Tom Newton Dunn suggesting the strength of tory MP feeling on Huawei is such that a commons defeat is not out of the question, as all opposition parties are anti.
Boris would surely have to resign if he lost the vote - PM not trusted on the fundamental issue of national security etc. If not then, when?
Boris would just throw Huawei under a bus or else we get PM Patel or IDS both of whom are sceptical of the Huawei case to say the least
The latest missive from Farage and Tice. I`ll be there for the gigglez. Any novel ideas as to how to display my "patriotic display of pride" would be most appreciated.
Funny that I seem to remember Farage saying that Boris`s deal isn`t really Brexit?!
"Dear Supporter,
There are just three days to go until Brexit! The plans for our Brexit Celebration event in Parliament Square on January 31st are set. It is a once-in-a-lifetime party and we want it to go as smoothly as possible.
You do not need to have registered your interest to attend as anyone can come along and join in this joyful occasion. All are welcome to join us in marking this constitutional milestone in friendship and unity.
The festivities start at 9pm and end at 11pm. Whilst the event is free, we hope that those who can make a donation (recommended minimum of £10) will do so.
Click Here to Donate The speakers will include:
1. Tim Martin 2. Julia Hartley-Brewer 3. Ann Widdecombe 4. Michelle Dewberry 5. Richard Tice 6. Nigel Farage
We would also like to ask everyone come in good voice to sing some patriotic songs and bring along as many Union flags as they can, to wave in a patriotic display of pride. Finally, we want to make you aware that Westminster is a 'Controlled Drinking Zone' so it is advisable that you do not bring alcohol along.
We look forward to seeing you all there. Let's make it a night to remember! "
Take along an EU flag?
What a risible lineup. Only Farage is worth listening to from that lot.
The latest missive from Farage and Tice. I`ll be there for the gigglez. Any novel ideas as to how to display my "patriotic display of pride" would be most appreciated.
Funny that I seem to remember Farage saying that Boris`s deal isn`t really Brexit?!
"Dear Supporter,
There are just three days to go until Brexit! The plans for our Brexit Celebration event in Parliament Square on January 31st are set. It is a once-in-a-lifetime party and we want it to go as smoothly as possible.
You do not need to have registered your interest to attend as anyone can come along and join in this joyful occasion. All are welcome to join us in marking this constitutional milestone in friendship and unity.
The festivities start at 9pm and end at 11pm. Whilst the event is free, we hope that those who can make a donation (recommended minimum of £10) will do so.
Click Here to Donate The speakers will include:
1. Tim Martin 2. Julia Hartley-Brewer 3. Ann Widdecombe 4. Michelle Dewberry 5. Richard Tice 6. Nigel Farage
We would also like to ask everyone come in good voice to sing some patriotic songs and bring along as many Union flags as they can, to wave in a patriotic display of pride. Finally, we want to make you aware that Westminster is a 'Controlled Drinking Zone' so it is advisable that you do not bring alcohol along.
We look forward to seeing you all there. Let's make it a night to remember! "
Take along an EU flag?
What a risible lineup. Only Farage is worth listening to from that lot.
"Westminster is a 'Controlled Drinking Zone' so it is advisable that you do not bring alcohol along."
They expect me to listen to the little englander drivel that that lot of speakers will be doing without alcohol????!!!
IANAE on these matters but the decision on Huawei seems consistent with the mantra of this government to date. Let's get things done. After the dithering and pointless nonsense of the remainer Parliament I think people are welcoming that, hence these numbers.
The latest missive from Farage and Tice. I`ll be there for the gigglez. Any novel ideas as to how to display my "patriotic display of pride" would be most appreciated.
Funny that I seem to remember Farage saying that Boris`s deal isn`t really Brexit?!
"Dear Supporter,
There are just three days to go until Brexit! The plans for our Brexit Celebration event in Parliament Square on January 31st are set. It is a once-in-a-lifetime party and we want it to go as smoothly as possible.
You do not need to have registered your interest to attend as anyone can come along and join in this joyful occasion. All are welcome to join us in marking this constitutional milestone in friendship and unity.
The festivities start at 9pm and end at 11pm. Whilst the event is free, we hope that those who can make a donation (recommended minimum of £10) will do so.
Click Here to Donate The speakers will include:
1. Tim Martin 2. Julia Hartley-Brewer 3. Ann Widdecombe 4. Michelle Dewberry 5. Richard Tice 6. Nigel Farage
We would also like to ask everyone come in good voice to sing some patriotic songs and bring along as many Union flags as they can, to wave in a patriotic display of pride. Finally, we want to make you aware that Westminster is a 'Controlled Drinking Zone' so it is advisable that you do not bring alcohol along.
We look forward to seeing you all there. Let's make it a night to remember! "
Take along an EU flag?
What a risible lineup. Only Farage is worth listening to from that lot.
The whole thing make me feel nauseous. The cheek of the bloke - making it sound like its HIS event - when actually anyone can go along as it`s a public space.
Tom Newton Dunn suggesting the strength of tory MP feeling on Huawei is such that a commons defeat is not out of the question, as all opposition parties are anti.
Boris would surely have to resign if he lost the vote - PM not trusted on the fundamental issue of national security etc. If not then, when?
Boris would just throw Huawei under a bus or else we get PM Patel or IDS both of whom are sceptical of the Huawei case to say the least
Patel or IDS as PM. Quick way to hand votes back to Starmer
Why make things like this a priority? would nationalised water provide a more reliable service? it already is pretty reliable, would it be cheaper?
Mail was only privatised a few years ago, has anybody noticed any difference? in a declining industry with intense competition on the profitable parcels side, how would a nationalised Royal Mail provide a better or cheaper service?
People over 50 will remember how terrible the former British Rail was, who wants to go back to that again?
This is just to appease unions who want cosy subsidised jobs for their members. I thought Labour was supposed to be learning lessons from their defeat last month!
If you think the Corbyn/Burgon end of Labour are really interested in learning lessons then I have a bridge to sell you.
The latest missive from Farage and Tice. I`ll be there for the gigglez. Any novel ideas as to how to display my "patriotic display of pride" would be most appreciated.
Funny that I seem to remember Farage saying that Boris`s deal isn`t really Brexit?!
"Dear Supporter,
There are just three days to go until Brexit! The plans for our Brexit Celebration event in Parliament Square on January 31st are set. It is a once-in-a-lifetime party and we want it to go as smoothly as possible.
You do not need to have registered your interest to attend as anyone can come along and join in this joyful occasion. All are welcome to join us in marking this constitutional milestone in friendship and unity.
The festivities start at 9pm and end at 11pm. Whilst the event is free, we hope that those who can make a donation (recommended minimum of £10) will do so.
Click Here to Donate The speakers will include:
1. Tim Martin 2. Julia Hartley-Brewer 3. Ann Widdecombe 4. Michelle Dewberry 5. Richard Tice 6. Nigel Farage
We would also like to ask everyone come in good voice to sing some patriotic songs and bring along as many Union flags as they can, to wave in a patriotic display of pride. Finally, we want to make you aware that Westminster is a 'Controlled Drinking Zone' so it is advisable that you do not bring alcohol along.
We look forward to seeing you all there. Let's make it a night to remember! "
Take along an EU flag?
What a risible lineup. Only Farage is worth listening to from that lot.
The only one I find interesting is Michelle Dewberry, especially with her back story
If she's jumped, it meaningfully increases the chances that Murkowski, Romney and Gardner do too.
Which even then only gets the convict vote to 51 when it needs 67
This isn't about conviction. It's about Bolton and others standing up in front of the Senate and giving evidence about a quid pro quo.
The Republicans wanted a simply vote and a simple acquittal and no headlines.
And, by the way, the Bolton allegations about Turkey are potentially very serious.
Trump's base will not care and against Sanders independents will have other concerns
Of course not.
But not all the 62,984,828 people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 were part of the base. There were lots of people in there who held their noses and voted for him because they thought he was better than Hillary Clinton.
And you're getting rather ahead of yourself with Sanders. 538 and the betting markets make him as 25-33% chance of getting the nomination (and I suspect the right number is probably more 10-15%.)
The latest missive from Farage and Tice. I`ll be there for the gigglez. Any novel ideas as to how to display my "patriotic display of pride" would be most appreciated.
Funny that I seem to remember Farage saying that Boris`s deal isn`t really Brexit?!
"Dear Supporter,
There are just three days to go until Brexit! The plans for our Brexit Celebration event in Parliament Square on January 31st are set. It is a once-in-a-lifetime party and we want it to go as smoothly as possible.
You do not need to have registered your interest to attend as anyone can come along and join in this joyful occasion. All are welcome to join us in marking this constitutional milestone in friendship and unity.
The festivities start at 9pm and end at 11pm. Whilst the event is free, we hope that those who can make a donation (recommended minimum of £10) will do so.
Click Here to Donate The speakers will include:
1. Tim Martin 2. Julia Hartley-Brewer 3. Ann Widdecombe 4. Michelle Dewberry 5. Richard Tice 6. Nigel Farage
We would also like to ask everyone come in good voice to sing some patriotic songs and bring along as many Union flags as they can, to wave in a patriotic display of pride. Finally, we want to make you aware that Westminster is a 'Controlled Drinking Zone' so it is advisable that you do not bring alcohol along.
We look forward to seeing you all there. Let's make it a night to remember! "
Take along an EU flag?
What a risible lineup. Only Farage is worth listening to from that lot.
"Westminster is a 'Controlled Drinking Zone' so it is advisable that you do not bring alcohol along."
They expect me to listen to the little englander drivel that that lot of speakers will be doing without alcohol????!!!
The thing is though - it`s a major historical event, whether you agree with it or not. It is gruesome to be sure but I think that if you don`t go you`ll regret not being witness to it in years to come.
In good, albeit personal, news, I've been signed off by the prostate cancer people for another 6 months. Testosterone levels are up, so I might well get argumentative!
If she's jumped, it meaningfully increases the chances that Murkowski, Romney and Gardner do too.
Is it? The quid pro quo for calling Bolton is likely to be calling Hunter Biden. I don't think his dad will want that.
The timelines are really interesting here. Because if the Iowa caucuses happen and Biden has flopped (which is far from impossible), then the Democrats may say "fuck it, Biden's not going to be the nominee, we might as well roll the dice."
On the other hand, if Biden has won Iowa (or placed a strong second to Sanders), then they'll not want to take the risk of holing the establishment candidate.
If she's jumped, it meaningfully increases the chances that Murkowski, Romney and Gardner do too.
Which even then only gets the convict vote to 51 when it needs 67
This isn't about conviction. It's about Bolton and others standing up in front of the Senate and giving evidence about a quid pro quo.
The Republicans wanted a simply vote and a simple acquittal and no headlines.
And, by the way, the Bolton allegations about Turkey are potentially very serious.
Trump's base will not care and against Sanders independents will have other concerns
Of course not.
But not all the 62,984,828 people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 were part of the base. There were lots of people in there who held their noses and voted for him because they thought he was better than Hillary Clinton.
And you're getting rather ahead of yourself with Sanders. 538 and the betting markets make him as 25-33% chance of getting the nomination (and I suspect the right number is probably more 10-15%.)
Oh come on, come on.
What the electorate will see is that the democrats are so desperate to discredit the result of the voters last deliberations they will put on the stand a man whose testimony is contained in a book he has to sell.
A man who was fired in acrimonious circumstances by the man he is to testify against.
If she's jumped, it meaningfully increases the chances that Murkowski, Romney and Gardner do too.
Is it? The quid pro quo for calling Bolton is likely to be calling Hunter Biden. I don't think his dad will want that.
The timelines are really interesting here. Because if the Iowa caucuses happen and Biden has flopped (which is far from impossible), then the Democrats may say "fuck it, Biden's not going to be the nominee, we might as well roll the dice."
On the other hand, if Biden has won Iowa (or placed a strong second to Sanders), then they'll not want to take the risk of holing the establishment candidate.
Yep, I think that the Democratic establishment live in fear of Sanders and will do all they can to boost Biden if no other centrist catches fire. My guess is that if the Republicans hold out for the quid pro quo the idea of witnesses will be dropped.
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
You're sat in Number 10. What would you have done?
Delay until other suppliers are ready. If everyone starts belly aching then start some kind of process to help find out why the West is losing the 21st century to China and what we want to do about it.
They are building the technology for total state control. Wake up UK!
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
You're sat in Number 10. What would you have done?
Delay until other suppliers are ready. If everyone starts belly aching then start some kind of process to help find out why the West is losing the 21st century to China and what we want to do about it.
They are building the technology for total state control. Wake up UK!
If she's jumped, it meaningfully increases the chances that Murkowski, Romney and Gardner do too.
Which even then only gets the convict vote to 51 when it needs 67
This isn't about conviction. It's about Bolton and others standing up in front of the Senate and giving evidence about a quid pro quo.
The Republicans wanted a simply vote and a simple acquittal and no headlines.
And, by the way, the Bolton allegations about Turkey are potentially very serious.
Trump's base will not care and against Sanders independents will have other concerns
Of course not.
But not all the 62,984,828 people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 were part of the base. There were lots of people in there who held their noses and voted for him because they thought he was better than Hillary Clinton.
And you're getting rather ahead of yourself with Sanders. 538 and the betting markets make him as 25-33% chance of getting the nomination (and I suspect the right number is probably more 10-15%.)
Oh come on, come on.
What the electorate will see is that the democrats are so desperate to discredit the result of the voters last deliberations they will put on the stand a man whose testimony is contained in a book he has to sell.
A man who was fired in acrimonious circumstances by the man he is to testify against.
Please.
I don't tend to think in terms of big bangs, but in terms of drip, drip, drip.
There are rarely big discontinuities. But the drip, drip, drip of stories has an effect. Bolton has served three Presidents in senior positions. So his words will carry some weight. Not enough to persuade those who already see Trump as their champion (which is tens of millions), but enough that maybe an anti-Hillary voter in Wisconsin decides to stay home this year.
Tom Newton Dunn suggesting the strength of tory MP feeling on Huawei is such that a commons defeat is not out of the question, as all opposition parties are anti.
The Government's working majority is 87. Do 44 MPs really fancy ending their careers a month into the new Parliament? I doubt it.
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
That’s a very concerning thread. It seems like China is basically doing a pump & dump, and know once they’re in they’ll be almost impossible to get out again.
Today’s decision is probably one we’ll live to regret.
Tom Newton Dunn suggesting the strength of tory MP feeling on Huawei is such that a commons defeat is not out of the question, as all opposition parties are anti.
The Government's working majority is 87. Do 44 MPs really fancy ending their careers a month into the new Parliament? I doubt it.
Why would a decision of the National Security Council be put to the House of Commons anyway?
I once had to listen to Ann Widdecombe give an after dinner speech in a warm comfortable room, fortified by food and copious amounts of good alcohol. Nothing would induce me to stand outside on a January night without even the comfort of a can of Stella Artois.
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
That’s a very concerning thread. It seems like China is basically doing a pump & dump, and know once they’re in they’ll be almost impossible to get out again.
Today’s decision is probably one we’ll live to regret.
This is just a warm up. Wait until they start on their AI stuff.
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
You're sat in Number 10. What would you have done?
Delay until other suppliers are ready. If everyone starts belly aching then start some kind of process to help find out why the West is losing the 21st century to China and what we want to do about it.
They are building the technology for total state control. Wake up UK!
It seems that this decisions will be followed by countries in Europe and others who have been considering Huawei themselves
It was a difficult decision but the right one which should bring internet connections to thousands in this country who may have had to wait years
Well this is what I was saying earlier, Huawei has benefited from billions in subsidies to monopolise the 5G market. Now it's going to try and put the rest of them out of business by undercutting competitor prices.
It's tech dumping and really the EU, US and UK should have discussed this 3 years ago and presented a united front against Chinese tech dumping and frozen Huawei and other Chinese tech companies out of Western markets until the subsidies were eliminated.
Basically we let the fox into the henhouse 5 years ago and now we're wondering why it ate all the hens.
I once had to listen to Ann Widdecombe give an after dinner speech in a warm comfortable room, fortified by food and copious amounts of good alcohol. Nothing would induce me to stand outside on a January night without even the comfort of a can of Stella Artois.
If she broke in and I awoke with her looming over me I`d properly shit myself.
Well this is what I was saying earlier, Huawei has benefited from billions in subsidies to monopolise the 5G market. Now it's going to try and put the rest of them out of business by undercutting competitor prices.
It's tech dumping and really the EU, US and UK should have discussed this 3 years ago and presented a united front against Chinese tech dumping and frozen Huawei and other Chinese tech companies out of Western markets until the subsidies were eliminated.
Basically we let the fox into the henhouse 5 years ago and now we're wondering why it ate all the hens.
It's also compounded by the fact that Ericsson got really greedy towards the end of 4G and started trying to tie expensive managed services contracts to equipment sales.
I keep saying this, and I'm going to say it again, but it's crucially important that the 35% refers to the air interface alone. If it's across the whole 5G network, then it's entirely possible that Huawei ends up with 100% of the air interface, in which case the 35% limit was no limit at all.
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
You're sat in Number 10. What would you have done?
Delay until other suppliers are ready. If everyone starts belly aching then start some kind of process to help find out why the West is losing the 21st century to China and what we want to do about it.
They are building the technology for total state control. Wake up UK!
What are Huawei actually supplying? AIUI 5G is just 4G on a rather better part of the radio spectrum with more capacity. So are they supplying radio masts? What will allow them to harvest, sample or even be aware of the messages passed through their hardware?
These are genuine questions that I don't know the answer to. What the Chinese are doing in China seems to be much more based on software such as that used by Google and Facebook where the messages are "read" by computer/algorithms and information extracted. Will Huawei be able to do this? If so, how?
Well this is what I was saying earlier, Huawei has benefited from billions in subsidies to monopolise the 5G market. Now it's going to try and put the rest of them out of business by undercutting competitor prices.
It's tech dumping and really the EU, US and UK should have discussed this 3 years ago and presented a united front against Chinese tech dumping and frozen Huawei and other Chinese tech companies out of Western markets until the subsidies were eliminated.
Basically we let the fox into the henhouse 5 years ago and now we're wondering why it ate all the hens.
It's also compounded by the fact that Ericsson got really greedy towards the end of 4G and started trying to tie expensive managed services contracts to equipment sales.
Yes indeed, and Nokia basically being completely useless, and the EU investigating Nokia and Ericsson for patent monopolisation, and the US targeting Qualcomm with lawsuits etc...
It's just been a whole bunch of fucking terrible decision making and it's left the west at the mercy of a pretty awful Chinese state owned tech company.
Honestly, Boris has an opportunity here to broker a Western response to Chinese tech dumping. He needs to get the US, EU and other players around a table and actually figure out how to stop China completely destroying our tech companies.
On Friday we take our first step into the world unencumbered by empire. Verhofstadt is wrong. Globalisation has slowed in response to the disruptive impact of hyper-globalisation. Western democracies are looking to restore their nation states and repair their domestic social contracts with their alienated voters. Britain is leading the way, overcoming populism to forge a democratic nationhood, open to building a strong relationship with our European neighbours and further afield. It is time to end the doom-mongering. The future is in our hands.
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
You're sat in Number 10. What would you have done?
Delay until other suppliers are ready. If everyone starts belly aching then start some kind of process to help find out why the West is losing the 21st century to China and what we want to do about it.
They are building the technology for total state control. Wake up UK!
What are Huawei actually supplying? AIUI 5G is just 4G on a rather better part of the radio spectrum with more capacity. So are they supplying radio masts? What will allow them to harvest, sample or even be aware of the messages passed through their hardware?
These are genuine questions that I don't know the answer to. What the Chinese are doing in China seems to be much more based on software such as that used by Google and Facebook where the messages are "read" by computer/algorithms and information extracted. Will Huawei be able to do this? If so, how?
No, 5G is a specific technology that requires new radio transmitters, new fibre backhaul, a 4G to 5G handover for handsets. It's basically going to form the backbone of the internet for the next 20 years. The worry is that once embedded, it will be extremely expensive to remove the equipment even when the likes of Nokia catch up with viable replacement technology. That 35% should be seen as a minimim, not a cap IMO.
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
You're sat in Number 10. What would you have done?
Delay until other suppliers are ready. If everyone starts belly aching then start some kind of process to help find out why the West is losing the 21st century to China and what we want to do about it.
They are building the technology for total state control. Wake up UK!
What are Huawei actually supplying? AIUI 5G is just 4G on a rather better part of the radio spectrum with more capacity. So are they supplying radio masts? What will allow them to harvest, sample or even be aware of the messages passed through their hardware?
These are genuine questions that I don't know the answer to. What the Chinese are doing in China seems to be much more based on software such as that used by Google and Facebook where the messages are "read" by computer/algorithms and information extracted. Will Huawei be able to do this? If so, how?
My understanding, and I used to be more of an expert in this area than I am now, is that Huawei is looking to monopolise the air interface. This is the bit that attachs to the antannae and converts the radio waves into a flow of packets.
It will not be easily possible to spy on the contents of the messages, as deep packet inspection is extremely computationally intensive. And it won't be possible to send all the messages to China, as that would be really obvious to anyone doing network traffic analysis.
What could happen (although it's pretty theoretical), is that Huawei could throw a remote kill switch, and effectively turn off the UK's 5G network.
That's a pretty awesome power to hand to an incredibly opaque organisation owned by the People's Liberation Army.
My view is that if Huawei was an ordinary Chinese company (like ZTE or a hundred others), then I would be relatively relaxed. But it's not. It's an arm of the Chinese State Security Apparatus. It would be like allowing a company owned by the CIA to build the UK's telecoms network.
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
You're sat in Number 10. What would you have done?
Delay until other suppliers are ready. If everyone starts belly aching then start some kind of process to help find out why the West is losing the 21st century to China and what we want to do about it.
They are building the technology for total state control. Wake up UK!
What are Huawei actually supplying? AIUI 5G is just 4G on a rather better part of the radio spectrum with more capacity. So are they supplying radio masts? What will allow them to harvest, sample or even be aware of the messages passed through their hardware?
These are genuine questions that I don't know the answer to. What the Chinese are doing in China seems to be much more based on software such as that used by Google and Facebook where the messages are "read" by computer/algorithms and information extracted. Will Huawei be able to do this? If so, how?
No, 5G is a specific technology that requires new radio transmitters, new fibre backhaul, a 4G to 5G handover for handsets. It's basically going to form the backbone of the internet for the next 20 years. The worry is that once embedded, it will be extremely expensive to remove the equipment even when the likes of Nokia catch up with viable replacement technology. That 35% should be seen as a minimim, not a cap IMO.
But this is just hardware. Its like saying the person who controls the electric cables to my printer has some say or knowledge about what I print. To extract data from this cabling would require truly massive quantities of data. It could not possibly happen without people being aware.
I get the point that we don't want to become technologically inferior to the Chinese and I get the point that being dependent upon them for essential services is not ideal but I am really struggling to see a security aspect to it.
I actually think if the US had gone down the illegal subsidies route with Huawei instead of security concerns the EU would have been much more favourable to the argument. Nokia has a huge presence in France and Germany and Ericsson is basically the European champion for this kind of stuff. Both are going to put out of business in the next 5 years by Huawei as European network providees decide that Huawei is bothe cheaper and better than anything being offered by these two.
Well this is what I was saying earlier, Huawei has benefited from billions in subsidies to monopolise the 5G market. Now it's going to try and put the rest of them out of business by undercutting competitor prices.
It's tech dumping and really the EU, US and UK should have discussed this 3 years ago and presented a united front against Chinese tech dumping and frozen Huawei and other Chinese tech companies out of Western markets until the subsidies were eliminated.
Basically we let the fox into the henhouse 5 years ago and now we're wondering why it ate all the hens.
It's also compounded by the fact that Ericsson got really greedy towards the end of 4G and started trying to tie expensive managed services contracts to equipment sales.
Yes indeed, and Nokia basically being completely useless, and the EU investigating Nokia and Ericsson for patent monopolisation, and the US targeting Qualcomm with lawsuits etc...
It's just been a whole bunch of fucking terrible decision making and it's left the west at the mercy of a pretty awful Chinese state owned tech company.
Honestly, Boris has an opportunity here to broker a Western response to Chinese tech dumping. He needs to get the US, EU and other players around a table and actually figure out how to stop China completely destroying our tech companies.
Well, Nokia's problem is that it's a roll-up of roll-ups. Their network business is Alcatel + Lucent + Siemens + Nokia. It's a collection of subscale businesses that they've struggled to get onto a single technology platform. (And a reminder that M&A is rarely the solution to any company's problems.)
But yes, the issue is that Huawei is subsidised by the Chinese State with the express purpose of dominating other country's infrastructure.
Well this is what I was saying earlier, Huawei has benefited from billions in subsidies to monopolise the 5G market. Now it's going to try and put the rest of them out of business by undercutting competitor prices.
It's tech dumping and really the EU, US and UK should have discussed this 3 years ago and presented a united front against Chinese tech dumping and frozen Huawei and other Chinese tech companies out of Western markets until the subsidies were eliminated.
Basically we let the fox into the henhouse 5 years ago and now we're wondering why it ate all the hens.
It's also compounded by the fact that Ericsson got really greedy towards the end of 4G and started trying to tie expensive managed services contracts to equipment sales.
Yes indeed, and Nokia basically being completely useless, and the EU investigating Nokia and Ericsson for patent monopolisation, and the US targeting Qualcomm with lawsuits etc...
It's just been a whole bunch of fucking terrible decision making and it's left the west at the mercy of a pretty awful Chinese state owned tech company.
Honestly, Boris has an opportunity here to broker a Western response to Chinese tech dumping. He needs to get the US, EU and other players around a table and actually figure out how to stop China completely destroying our tech companies.
Back in the day I remember the Japanese ministry of trade and industry (MITI) being accused of doing the same (but in completely different markets).
I actually think if the US had gone down the illegal subsidies route with Huawei instead of security concerns the EU would have been much more favourable to the argument. Nokia has a huge presence in France and Germany and Ericsson is basically the European champion for this kind of stuff. Both are going to put out of business in the next 5 years by Huawei as European network providees decide that Huawei is bothe cheaper and better than anything being offered by these two.
Yes, dumping and illegal subsidy seems a much more valid and credible point to me.
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
You're sat in Number 10. What would you have done?
Delay until other suppliers are ready. If everyone starts belly aching then start some kind of process to help find out why the West is losing the 21st century to China and what we want to do about it.
They are building the technology for total state control. Wake up UK!
What are Huawei actually supplying? AIUI 5G is just 4G on a rather better part of the radio spectrum with more capacity. So are they supplying radio masts? What will allow them to harvest, sample or even be aware of the messages passed through their hardware?
These are genuine questions that I don't know the answer to. What the Chinese are doing in China seems to be much more based on software such as that used by Google and Facebook where the messages are "read" by computer/algorithms and information extracted. Will Huawei be able to do this? If so, how?
My understanding, and I used to be more of an expert in this area than I am now, is that Huawei is looking to monopolise the air interface. This is the bit that attachs to the antannae and converts the radio waves into a flow of packets.
It will not be easily possible to spy on the contents of the messages, as deep packet inspection is extremely computationally intensive. And it won't be possible to send all the messages to China, as that would be really obvious to anyone doing network traffic analysis.
What could happen (although it's pretty theoretical), is that Huawei could throw a remote kill switch, and effectively turn off the UK's 5G network.
That's a pretty awesome power to hand to an incredibly opaque organisation owned by the People's Liberation Army.
My view is that if Huawei was an ordinary Chinese company (like ZTE or a hundred others), then I would be relatively relaxed. But it's not. It's an arm of the Chinese State Security Apparatus. It would be like allowing a company owned by the CIA to build the UK's telecoms network.
Do you think it is possible to build in a kill switch without us noticing? It seems unlikely. I would be more worried about them getting to build a nuclear bomb/power station in southern England.
I actually think if the US had gone down the illegal subsidies route with Huawei instead of security concerns the EU would have been much more favourable to the argument. Nokia has a huge presence in France and Germany and Ericsson is basically the European champion for this kind of stuff. Both are going to put out of business in the next 5 years by Huawei as European network providees decide that Huawei is bothe cheaper and better than anything being offered by these two.
Ericsson's not going to get put out of business because it makes all its real money running other people's networks. And those contracts last decades, and earn Ericsson very high margins. Once you've outsourced network management to your equipment vendor, it becomes incredibly expensive to bring it back in house.
I keep saying this, and I'm going to say it again, but it's crucially important that the 35% refers to the air interface alone. If it's across the whole 5G network, then it's entirely possible that Huawei ends up with 100% of the air interface, in which case the 35% limit was no limit at all.
"Specifically, the restrictions exclude “high risk vendors” from sensitive ‘core’ network functions and limit their presence in the radio access network (RAN) to a hard cap of 35%. The 35% limit applies to the volume of expected traffic on any particular network that passes through Huawei (or any single high risk vendor) equipment and the percentage of base station sites nationally supplied by a vendor."
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
You're sat in Number 10. What would you have done?
Delay until other suppliers are ready. If everyone starts belly aching then start some kind of process to help find out why the West is losing the 21st century to China and what we want to do about it.
They are building the technology for total state control. Wake up UK!
What are Huawei actually supplying? AIUI 5G is just 4G on a rather better part of the radio spectrum with more capacity. So are they supplying radio masts? What will allow them to harvest, sample or even be aware of the messages passed through their hardware?
These are genuine questions that I don't know the answer to. What the Chinese are doing in China seems to be much more based on software such as that used by Google and Facebook where the messages are "read" by computer/algorithms and information extracted. Will Huawei be able to do this? If so, how?
My understanding, and I used to be more of an expert in this area than I am now, is that Huawei is looking to monopolise the air interface. This is the bit that attachs to the antannae and converts the radio waves into a flow of packets.
It will not be easily possible to spy on the contents of the messages, as deep packet inspection is extremely computationally intensive. And it won't be possible to send all the messages to China, as that would be really obvious to anyone doing network traffic analysis.
What could happen (although it's pretty theoretical), is that Huawei could throw a remote kill switch, and effectively turn off the UK's 5G network.
That's a pretty awesome power to hand to an incredibly opaque organisation owned by the People's Liberation Army.
My view is that if Huawei was an ordinary Chinese company (like ZTE or a hundred others), then I would be relatively relaxed. But it's not. It's an arm of the Chinese State Security Apparatus. It would be like allowing a company owned by the CIA to build the UK's telecoms network.
Do you think it is possible to build in a kill switch without us noticing? It seems unlikely. I would be more worried about them getting to build a nuclear bomb/power station in southern England.
But they're not building the nuclear power station. They're providing the financing for the French to build a power station. There are no Chinese engineers running round Hinley Point putting their equipment in... it's all bought (and installed) by the nice people from Areva and Siemens.
Well this is what I was saying earlier, Huawei has benefited from billions in subsidies to monopolise the 5G market. Now it's going to try and put the rest of them out of business by undercutting competitor prices.
It's tech dumping and really the EU, US and UK should have discussed this 3 years ago and presented a united front against Chinese tech dumping and frozen Huawei and other Chinese tech companies out of Western markets until the subsidies were eliminated.
Basically we let the fox into the henhouse 5 years ago and now we're wondering why it ate all the hens.
It's also compounded by the fact that Ericsson got really greedy towards the end of 4G and started trying to tie expensive managed services contracts to equipment sales.
Yes indeed, and Nokia basically being completely useless, and the EU investigating Nokia and Ericsson for patent monopolisation, and the US targeting Qualcomm with lawsuits etc...
It's just been a whole bunch of fucking terrible decision making and it's left the west at the mercy of a pretty awful Chinese state owned tech company.
Honestly, Boris has an opportunity here to broker a Western response to Chinese tech dumping. He needs to get the US, EU and other players around a table and actually figure out how to stop China completely destroying our tech companies.
Well, Nokia's problem is that it's a roll-up of roll-ups. Their network business is Alcatel + Lucent + Siemens + Nokia. It's a collection of subscale businesses that they've struggled to get onto a single technology platform. (And a reminder that M&A is rarely the solution to any company's problems.)
But yes, the issue is that Huawei is subsidised by the Chinese State with the express purpose of dominating other country's infrastructure.
Yes, it's a company without any real direction as all of the different parts of it want to do different things and they all hate the other parts of the company and hate that they weren't successful enough to either go it alone or be the major player. It's a disaster company, but it does have a lot of IP and a management change would make a huge difference.
The US, in some manner, are doing something about it. What is the EU doing?
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
You're sat in Number 10. What would you have done?
Delay until other suppliers are ready. If everyone starts belly aching then start some kind of process to help find out why the West is losing the 21st century to China and what we want to do about it.
They are building the technology for total state control. Wake up UK!
What are Huawei actually supplying? AIUI 5G is just 4G on a rather better part of the radio spectrum with more capacity. So are they supplying radio masts? What will allow them to harvest, sample or even be aware of the messages passed through their hardware?
These are genuine questions that I don't know the answer to. What the Chinese are doing in China seems to be much more based on software such as that used by Google and Facebook where the messages are "read" by computer/algorithms and information extracted. Will Huawei be able to do this? If so, how?
My understanding, and I used to be more of an expert in this area than I am now, is that Huawei is looking to monopolise the air interface. This is the bit that attachs to the antannae and converts the radio waves into a flow of packets.
It will not be easily possible to spy on the contents of the messages, as deep packet inspection is extremely computationally intensive. And it won't be possible to send all the messages to China, as that would be really obvious to anyone doing network traffic analysis.
What could happen (although it's pretty theoretical), is that Huawei could throw a remote kill switch, and effectively turn off the UK's 5G network.
That's a pretty awesome power to hand to an incredibly opaque organisation owned by the People's Liberation Army.
My view is that if Huawei was an ordinary Chinese company (like ZTE or a hundred others), then I would be relatively relaxed. But it's not. It's an arm of the Chinese State Security Apparatus. It would be like allowing a company owned by the CIA to build the UK's telecoms network.
Do you think it is possible to build in a kill switch without us noticing? It seems unlikely. I would be more worried about them getting to build a nuclear bomb/power station in southern England.
And re the kill switch: yes, absolutely. It wouldn't be difficult at all.
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
You're sat in Number 10. What would you have done?
Delay until other suppliers are ready. If everyone starts belly aching then start some kind of process to help find out why the West is losing the 21st century to China and what we want to do about it.
They are building the technology for total state control. Wake up UK!
What are Huawei actually supplying? AIUI 5G is just 4G on a rather better part of the radio spectrum with more capacity. So are they supplying radio masts? What will allow them to harvest, sample or even be aware of the messages passed through their hardware?
These are genuine questions that I don't know the answer to. What the Chinese are doing in China seems to be much more based on software such as that used by Google and Facebook where the messages are "read" by computer/algorithms and information extracted. Will Huawei be able to do this? If so, how?
My understanding, and I used to be more of an expert in this area than I am now, is that Huawei is looking to monopolise the air interface. This is the bit that attachs to the antannae and converts the radio waves into a flow of packets.
It will not be easily possible to spy on the contents of the messages, as deep packet inspection is extremely computationally intensive. And it won't be possible to send all the messages to China, as that would be really obvious to anyone doing network traffic analysis.
What could happen (although it's pretty theoretical), is that Huawei could throw a remote kill switch, and effectively turn off the UK's 5G network.
That's a pretty awesome power to hand to an incredibly opaque organisation owned by the People's Liberation Army.
My view is that if Huawei was an ordinary Chinese company (like ZTE or a hundred others), then I would be relatively relaxed. But it's not. It's an arm of the Chinese State Security Apparatus. It would be like allowing a company owned by the CIA to build the UK's telecoms network.
Do you think it is possible to build in a kill switch without us noticing? It seems unlikely. I would be more worried about them getting to build a nuclear bomb/power station in southern England.
But they're not building the nuclear power station. They're providing the financing for the French to build a power station. There are no Chinese engineers running round Hinley Point putting their equipment in... it's all bought (and installed) by the nice people from Areva and Siemens.
I keep saying this, and I'm going to say it again, but it's crucially important that the 35% refers to the air interface alone. If it's across the whole 5G network, then it's entirely possible that Huawei ends up with 100% of the air interface, in which case the 35% limit was no limit at all.
"Specifically, the restrictions exclude “high risk vendors” from sensitive ‘core’ network functions and limit their presence in the radio access network (RAN) to a hard cap of 35%. The 35% limit applies to the volume of expected traffic on any particular network that passes through Huawei (or any single high risk vendor) equipment and the percentage of base station sites nationally supplied by a vendor."
The Labour benches were empty for the Huawei announcement. May picked up on Raab’s comment about “creating capabilities”among friendly states as critical for the future
I actually think if the US had gone down the illegal subsidies route with Huawei instead of security concerns the EU would have been much more favourable to the argument. Nokia has a huge presence in France and Germany and Ericsson is basically the European champion for this kind of stuff. Both are going to put out of business in the next 5 years by Huawei as European network providees decide that Huawei is bothe cheaper and better than anything being offered by these two.
Ericsson's not going to get put out of business because it makes all its real money running other people's networks. And those contracts last decades, and earn Ericsson very high margins. Once you've outsourced network management to your equipment vendor, it becomes incredibly expensive to bring it back in house.
But it's eventually going to realise that it's better at the services game than the "let's actually make stuff" game. How long until they exit network hardware sales entirely? Especially given they aren't exactly making waves with 5G.
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
That’s a very concerning thread. It seems like China is basically doing a pump & dump, and know once they’re in they’ll be almost impossible to get out again.
Today’s decision is probably one we’ll live to regret.
Of course it is.
I am enjoying - in a rather despairing sort of way - the naivety of those saying that the decision has been made by the National Security Council, as if this was some independent forum stuffed full of experts. Well it isn’t. It’s a forum consisting of a subset of Ministers with Sir Mark Sedwill, a career civil servant, as the advisor.
They get advice from intelligence agencies of course. But there are a number of points to note:-
1. Those agencies have said - repeatedly - in clear terms that there is a serious risk with Huawei. And that they can try to mitigate them but there is no certainty that such mitigation will be successful either now or in the future.
2. The question that is asked is critical. What appears to have been asked is how to mitigate the risks associated with this vendor. In other words, the decision was made and the NSC was asked to come up with some figleaf for it ie the mitigation efforts which even the spooks doubt can be successful. You can always get the answer you want if you ask a limited question.
3. What does not appear to have been done is any sort of cost benefit analysis of the risks associated with this vendor vs the costs / benefits of other courses of action.
4. No thought appears to have been given to the anti-competitive practices of Huawei and those behind it and the costs associated with this for our country. Nor how in reality the 35% market share limitation is going to be enforced.
Finally, it would be interesting to know what sort of lobbying by Huawei there has been and what sort of links, of all types, with Ministers and advisors there are or have been. Perhaps it could be an addendum to the Russian report.
I keep saying this, and I'm going to say it again, but it's crucially important that the 35% refers to the air interface alone. If it's across the whole 5G network, then it's entirely possible that Huawei ends up with 100% of the air interface, in which case the 35% limit was no limit at all.
"Specifically, the restrictions exclude “high risk vendors” from sensitive ‘core’ network functions and limit their presence in the radio access network (RAN) to a hard cap of 35%. The 35% limit applies to the volume of expected traffic on any particular network that passes through Huawei (or any single high risk vendor) equipment and the percentage of base station sites nationally supplied by a vendor."
Phew. That's my biggest concern assuaged.
35% through any single vendor, so the Chinese government could open up a new telecoms equipment company called Buawei and get another 35%. It doesn't strike me as watertight.
I keep saying this, and I'm going to say it again, but it's crucially important that the 35% refers to the air interface alone. If it's across the whole 5G network, then it's entirely possible that Huawei ends up with 100% of the air interface, in which case the 35% limit was no limit at all.
"Specifically, the restrictions exclude “high risk vendors” from sensitive ‘core’ network functions and limit their presence in the radio access network (RAN) to a hard cap of 35%. The 35% limit applies to the volume of expected traffic on any particular network that passes through Huawei (or any single high risk vendor) equipment and the percentage of base station sites nationally supplied by a vendor."
Phew. That's my biggest concern assuaged.
How is that going to be monitored and enforced and by whom?
As I was ranting last night, Huawei is a massive mistake and Boris's first major f-up of the new year.
That’s a very concerning thread. It seems like China is basically doing a pump & dump, and know once they’re in they’ll be almost impossible to get out again.
Today’s decision is probably one we’ll live to regret.
Of course it is.
I am enjoying - in a rather despairing sort of way - the naivety of those saying that the decision has been made by the National Security Council, as if this was some independent forum stuffed full of experts. Well it isn’t. It’s a forum consisting of a subset of Ministers with Sir Mark Sedwill, a career civil servant, as the advisor.
They get advice from intelligence agencies of course. But there are a number of points to note:-
1. Those agencies have said - repeatedly - in clear terms that there is a serious risk with Huawei. And that they can try to mitigate them but there is no certainty that such mitigation will be successful either now or in the future.
2. The question that is asked is critical. What appears to have been asked is how to mitigate the risks associated with this vendor. In other words, the decision was made and the NSC was asked to come up with some figleaf for it ie the mitigation efforts which even the spooks doubt can be successful. You can always get the answer you want if you ask a limited question.
3. What does not appear to have been done is any sort of cost benefit analysis of the risks associated with this vendor vs the costs / benefits of other courses of action.
4. No thought appears to have been given to the anti-competitive practices of Huawei and those behind it and the costs associated with this for our country. Nor how in reality the 35% market share limitation is going to be enforced.
Finally, it would be interesting to know what sort of lobbying by Huawei there has been and what sort of links, of all types, with Ministers and advisors there are or have been. Perhaps it could be an addendum to the Russian report.
Yes, I can fully believe all of that as a hypothesis. I don’t have the facts but I doubt even the NAO would get to the bottom of it; they are easily funnelled.
Personally, I think Boris tends to take the decision that works best for him in the short-term and can kicks the rest, in the believe he can blag it or deal with it further down the road.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall*.
(*probably not necessary in future as Huawei will be the fly)
I keep saying this, and I'm going to say it again, but it's crucially important that the 35% refers to the air interface alone. If it's across the whole 5G network, then it's entirely possible that Huawei ends up with 100% of the air interface, in which case the 35% limit was no limit at all.
"Specifically, the restrictions exclude “high risk vendors” from sensitive ‘core’ network functions and limit their presence in the radio access network (RAN) to a hard cap of 35%. The 35% limit applies to the volume of expected traffic on any particular network that passes through Huawei (or any single high risk vendor) equipment and the percentage of base station sites nationally supplied by a vendor."
Phew. That's my biggest concern assuaged.
35% through any single vendor, so the Chinese government could open up a new telecoms equipment company called Buawei and get another 35%. It doesn't strike me as watertight.
It’s likely to be as effective as those undertakings the Takeover Panel extracts from parties to a merger and which are ignored as soon as they get what they want.
The Labour benches were empty for the Huawei announcement. May picked up on Raab’s comment about “creating capabilities”among friendly states as critical for the future
That's all a load of rubbish from Raab, unless Huawei are specifically frozen our of the UK, EU and US markets then it's not going to make a difference. Huawei equipment is both cheaper and superior to anything else on the table. That problem will never go away and 5G is here for the next 20 years.
I keep saying this, and I'm going to say it again, but it's crucially important that the 35% refers to the air interface alone. If it's across the whole 5G network, then it's entirely possible that Huawei ends up with 100% of the air interface, in which case the 35% limit was no limit at all.
"Specifically, the restrictions exclude “high risk vendors” from sensitive ‘core’ network functions and limit their presence in the radio access network (RAN) to a hard cap of 35%. The 35% limit applies to the volume of expected traffic on any particular network that passes through Huawei (or any single high risk vendor) equipment and the percentage of base station sites nationally supplied by a vendor."
Phew. That's my biggest concern assuaged.
35% through any single vendor, so the Chinese government could open up a new telecoms equipment company called Buawei and get another 35%. It doesn't strike me as watertight.
Sure, but it's better than I feared, with Huawei basically monopolising basestations as telecoms operators throw every purchase they can think of into the 5G pot.
The Labour benches were empty for the Huawei announcement. May picked up on Raab’s comment about “creating capabilities”among friendly states as critical for the future
That's all a load of rubbish from Raab, unless Huawei are specifically frozen our of the UK, EU and US markets then it's not going to make a difference. Huawei equipment is both cheaper and superior to anything else on the table. That problem will never go away and 5G is here for the next 20 years.
It's definitely cheaper, but is it really more than 6-12 months ahead of Samsung and Ericsson? In Los Angeles, we have milimeter wave 5G from those guys (albeit in extremely limited geographical locations), and you get 200mb/s.
Until you cross the street and 5G drops back to 4G.
I keep saying this, and I'm going to say it again, but it's crucially important that the 35% refers to the air interface alone. If it's across the whole 5G network, then it's entirely possible that Huawei ends up with 100% of the air interface, in which case the 35% limit was no limit at all.
"Specifically, the restrictions exclude “high risk vendors” from sensitive ‘core’ network functions and limit their presence in the radio access network (RAN) to a hard cap of 35%. The 35% limit applies to the volume of expected traffic on any particular network that passes through Huawei (or any single high risk vendor) equipment and the percentage of base station sites nationally supplied by a vendor."
Phew. That's my biggest concern assuaged.
35% through any single vendor, so the Chinese government could open up a new telecoms equipment company called Buawei and get another 35%. It doesn't strike me as watertight.
It’s likely to be as effective as those undertakings the Takeover Panel extracts from parties to a merger and which are ignored as soon as they get what they want.
Well, that's the risk.
How about this. Companies can purchase from vendors on the "High Risk" list, but they pay a fee to do so. Say £500m/year. So, if they want to steal a march on their competition, they can do so, but with the consequence that it will be extremely expensive for them. It would really encourage operators to find alternatives.
I actually think if the US had gone down the illegal subsidies route with Huawei instead of security concerns the EU would have been much more favourable to the argument. Nokia has a huge presence in France and Germany and Ericsson is basically the European champion for this kind of stuff. Both are going to put out of business in the next 5 years by Huawei as European network providees decide that Huawei is bothe cheaper and better than anything being offered by these two.
What are the actual numbers on Chinese state support for Huawei ? Those quoted on the twitter thread quoted below seem fanciful. (And from its figures it appears a substantially profitable company.)
I actually think if the US had gone down the illegal subsidies route with Huawei instead of security concerns the EU would have been much more favourable to the argument. Nokia has a huge presence in France and Germany and Ericsson is basically the European champion for this kind of stuff. Both are going to put out of business in the next 5 years by Huawei as European network providees decide that Huawei is bothe cheaper and better than anything being offered by these two.
Yes it's against the rules. China would not have been able to gain this advantage if they were a member of the EU. Are we taking notes?
The Labour benches were empty for the Huawei announcement. May picked up on Raab’s comment about “creating capabilities”among friendly states as critical for the future
That's all a load of rubbish from Raab, unless Huawei are specifically frozen our of the UK, EU and US markets then it's not going to make a difference. Huawei equipment is both cheaper and superior to anything else on the table. That problem will never go away and 5G is here for the next 20 years.
It's definitely cheaper, but is it really more than 6-12 months ahead of Samsung and Ericsson? In Los Angeles, we have milimeter wave 5G from those guys (albeit in extremely limited geographical locations), and you get 200mb/s.
Until you cross the street and 5G drops back to 4G.
I think it's the ability of Huawei to sit on top of existing 4G hardware that no one else does. It's very useful for BT as they use a lot of Huawei 4G kit, it makes the upgrade process way cheaper and way faster than Ericsson.
I actually think if the US had gone down the illegal subsidies route with Huawei instead of security concerns the EU would have been much more favourable to the argument. Nokia has a huge presence in France and Germany and Ericsson is basically the European champion for this kind of stuff. Both are going to put out of business in the next 5 years by Huawei as European network providees decide that Huawei is bothe cheaper and better than anything being offered by these two.
What are the actual numbers on Chinese state support for Huawei ? Those quoted on the twitter thread quoted below seem fanciful. (And from its figures it appears a substantially profitable company.)
Well, the problem is we don't know.
While Huawei produces an annual report showing it makes about a 10% operating margin, we don't know how much of its sales are to its parent, the Chinese Liberation Army. Or indeed, how much credence we can give to the financial statements.
The Labour benches were empty for the Huawei announcement. May picked up on Raab’s comment about “creating capabilities”among friendly states as critical for the future
That's all a load of rubbish from Raab, unless Huawei are specifically frozen our of the UK, EU and US markets then it's not going to make a difference. Huawei equipment is both cheaper and superior to anything else on the table. That problem will never go away and 5G is here for the next 20 years.
It's definitely cheaper, but is it really more than 6-12 months ahead of Samsung and Ericsson? In Los Angeles, we have milimeter wave 5G from those guys (albeit in extremely limited geographical locations), and you get 200mb/s.
Until you cross the street and 5G drops back to 4G.
I think it's the ability of Huawei to sit on top of existing 4G hardware that no one else does. It's very useful for BT as they use a lot of Huawei 4G kit, it makes the upgrade process way cheaper and way faster than Ericsson.
Comments
The Republicans wanted a simply vote and a simple acquittal and no headlines.
And, by the way, the Bolton allegations about Turkey are potentially very serious.
What a risible lineup. Only Farage is worth listening to from that lot.
They expect me to listen to the little englander drivel that that lot of speakers will be doing without alcohol????!!!
But remember that a lot of the House of Representative hearings were done in private.
If witnesses are called, then it can do Trump no good at all. (Of course, it might not do Joe Biden much good either.)
The rest are just too embarrassing
But not all the 62,984,828 people who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 were part of the base. There were lots of people in there who held their noses and voted for him because they thought he was better than Hillary Clinton.
And you're getting rather ahead of yourself with Sanders. 538 and the betting markets make him as 25-33% chance of getting the nomination (and I suspect the right number is probably more 10-15%.)
It`s like rubber-necking a car accident.
On the other hand, if Biden has won Iowa (or placed a strong second to Sanders), then they'll not want to take the risk of holing the establishment candidate.
https://twitter.com/MoadabJ/status/1222191225761140736?s=20
https://twitter.com/mikebutcher/status/1221842610228285446
https://twitter.com/mikebutcher/status/1221842546881679360
What the electorate will see is that the democrats are so desperate to discredit the result of the voters last deliberations they will put on the stand a man whose testimony is contained in a book he has to sell.
A man who was fired in acrimonious circumstances by the man he is to testify against.
Please.
Are you saying he should reject the advise of the only ones who have the knowledge of the complex issues involved with 5g and Huawei
They are building the technology for total state control. Wake up UK!
There are rarely big discontinuities. But the drip, drip, drip of stories has an effect. Bolton has served three Presidents in senior positions. So his words will carry some weight. Not enough to persuade those who already see Trump as their champion (which is tens of millions), but enough that maybe an anti-Hillary voter in Wisconsin decides to stay home this year.
Today’s decision is probably one we’ll live to regret.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1222213180233003008?s=20
It was a difficult decision but the right one which should bring internet connections to thousands in this country who may have had to wait years
It's tech dumping and really the EU, US and UK should have discussed this 3 years ago and presented a united front against Chinese tech dumping and frozen Huawei and other Chinese tech companies out of Western markets until the subsidies were eliminated.
Basically we let the fox into the henhouse 5 years ago and now we're wondering why it ate all the hens.
These are genuine questions that I don't know the answer to. What the Chinese are doing in China seems to be much more based on software such as that used by Google and Facebook where the messages are "read" by computer/algorithms and information extracted. Will Huawei be able to do this? If so, how?
https://twitter.com/eu_echo/status/1222183234890620929?s=19
It's just been a whole bunch of fucking terrible decision making and it's left the west at the mercy of a pretty awful Chinese state owned tech company.
Honestly, Boris has an opportunity here to broker a Western response to Chinese tech dumping. He needs to get the US, EU and other players around a table and actually figure out how to stop China completely destroying our tech companies.
https://unherd.com/2020/01/how-will-britain-cope-without-empire/ Jonathan Rutherford is a writer and one of the co-founders of Blue Labour
It will not be easily possible to spy on the contents of the messages, as deep packet inspection is extremely computationally intensive. And it won't be possible to send all the messages to China, as that would be really obvious to anyone doing network traffic analysis.
What could happen (although it's pretty theoretical), is that Huawei could throw a remote kill switch, and effectively turn off the UK's 5G network.
That's a pretty awesome power to hand to an incredibly opaque organisation owned by the People's Liberation Army.
My view is that if Huawei was an ordinary Chinese company (like ZTE or a hundred others), then I would be relatively relaxed. But it's not. It's an arm of the Chinese State Security Apparatus. It would be like allowing a company owned by the CIA to build the UK's telecoms network.
I get the point that we don't want to become technologically inferior to the Chinese and I get the point that being dependent upon them for essential services is not ideal but I am really struggling to see a security aspect to it.
But yes, the issue is that Huawei is subsidised by the Chinese State with the express purpose of dominating other country's infrastructure.
The US, in some manner, are doing something about it. What is the EU doing?
I am enjoying - in a rather despairing sort of way - the naivety of those saying that the decision has been made by the National Security Council, as if this was some independent forum stuffed full of experts. Well it isn’t. It’s a forum consisting of a subset of Ministers with Sir Mark Sedwill, a career civil servant, as the advisor.
They get advice from intelligence agencies of course. But there are a number of points to note:-
1. Those agencies have said - repeatedly - in clear terms that there is a serious risk with Huawei. And that they can try to mitigate them but there is no certainty that such mitigation will be successful either now or in the future.
2. The question that is asked is critical. What appears to have been asked is how to mitigate the risks associated with this vendor. In other words, the decision was made and the NSC was asked to come up with some figleaf for it ie the mitigation efforts which even the spooks doubt can be successful. You can always get the answer you want if you ask a limited question.
3. What does not appear to have been done is any sort of cost benefit analysis of the risks associated with this vendor vs the costs / benefits of other courses of action.
4. No thought appears to have been given to the anti-competitive practices of Huawei
and those behind it and the costs associated with this for our country. Nor how in reality the 35% market share limitation is going to be enforced.
Finally, it would be interesting to know what sort of lobbying by Huawei there has been and what sort of links, of all types, with Ministers and advisors there are or have been. Perhaps it could be an addendum to the Russian report.
Personally, I think Boris tends to take the decision that works best for him in the short-term and can kicks the rest, in the believe he can blag it or deal with it further down the road.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall*.
(*probably not necessary in future as Huawei will be the fly)
Until you cross the street and 5G drops back to 4G.
How about this. Companies can purchase from vendors on the "High Risk" list, but they pay a fee to do so. Say £500m/year. So, if they want to steal a march on their competition, they can do so, but with the consequence that it will be extremely expensive for them. It would really encourage operators to find alternatives.
Those quoted on the twitter thread quoted below seem fanciful. (And from its figures it appears a substantially profitable company.)
While Huawei produces an annual report showing it makes about a 10% operating margin, we don't know how much of its sales are to its parent, the Chinese Liberation Army. Or indeed, how much credence we can give to the financial statements.