Quick vote on Huawei for the UK 5g Infrastructure

[neonplanet40]

I think I failed to realise just how much access Huawei already has to our data networks. I know that their equipment is better (with my experience of FTTC) than the others. BT is now saying that under Boris's current plans, they would need to spend £500m+ to change DSLAMS and other equipment in which they are using Huawei to bring it below the 35% limit. Who exactly do we think will ultimately pay for this? No doubt it will scupper (or at the very least, delay significantly) the full FTTP rollout being pursued in England under new Westminster plans.

If Huawei is able to compromise our network in the opinion of those who want them removed from our market completely (and none of us can say with any real confidence whether this is nonsense or not), then why wait till now and 5G? Why did the government not know these risks prior to now and stop so much Huawei equipment from already penetrating our entire infrastructure? OR is it that they knew, but didn't see it as a risk? If so, why change now? OR is it that they knew, but didn't care? At which point, heads should roll?

Maybe I'm just being so silly. I just don't understand how a company that already has its hands throughout our infrastructure is only now such a threat that they shouldn't be used/. But it was fine in the past?

[Smudger]

I think I failed to realise just how much access Huawei already has to our data networks. I know that their equipment is better (with my experience of FTTC) than the others. BT is now saying that under Boris's current plans, they would need to spend £500m+ to change DSLAMS and other equipment in which they are using Huawei to bring it below the 35% limit. Who exactly do we think will ultimately pay for this? No doubt it will scupper (or at the very least, delay significantly) the full FTTP rollout being pursued in England under new Westminster plans.

If Huawei is able to compromise our network in the opinion of those who want them removed from our market completely (and none of us can say with any real confidence whether this is nonsense or not), then why wait till now and 5G? Why did the government not know these risks prior to now and stop so much Huawei equipment from already penetrating our entire infrastructure? OR is it that they knew, but didn't see it as a risk? If so, why change now? OR is it that they knew, but didn't care? At which point, heads should roll?

Maybe I'm just being so silly. I just don't understand how a company that already has its hands throughout our infrastructure is only now such a threat that they shouldn't be used/. But it was fine in the past?

It's not suddenly a threat. Their 5g stuff is miles ahead of anything else. Rather than enticing Cisco etc to up their research and get better, Trump's chosen to try to bring them down to everyone else's level.

[Saracen999]

....

Maybe I'm just being so silly. I just don't understand how a company that already has its hands throughout our infrastructure is only now such a threat that they shouldn't be used/. But it was fine in the past?

Maybe .... first rule of getting out of holes? Stop digging.

Look at it the other way round. Suppose you're doing something and suddenly realise you've been doing it wrong? Maybe, building a wall and find it's not sound won't take the load or is in the wrong place?

Do you shrug and carry on 'cos, hey, I've already built half? Or do you curse under you breath, brace yourself and start doing it right?

Maybe heads should roll. I'm not sure quite whose, but yeah. But if you've been making a mistake it's truly stupid to double or triple down on it and carry on.

Note: Not saging it is or isn't a mixtake. Just answering your question in the quote.


It's also a funny thing about the public and politicians. We berate them if we think something's being done wrong, but if they change course, se berate them for making a u-turn. Sometimes, they just can't win so they do double or triple down.

[Saracen999]

It's not suddenly a threat. Their 5g stuff is miles ahead of anything else. Rather than enticing Cisco etc to up their research and get better, Trump's chosen to try to bring them down to everyone else's level.

It's much more strategic than that, Turmp's point is that Huawei aren't a simple corporate competitor.They're to all purposes an arm of the Chinese state, have recived billions in state aid and are not required to sell at a standard commercial rate. It follows that massive state subsidies are about buying market share, if not market dominance.

And it's the same argument he makes about AirBus and the EU.

Ironically and at the risk of raising a Brexit-related point, it's also exactly the same point the EU make about future EU/UK trade - that if we don't "align" on standards, regulations and state-aid rules, we could provide "unfair" competition.

It's not about Trump bringing others down. It's more strategic. It's about playing in the same game. And it's also essentially the same argument that led to scrapping NAFTA and moving to the USMCA.