there is and have to accept this - regardless of 5G.
> London sees itself as dependent on Beijing’s goodwill.
If only Britan could join together with others perhaps in a supra-national group of nations so that collectively they'd have more strength to resist large economies like China's.
If only Britan could join together with others perhaps in a supra-national group of nations so that collectively they'd have more strength to resist large economies like China's.
I would have thought for any communications that you are worried about the security off you'd encrypt them with https or similar. I've never really given thought as to whether there is a chinese bit of equipment in the chain of not when I do a bank transfer or such like and along those lines, as a brit I'm not that worried that some bit of the network may have a back door from Huawei or whoever. Is this really a problem?
It all really comes down to being the cheapest option.
Huawei has no monopoly on 5G technology. It just has the means (and government support) to make big R&D investments.
This Twitter thread discussed that point of a view a few days ago:https://twitter.com/mikebutcher/status/1221842546881679360?s...
This Twitter thread discussed that point of a view a few days ago:https://twitter.com/mikebutcher/status/1221842546881679360?s...
I’m wondering if this is a negotiation tactic post Brexit as they’re about to enter trade negotiations with the US. Just a bluff bargaining chip to concede.
I think it’s not a neogiting tactic but an indicator that post-Brexit the UK will permanently seek to increase open trade with all parties. I also think in a zero trust environment one has to assume everything is compromised and deal accordingly. Finally I think UK has stronger ties than its peers due to its history in Hong Kong and it will seek to leverage that as the belt and road initiative develops to ensure it is not left out by a revengeful EU.
I would imagine the UK would like to have its cake and eat it too, but the US will make them choose.
I don't know whether this is technologically sound but a few things to bear in mind:
* Before they took this decision, the govt consulted with the UK's Cyber Security Centre (these guys are not meek civil servants...GCHQ end up owning every Home Secretary, they are powerful).
* The distinction they made was between allowing Huawei into the "core" part of the UK's networks.
* Because Huawei won't provide "core" infrastructure, there is no risk.
Tbh, I am not an expert but this sounded very wrong to me. 5G is going to require building out a dense blanket of receivers...if you let them do this, then they are in...it doesn't matter.
The suggestion was that sensitive data is only carried through certain infrastructure...I don't really buy this because it doesn't really protect 5G which is obviously a component of the network anyway, and I don't really believe that there is some kind of parallel internet out there for GCHQ only...but I don't know.
To me, this sounded a lot like cheapness. The issue with lack of competition was brought up in the Parliamentary debate...that is a problem that exists but the way to solve that is not to buy equipment from unsafe providers (the Foreign Secretary seemed to accept btw, that Huawei was controlled by the Chinese govt).
* Before they took this decision, the govt consulted with the UK's Cyber Security Centre (these guys are not meek civil servants...GCHQ end up owning every Home Secretary, they are powerful).
* The distinction they made was between allowing Huawei into the "core" part of the UK's networks.
* Because Huawei won't provide "core" infrastructure, there is no risk.
Tbh, I am not an expert but this sounded very wrong to me. 5G is going to require building out a dense blanket of receivers...if you let them do this, then they are in...it doesn't matter.
The suggestion was that sensitive data is only carried through certain infrastructure...I don't really buy this because it doesn't really protect 5G which is obviously a component of the network anyway, and I don't really believe that there is some kind of parallel internet out there for GCHQ only...but I don't know.
To me, this sounded a lot like cheapness. The issue with lack of competition was brought up in the Parliamentary debate...that is a problem that exists but the way to solve that is not to buy equipment from unsafe providers (the Foreign Secretary seemed to accept btw, that Huawei was controlled by the Chinese govt).
Here's my biggest question of the whole thing:
* Can governments not inspect the hardware themselves to see if there are physical backdoors?
* Could they not, as a precondition for any provider, demand to see the source code of the radios?
* If the ISPs tunnel the backbone traffic combined with more/most Internet traffic being secured anyway,
wouldn't that minimize data leaks?
* If you admit that the previous point isn't valid because of metadata concerns, doesn't that invalidate the US
national security establishment's position on metadata towards the public?
They have previously scoffed at such concerns ("It's only a phone number") but now it matters.
* Wouldn't rogue equipment exfiltrating data be rather obvious?For points 1 and 2 at least, the UK has the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre where GCHQ can inspect all Huawei hardware as well as the source code, although it is run by former Huawei employees (overseen by GCHQ) so its independence is questionable.
The staff are actively employed by Huawei, but all undergo UK security clearance to DV standard.
I believe the centre cannot satisfy itself that the code they inspect is the code that is built into the hardware.
Yes.
...it is not possible to be confident that the source code examined by HCSEC is precisely that used to build the binaries running in the UK networks.
-- https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
...it is not possible to be confident that the source code examined by HCSEC is precisely that used to build the binaries running in the UK networks.
-- https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
[deleted]
Good for Britain for standing on its own and not letting itself being used as another puppet in the economic war between U.S. and China.
Something tells me you don't do business is China. There is no material difference between Huawei and the Chinese Government.
> There is no material difference between Huawei and the Chinese Government.
this is false.
this is false.
> There is no material difference between Cisco and the United States government.
Agree?
Edit: This isn’t intended as a rude or rhetorical question. I’m really interested in your answer.
Agree?
Edit: This isn’t intended as a rude or rhetorical question. I’m really interested in your answer.
Do you have any interesting stories to share about your experience doing business with Huawei and/or the Chinese government? It's always refreshing to hear from someone with first-hand knowledge.
(Comment edited to (hopefully) clarify tone.)
(Comment edited to (hopefully) clarify tone.)
There is also no material difference between say Cisco and the American government. Or Siemens and the German government. Where does it end? The UK is, as of today, currently an independent nation and - on paper at least - nobody is its friend.
The Huawei furore is akin to saying "public WiFi is not secure so why are you using it?".
The Huawei furore is akin to saying "public WiFi is not secure so why are you using it?".
That isn’t meaningfully true at all. Cisco or Siemens aren’t government controlled enterprises. They are subject to the law in their jurisdictions.
Huawei is “owned” by a labor union that is controlled by the party. They are in effect an arm of government.
There’s a difference in how AT&T operates vs how your state DMV operates. Control matters.
Huawei is “owned” by a labor union that is controlled by the party. They are in effect an arm of government.
There’s a difference in how AT&T operates vs how your state DMV operates. Control matters.
> Huawei is “owned” by a labor union that is controlled by the party. They are in effect an arm of government.
That's a pretty thin argument. The employees' shares are managed through the union, because of laws that make it impossible for a privately-owned (i.e., not publicly traded) company to issue shares to large numbers of individuals. That union is a member of the national confederation of unions. It's a big leap to argue that that means the government runs Huawei. The connection is highly tenuous and indirect.
What is certain is that Ren Zhengfei, the founder of the company, has veto power over all major decisions of the company. If you were to try to identify the person in control of the company, he'd be it.
That's a pretty thin argument. The employees' shares are managed through the union, because of laws that make it impossible for a privately-owned (i.e., not publicly traded) company to issue shares to large numbers of individuals. That union is a member of the national confederation of unions. It's a big leap to argue that that means the government runs Huawei. The connection is highly tenuous and indirect.
What is certain is that Ren Zhengfei, the founder of the company, has veto power over all major decisions of the company. If you were to try to identify the person in control of the company, he'd be it.
Chinese government criticized UK's recent decision.
- hard cap on the market share (35%)
- no Huawei parts in core part of network
- no Huawei in sensitive locations (military, energy)
- Huawei declared as the only provider that poses national security to the UK
It's not a complete ban but it sure is a blow to Huawei who has been expanding globally unopposed in the past decade.
- hard cap on the market share (35%)
- no Huawei parts in core part of network
- no Huawei in sensitive locations (military, energy)
- Huawei declared as the only provider that poses national security to the UK
It's not a complete ban but it sure is a blow to Huawei who has been expanding globally unopposed in the past decade.
Yup, and as a Canadian the worst part about this is it gives the government here an easy out to sell out our own national security, because we're just followng Britain's lead after all. They already broke up the Five Eyes.
In my experience, our Canadian government sells us out to China even more readily than the UK government has; but at least we're not Australia, which is (no joke) basically on the edge of becoming a dependent territory of the PRC. To me, as a dual citizen, it is mystifying that the U.S. is allowing this to happen; if the PRC compromises half of the commonwealth, that seems like a serious threat to the United States, and to human rights as a concept and reality.
I agree, but I had hope the Liberals would be under such intense pressure to ban Huawei that they’d be forced to, politically.
Eg With the liberals being just a minority, the majority of the Canadian parliament got together and recently passed legislation for and subsequently set up a committee to review Canada-China relations, on the backdrop of China holding our citizens hostage and extraordinary Chinese intervention into Canadian governments (federal, provincial and municipal).
But realistically I know better than to bet against a Trudeau selling out Canada.
Eg With the liberals being just a minority, the majority of the Canadian parliament got together and recently passed legislation for and subsequently set up a committee to review Canada-China relations, on the backdrop of China holding our citizens hostage and extraordinary Chinese intervention into Canadian governments (federal, provincial and municipal).
But realistically I know better than to bet against a Trudeau selling out Canada.
US and Five Eyes countries following US are banning Huawei for strategic reasons, not for technical reasons. Telecom infrastructure is strategic industry and US want's to prevent Chinese getting ahead. US can't compete directly because US is out from 4G/LTE/5G game and US based companies are only component providers (Qualcomm and others).
>but nevertheless permitted it to compete for up to 35 percent market share in the country’s access network—that is, its antennae and similar equipment.
There is magical thinking involved if someone thinks that base stations alone completely break national security. Mobile networks involve huge number of components. The components and the software in the mobile core network and services pose more risk than base stations. Interfaces are standardized and you can buy different components from different vendors.
European network operators (especially if they have government contracts) have silently limited what they buy from Huawei. Base stations and most hardware is OK. Operating services, network control, visitor and location registers, mobile switching centers, network monitoring, and rest of the software that deals with the core network can be bought from others. Many EU countries just "happen" to have one or two carriers with strategically shielded core networks without formally banning Huawei.