If the argument for removing Huawei was removing it from the critical core, it would make sense.
But to force removal from the RAN and then not also force removal from the FTTC, FTTP networks is completely nonsensical and contradictory.
Yes, this is absolutely true. The same security risks that exist for 5G exist for the fibre network the 5G runs on. As I said, I think the government is going to have to accept the amendments from the rebels and BT shareholders are going to be asked to stump up £2-3bn in new capital to cover the cost of their Huawei folly. It might even be the end of BT TV/Sport.
Based on some professional analysis, the mobile networks that are most impacted by this news is EE/BT Mobile.
Least impacted O2/Vodafone but with Cornerstone unwind, Vodafone might also be severely impacted going forward.
I've heard the bigger worry is that the UK removing Huawei will bring irresistible pressure on NATO allies to follow suit and what might be a £1.5bn bill for Vodafone and BT turns into a €20bn bill for European telecoms companies. Vodafone are less exposed in the UK than they are in Germany, their German network is mostly Huawei based and they would need to spend billions on ripping it all out and selling for pennies to the pound on the secondary markets.
Additionally if the Tory rebels succeed in backporting this advice to 2G, 3G and 4G a £1.5bn bill for BT and Vodafone turns into a £3.5bn bill and if the date is set to 2024 it turns into a £5.5bn bill or the same £3.5bn with signal dropouts in rural areas for 4-5 years. If Europe follows suit on the 2G, 3G and 4G removal of Huawei and sets an aggressive date it will cost legitimately tens of billions to get it done and there will be a huge shortage of non-Huawei equipment that meets the requirements. The telecoms industry feels that they need to halt this here in the UK or they face a decade of new investment and no profits for basically what they see as no gain because it doesn't get them anything better than what they have now.
Yep, a total bloody mess. Consolidation in the telecoms industry has bitten us on the arse.
This is from another source that chimes in with other information available
Note o2 isn’t as exposed as suggested here due to some work done before.
CTIL is Cornestone between o2 and Vodafone that is being unwound.
EE 5G >99% Huawei (4 nations) 1% Nokia (1 nation) 1% Other vendor(s)
EE 4G 65% Huawei (4 nations) 35% Nokia (3 nations) <1% Other vendor(s)
EE core Huawei EPC
Three 5G 100% Huawei (4 nations)
Three 4G >60% Samsung (4 nations) <40% Huawei (4 nations) <1% Other vendor(s)
Three core Low levels of Huawei components
Vodafone 5G Ericsson (3 nations) Huawei (3 nations)
Vodafone core No reported Huawei components
O2 5G Ericsson (4 nations) Huawei (3 nations) Nokia (1 nation)
O2 core No reported Huawei components
CTIL 4G Huawei (3 nations) North West, West Midlands and Wales heavily dependent on Huawei RAN. Ericsson (3 nations) Nokia (1 nation) Other vendor(s)
All access network Medium levels of Huawei cell site gateways, other Huawei components also in existence.
Please note that this is intended to be a snapshot of deployments at the time of posting, and no guarantees are made for the accuracy of the above information.
EE are most exposed in terms of site volume. Three are most exposed in terms of vendor choice. VF/O2 are most exposed in terms of largest geographical zones covered by only Huawei.
If the argument for removing Huawei was removing it from the critical core, it would make sense.
But to force removal from the RAN and then not also force removal from the FTTC, FTTP networks is completely nonsensical and contradictory.
Yes, this is absolutely true. The same security risks that exist for 5G exist for the fibre network the 5G runs on. As I said, I think the government is going to have to accept the amendments from the rebels and BT shareholders are going to be asked to stump up £2-3bn in new capital to cover the cost of their Huawei folly. It might even be the end of BT TV/Sport.
Nice to find common ground with you for once Max. And I agree with the Tory rebels as well
I was busy this weekend but am I right that if the studies show that those who have had Covid-19 have a short immunity period from Covid-19 then herd immunity is non starter?
Also that means Sweden is buggered?
It's a headline that doesn't match the article though. You don't have all antibodies for everything hanging round your system.
It's your ability to generate antibodies that is important. Of course people have less antibodies over time.
Indeed, it feels like one of those unnecessarily alarmist headlines designed to generate controversy and media theatre for the research team. I saw the lead researcher give an interview yesterday and not a single question about research into rapid antibody production by the body in response to a second infection. The scientific literacy of our media and politicians has been shown to be lamentably poor this crisis.
It is, to be fair, a complicated question, and neither virologists nor immunologists really know for certain to what extent prior infection generates long term immunity (or indeed if you can get re-infected, how severe or mild that infection is likely to be). For now, we just don't have enough data.
So mere journalists have little or no clue (me, too).
While that's true, there's also a tendency to assume the worse. "Could" too often becomes "Is"
If the argument for removing Huawei was removing it from the critical core, it would make sense.
But to force removal from the RAN and then not also force removal from the FTTC, FTTP networks is completely nonsensical and contradictory.
Yes, this is absolutely true. The same security risks that exist for 5G exist for the fibre network the 5G runs on. As I said, I think the government is going to have to accept the amendments from the rebels and BT shareholders are going to be asked to stump up £2-3bn in new capital to cover the cost of their Huawei folly. It might even be the end of BT TV/Sport.
Based on some professional analysis, the mobile networks that are most impacted by this news is EE/BT Mobile.
Least impacted O2/Vodafone but with Cornerstone unwind, Vodafone might also be severely impacted going forward.
I've heard the bigger worry is that the UK removing Huawei will bring irresistible pressure on NATO allies to follow suit and what might be a £1.5bn bill for Vodafone and BT turns into a €20bn bill for European telecoms companies. Vodafone are less exposed in the UK than they are in Germany, their German network is mostly Huawei based and they would need to spend billions on ripping it all out and selling for pennies to the pound on the secondary markets.
Additionally if the Tory rebels succeed in backporting this advice to 2G, 3G and 4G a £1.5bn bill for BT and Vodafone turns into a £3.5bn bill and if the date is set to 2024 it turns into a £5.5bn bill or the same £3.5bn with signal dropouts in rural areas for 4-5 years. If Europe follows suit on the 2G, 3G and 4G removal of Huawei and sets an aggressive date it will cost legitimately tens of billions to get it done and there will be a huge shortage of non-Huawei equipment that meets the requirements. The telecoms industry feels that they need to halt this here in the UK or they face a decade of new investment and no profits for basically what they see as no gain because it doesn't get them anything better than what they have now.
Yep, a total bloody mess. Consolidation in the telecoms industry has bitten us on the arse.
I think the standalone 5G might be the saviour of the telecoms industry in Europe. I've heard loads are planning to roll it out aggressively and cannibalise 2G and 3G spectrum for 5G and then turn them off by 2025 meaning there is only a bill for 4G replacement which is a lot lower and can be done more easily by the time 2025 rolls around and 70-80% of network traffic is running on standalone 5G. That is the ideal scenario but it means Ericsson and Nokia need to deliver a huge amount in a short period of time and do so with mainly European and US manufactured components. It's not going to be easy.
I was busy this weekend but am I right that if the studies show that those who have had Covid-19 have a short immunity period from Covid-19 then herd immunity is non starter?
Also that means Sweden is buggered?
It's a headline that doesn't match the article though. You don't have all antibodies for everything hanging round your system.
It's your ability to generate antibodies that is important. Of course people have less antibodies over time.
Indeed, it feels like one of those unnecessarily alarmist headlines designed to generate controversy and media theatre for the research team. I saw the lead researcher give an interview yesterday and not a single question about research into rapid antibody production by the body in response to a second infection. The scientific literacy of our media and politicians has been shown to be lamentably poor this crisis.
It is, to be fair, a complicated question, and neither virologists nor immunologists really know for certain to what extent prior infection generates long term immunity (or indeed if you can get re-infected, how severe or mild that infection is likely to be). For now, we just don't have enough data.
So mere journalists have little or no clue (me, too).
While that's true, there's also a tendency to assume the worse. "Could" too often becomes "Is"
If the argument for removing Huawei was removing it from the critical core, it would make sense.
But to force removal from the RAN and then not also force removal from the FTTC, FTTP networks is completely nonsensical and contradictory.
Yes, this is absolutely true. The same security risks that exist for 5G exist for the fibre network the 5G runs on. As I said, I think the government is going to have to accept the amendments from the rebels and BT shareholders are going to be asked to stump up £2-3bn in new capital to cover the cost of their Huawei folly. It might even be the end of BT TV/Sport.
Sky will LOVE that.
Not really. Sky are about to be screwed by the Virgin and o2 merger.
Also who provides the network for Sky mobile? That’s right o2.
Amazing, the rise of Sunak. Not so long ago he was a nobody. Now he's everybody's favourite politician. More than this, he's become very famous. He is A list. The fear, of course, is that he will have his head turned by celebrity. Instead of focusing on what he's meant to be doing - heading off a depression - he'll be more concerned about snazzy soundbites, his outfits, his instagram feed, how many followers he has gained since yesterday. There are signs of this already. He's only 40, remember. Not much older than Lily Allen. And if it does all go to his head there's another risk. That he will start to view Chancellor of the Exchequer as a poor substitute for where he truly ought to be. Number 10. In which case we can kiss goodbye to any semblance of harmony in government.
Lockdown can only be maintained for a certain period of time and can flatten the peak and help with containment but can not be a way of life. So countries that prematurely lockdown have risked using up their lockdown period where it wasn't required only to then see the virus enter their society which now has no herd immunity and is already frustrated with lockdown restrictions, thus seeing a surge in cases post-lockdown.
However in countries that delayed lockdown and 'flattened the curve' after lockdown restrictions are lifted there is a much greater herd immunity effect so that even if there isn't full herd immunity it is easier to keep R down to below 1.
Which is basically what our SAGE scientists were saying back in March.
I think the herd immunity aspect is a red herring here- UK has 290k recorded cases. Even if that's a 10th of the real cases we're talking a tiny proportion of the population, not enough to make any real impact on infection rates. Plus the length of immunity isn't yet settled science, so you're counting your chickens early.
So putting that aside, what you're describing is my scenario 2., that there's no safe way to exit lockdown and our cases will inevitably skyrocket like SA's. In that case, we haven't benefited from locking down late, all it means is that our second peak is delayed a little, not that we're going to avoid it.
Also, I think your model of having a single, hard lockdown, which then gets lifted and we return to normal is wrong. For one thing, there are several things that can happen during lockdown which lead to an improvement even after it's lifted. Masks and hand sanitizer are now much more available than they were. There's been time for messaging about safety (hand washing, masks indoors, social distancing) to settle in during lockdown. Many offices have been reconfigured to allow people to work distanced from each other. Etc. This would all have happened in an earlier lockdown too. There's also test-and-trace which is more effective the fewer cases there are, so an earlier lockdown would have actually lead to a lower R after lockdown was lifted.
And the other thing is that the need to reopen quickly is in part because of the length and hardness of the lockdown. If we'd locked down earlier, we could have partially reopened much sooner, and then remained in that partial-reopen state much longer, which would have managed economic damage while keeping R to safe levels.
I don't agree that herd immunity is a red herring. In particular if those most exposed (each bus drivers, shopkeepers etc) got it first time around and are now immune they're not able to act as superspreaders second time around. Hence a very real and meaningful impact on R.
You're ruling out a very real factor without evidence as to why.
This is from another source that chimes in with other information available
Note o2 isn’t as exposed as suggested here due to some work done before.
CTIL is Cornestone between o2 and Vodafone that is being unwound.
EE 5G >99% Huawei (4 nations) 1% Nokia (1 nation) 1% Other vendor(s)
EE 4G 65% Huawei (4 nations) 35% Nokia (3 nations) <1% Other vendor(s)
EE core Huawei EPC
Three 5G 100% Huawei (4 nations)
Three 4G >60% Samsung (4 nations)
I thought Three and EE had a network sharing agreement (although I may be somewhat out of date).
They do (MBNL) that’s a legacy from the T Mobile days and Three not having a 2G network so when Three customers can’t get a 3G/4G signal they use EE’s 2G network.
If the argument for removing Huawei was removing it from the critical core, it would make sense.
But to force removal from the RAN and then not also force removal from the FTTC, FTTP networks is completely nonsensical and contradictory.
Yes, this is absolutely true. The same security risks that exist for 5G exist for the fibre network the 5G runs on. As I said, I think the government is going to have to accept the amendments from the rebels and BT shareholders are going to be asked to stump up £2-3bn in new capital to cover the cost of their Huawei folly. It might even be the end of BT TV/Sport.
Sky will LOVE that.
Indeed, but BT shareholders absolutely loathe it and it might be the price for new capital. It's either that or selling a large stake in Openreach which is something they have resisted so far and I'm guessing they would continue to resist.
If you want to ban Huawei then fine - but you need to remove all 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, FTTC, FTTP, routers and other equipment.
If you don't remove all of that, it's pointless. Huawei are within hundreds of metres of most homes, if they want your Internet traffic they have a way in.
The Government doesn't have a clue what it's doing. This plan was not drawn up with any knowhow of how the country actually runs.
Have you not seen the news? That is exactly what the government is doing. Ordering all that equipped needs to be replaced by 2027.
They are not ordering Huawei cabinets to be removed for FTTC, nor 2G, 3G or 4G.
Not my problem you can't read, or don't know what you're talking about.
Because there is less of a security concern there? I doubt they are particularly bothered if the Chinese can read what you are doing online.
What's the difference in security concern?
They read your traffic if you're using 5G, they read your traffic if you're using 4G. They read your traffic if you're using FTTC.
There is no difference in security concern. Huawei have your data (or the ability to collect it), from multiple points. Removing 5G is one, it is not an important one.
4G is far more widely used - as is FTTC.
Again, you're arguing clearly from an ignorant POV.
I'm saying no one cares about your internet traffic.
And yet Huawei is being removed from the RAN, which isn't even the core network. So what are the security concerns if not from traffic travelling through?
There are no real security concerns in the sense you mean. The problem isn't security in the sense of surveillance, but the security of the network from failures and disruption because the supplier is unable to supply kit promptly and to the expected standard because the US government is trying to shut them down.....
So we're substituting that for the risk of failures and disruptions thanks to ripping out large quantities of kit which will need replacing on timescales not commercially realistic ?
Particularly should this become Europe-wide, and strain the supply chain.
This is from another source that chimes in with other information available
Note o2 isn’t as exposed as suggested here due to some work done before.
CTIL is Cornestone between o2 and Vodafone that is being unwound.
EE 5G >99% Huawei (4 nations) 1% Nokia (1 nation) 1% Other vendor(s)
EE 4G 65% Huawei (4 nations) 35% Nokia (3 nations) <1% Other vendor(s)
EE core Huawei EPC
Three 5G 100% Huawei (4 nations)
Three 4G >60% Samsung (4 nations)
I thought Three and EE had a network sharing agreement (although I may be somewhat out of date).
They do (MBNL) that’s a legacy from the T Mobile days and Three not having a 2G network so when Three customers can’t get a 3G/4G signal they use EE’s 2G network.
The 2G fallback doesn't apply in most areas.
MBNL is primarily for sharing of sites, not for 2G fallback. In a sense 3G coverage is shared, 4G and 5G are separate.
I was busy this weekend but am I right that if the studies show that those who have had Covid-19 have a short immunity period from Covid-19 then herd immunity is non starter?
Also that means Sweden is buggered?
It's a headline that doesn't match the article though. You don't have all antibodies for everything hanging round your system.
It's your ability to generate antibodies that is important. Of course people have less antibodies over time.
Indeed, it feels like one of those unnecessarily alarmist headlines designed to generate controversy and media theatre for the research team. I saw the lead researcher give an interview yesterday and not a single question about research into rapid antibody production by the body in response to a second infection. The scientific literacy of our media and politicians has been shown to be lamentably poor this crisis.
It is, to be fair, a complicated question, and neither virologists nor immunologists really know for certain to what extent prior infection generates long term immunity (or indeed if you can get re-infected, how severe or mild that infection is likely to be). For now, we just don't have enough data.
So mere journalists have little or no clue (me, too).
While that's true, there's also a tendency to assume the worse. "Could" too often becomes "Is"
Indeed - bit like the 'forecast' of 125k deaths this winter.
If the argument for removing Huawei was removing it from the critical core, it would make sense.
But to force removal from the RAN and then not also force removal from the FTTC, FTTP networks is completely nonsensical and contradictory.
Yes, this is absolutely true. The same security risks that exist for 5G exist for the fibre network the 5G runs on. As I said, I think the government is going to have to accept the amendments from the rebels and BT shareholders are going to be asked to stump up £2-3bn in new capital to cover the cost of their Huawei folly. It might even be the end of BT TV/Sport.
Sky will LOVE that.
Not really. Sky are about to be screwed by the Virgin and o2 merger.
Also who provides the network for Sky mobile? That’s right o2.
Aren't Virgin moving to Vodafone MVNO this year? That's going to be an expensive deal for Virgin media to unwind.
If the argument for removing Huawei was removing it from the critical core, it would make sense.
But to force removal from the RAN and then not also force removal from the FTTC, FTTP networks is completely nonsensical and contradictory.
Yes, this is absolutely true. The same security risks that exist for 5G exist for the fibre network the 5G runs on. As I said, I think the government is going to have to accept the amendments from the rebels and BT shareholders are going to be asked to stump up £2-3bn in new capital to cover the cost of their Huawei folly. It might even be the end of BT TV/Sport.
Sky will LOVE that.
Not really. Sky are about to be screwed by the Virgin and o2 merger.
Also who provides the network for Sky mobile? That’s right o2.
Aren't Virgin moving to Vodafone MVNO this year? That's going to be an expensive deal for Virgin media to unwind.
It was scheduled for late 2021 but the rumours are the exit penalty isn’t that expensive if you cancel it before the move.
If you want to ban Huawei then fine - but you need to remove all 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, FTTC, FTTP, routers and other equipment.
If you don't remove all of that, it's pointless. Huawei are within hundreds of metres of most homes, if they want your Internet traffic they have a way in.
The Government doesn't have a clue what it's doing. This plan was not drawn up with any knowhow of how the country actually runs.
Have you not seen the news? That is exactly what the government is doing. Ordering all that equipped needs to be replaced by 2027.
They are not ordering Huawei cabinets to be removed for FTTC, nor 2G, 3G or 4G.
Not my problem you can't read, or don't know what you're talking about.
Because there is less of a security concern there? I doubt they are particularly bothered if the Chinese can read what you are doing online.
What's the difference in security concern?
They read your traffic if you're using 5G, they read your traffic if you're using 4G. They read your traffic if you're using FTTC.
There is no difference in security concern. Huawei have your data (or the ability to collect it), from multiple points. Removing 5G is one, it is not an important one.
4G is far more widely used - as is FTTC.
Again, you're arguing clearly from an ignorant POV.
I'm saying no one cares about your internet traffic.
And yet Huawei is being removed from the RAN, which isn't even the core network. So what are the security concerns if not from traffic travelling through?
There are no real security concerns in the sense you mean. The problem isn't security in the sense of surveillance, but the security of the network from failures and disruption because the supplier is unable to supply kit promptly and to the expected standard because the US government is trying to shut them down.....
So we're substituting that for the risk of failures and disruptions thanks to ripping out large quantities of kit which will need replacing on timescales not commercially realistic ?
Particularly should this become Europe-wide, and strain the supply chain.
One imagines Ericsson and Nokia are about to make cash calls to their shareholders. There's also going to be huge investment in European and US based equipment manufacturing, the government needs to jump on this now and introduce the right kinds of tax incentives to capture the new investment rather than see it disappear to the US under pressure from the US government.
Amazing, the rise of Sunak. Not so long ago he was a nobody. Now he's everybody's favourite politician. More than this, he's become very famous. He is A list. The fear, of course, is that he will have his head turned by celebrity. Instead of focusing on what he's meant to be doing - heading off a depression - he'll be more concerned about snazzy soundbites, his outfits, his instagram feed, how many followers he has gained since yesterday. There are signs of this already. He's only 40, remember. Not much older than Lily Allen. And if it does all go to his head there's another risk. That he will start to view Chancellor of the Exchequer as a poor substitute for where he truly ought to be. Number 10. In which case we can kiss goodbye to any semblance of harmony in government.
So we're substituting that for the risk of failures and disruptions thanks to ripping out large quantities of kit which will need replacing on timescales not commercially realistic ?
Particularly should this become Europe-wide, and strain the supply chain.
Yes, too many people worrying about the Chinese goverment reading their emails — even though almost all important traffic is encrypted, as is the majority of all traffic — and not enough people worrying about having a reliable network. Never mind the cost, economic impact, diplomacy etc.
Amazing, the rise of Sunak. Not so long ago he was a nobody. Now he's everybody's favourite politician. More than this, he's become very famous. He is A list. The fear, of course, is that he will have his head turned by celebrity. Instead of focusing on what he's meant to be doing - heading off a depression - he'll be more concerned about snazzy soundbites, his outfits, his instagram feed, how many followers he has gained since yesterday. There are signs of this already. He's only 40, remember. Not much older than Lily Allen. And if it does all go to his head there's another risk. That he will start to view Chancellor of the Exchequer as a poor substitute for where he truly ought to be. Number 10. In which case we can kiss goodbye to any semblance of harmony in government.
Sunak is a giant in a cabinet of pigmies. That rarest of beasts: a competent Brexiteer, who thinks details and facts matter. The others need him to cover up their inadequacy. Not sure about the rest of us. We can have a different conversation.
Edit. Given the Dunning-Kruger effect is rife amongst Leavers, not all of them are aware that they do actually need Sunak. But they will decide his fate. Johnson and Cummings are well aware of their success and longevity depend on the whim of unthinking Leavers.
I was busy this weekend but am I right that if the studies show that those who have had Covid-19 have a short immunity period from Covid-19 then herd immunity is non starter?
Also that means Sweden is buggered?
It's a headline that doesn't match the article though. You don't have all antibodies for everything hanging round your system.
It's your ability to generate antibodies that is important. Of course people have less antibodies over time.
Indeed, it feels like one of those unnecessarily alarmist headlines designed to generate controversy and media theatre for the research team. I saw the lead researcher give an interview yesterday and not a single question about research into rapid antibody production by the body in response to a second infection. The scientific literacy of our media and politicians has been shown to be lamentably poor this crisis.
It is, to be fair, a complicated question, and neither virologists nor immunologists really know for certain to what extent prior infection generates long term immunity (or indeed if you can get re-infected, how severe or mild that infection is likely to be). For now, we just don't have enough data.
So mere journalists have little or no clue (me, too).
I think it also suggests that the antibody serosurveillance is not going to be much use unless rapidly after outbreaks?
So we're substituting that for the risk of failures and disruptions thanks to ripping out large quantities of kit which will need replacing on timescales not commercially realistic ?
Particularly should this become Europe-wide, and strain the supply chain.
Yes, too many people worrying about the Chinese goverment reading their emails — even though almost all important traffic is encrypted, as is the majority of all traffic — and not enough people worrying about having a reliable network. Never mind the cost, economic impact, diplomacy etc.
I think we've got to do it anyway. The west needs to reduce its reliance on China, Huawei is just another company that has benefited from huge state subsidies and used those to undercut European and US companies to drive them out of business. It's no surprise that as Huawei gained prominence and we relaxed the rules all over Europe for them our own companies underwent a huge amount of turmoil and consolidation.
We must recognise China for what it is, a hostile actor who want nothing more than to make the world subservient. We're in a cold war and with them and they're they only ones fighting it.
So we're substituting that for the risk of failures and disruptions thanks to ripping out large quantities of kit which will need replacing on timescales not commercially realistic ?
Particularly should this become Europe-wide, and strain the supply chain.
Yes, too many people worrying about the Chinese goverment reading their emails — even though almost all important traffic is encrypted, as is the majority of all traffic — and not enough people worrying about having a reliable network. Never mind the cost, economic impact, diplomacy etc.
Reasonable point but as I said before, these points apply just as widely to the removal of Huawei equipment from the RAN as they do from FTTC cabinets say.
The logic of removing them from the core network I get but removing from the RAN but not for 2G, 3G, 4G or removing them from FTTC/FTTP doesn't make sense.
Reliability reduction as a consequence of a move that will make barely any difference from a security POV, clearly was not considered.
If you want to ban Huawei then fine - but you need to remove all 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, FTTC, FTTP, routers and other equipment.
If you don't remove all of that, it's pointless. Huawei are within hundreds of metres of most homes, if they want your Internet traffic they have a way in.
The Government doesn't have a clue what it's doing. This plan was not drawn up with any knowhow of how the country actually runs.
Have you not seen the news? That is exactly what the government is doing. Ordering all that equipped needs to be replaced by 2027.
They are not ordering Huawei cabinets to be removed for FTTC, nor 2G, 3G or 4G.
Not my problem you can't read, or don't know what you're talking about.
Because there is less of a security concern there? I doubt they are particularly bothered if the Chinese can read what you are doing online.
What's the difference in security concern?
They read your traffic if you're using 5G, they read your traffic if you're using 4G. They read your traffic if you're using FTTC.
There is no difference in security concern. Huawei have your data (or the ability to collect it), from multiple points. Removing 5G is one, it is not an important one.
4G is far more widely used - as is FTTC.
Again, you're arguing clearly from an ignorant POV.
I'm saying no one cares about your internet traffic.
And yet Huawei is being removed from the RAN, which isn't even the core network. So what are the security concerns if not from traffic travelling through?
There are no real security concerns in the sense you mean. The problem isn't security in the sense of surveillance, but the security of the network from failures and disruption because the supplier is unable to supply kit promptly and to the expected standard because the US government is trying to shut them down.....
So we're substituting that for the risk of failures and disruptions thanks to ripping out large quantities of kit which will need replacing on timescales not commercially realistic ?
Particularly should this become Europe-wide, and strain the supply chain.
One imagines Ericsson and Nokia are about to make cash calls to their shareholders. There's also going to be huge investment in European and US based equipment manufacturing, the government needs to jump on this now and introduce the right kinds of tax incentives to capture the new investment rather than see it disappear to the US under pressure from the US government.
Both Ericsson and Nokia are net cash (albeit only marginally), so I wouldn't expect them to need to raise equity. That being said, goodness me, those stocks (Ericsson and Nokia) have been twenty year dogs.
I think we've got to do it anyway. The west needs to reduce its reliance on China, Huawei is just another company that has benefited from huge state subsidies and used those to undercut European and US companies to drive them out of business. It's no surprise that as Huawei gained prominence and we relaxed the rules all over Europe for them our own companies underwent a huge amount of turmoil and consolidation.
We must recognise China for what it is, a hostile actor who want nothing more than to make the world subservient. We're in a cold war and with them and they're they only ones fighting it.
I don't entirely disagree, but I do think it's much better to order "rip it all out" once there are viable alternatives rather than before. I hope the people calling for this realise it will cost a lot of money to replace kit, and will require a lot of money invested in alternate suppliers to get us out of this mess.
If you want to ban Huawei then fine - but you need to remove all 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, FTTC, FTTP, routers and other equipment.
If you don't remove all of that, it's pointless. Huawei are within hundreds of metres of most homes, if they want your Internet traffic they have a way in.
The Government doesn't have a clue what it's doing. This plan was not drawn up with any knowhow of how the country actually runs.
Have you not seen the news? That is exactly what the government is doing. Ordering all that equipped needs to be replaced by 2027.
They are not ordering Huawei cabinets to be removed for FTTC, nor 2G, 3G or 4G.
Not my problem you can't read, or don't know what you're talking about.
Because there is less of a security concern there? I doubt they are particularly bothered if the Chinese can read what you are doing online.
What's the difference in security concern?
They read your traffic if you're using 5G, they read your traffic if you're using 4G. They read your traffic if you're using FTTC.
There is no difference in security concern. Huawei have your data (or the ability to collect it), from multiple points. Removing 5G is one, it is not an important one.
4G is far more widely used - as is FTTC.
Again, you're arguing clearly from an ignorant POV.
I'm saying no one cares about your internet traffic.
And yet Huawei is being removed from the RAN, which isn't even the core network. So what are the security concerns if not from traffic travelling through?
There are no real security concerns in the sense you mean. The problem isn't security in the sense of surveillance, but the security of the network from failures and disruption because the supplier is unable to supply kit promptly and to the expected standard because the US government is trying to shut them down.....
So we're substituting that for the risk of failures and disruptions thanks to ripping out large quantities of kit which will need replacing on timescales not commercially realistic ?
Particularly should this become Europe-wide, and strain the supply chain.
One imagines Ericsson and Nokia are about to make cash calls to their shareholders. There's also going to be huge investment in European and US based equipment manufacturing, the government needs to jump on this now and introduce the right kinds of tax incentives to capture the new investment rather than see it disappear to the US under pressure from the US government.
Both Ericsson and Nokia are net cash (albeit only marginally), so I wouldn't expect them to need to raise equity. That being said, goodness me, those stocks (Ericsson and Nokia) have been twenty year dogs.
There are worse fates than a company discovering it is about to get a metric fuckton of orders from government/quasi-goverments/telco giants that will last for a generation.
If you want to ban Huawei then fine - but you need to remove all 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, FTTC, FTTP, routers and other equipment.
If you don't remove all of that, it's pointless. Huawei are within hundreds of metres of most homes, if they want your Internet traffic they have a way in.
The Government doesn't have a clue what it's doing. This plan was not drawn up with any knowhow of how the country actually runs.
Have you not seen the news? That is exactly what the government is doing. Ordering all that equipped needs to be replaced by 2027.
They are not ordering Huawei cabinets to be removed for FTTC, nor 2G, 3G or 4G.
Not my problem you can't read, or don't know what you're talking about.
Because there is less of a security concern there? I doubt they are particularly bothered if the Chinese can read what you are doing online.
What's the difference in security concern?
They read your traffic if you're using 5G, they read your traffic if you're using 4G. They read your traffic if you're using FTTC.
There is no difference in security concern. Huawei have your data (or the ability to collect it), from multiple points. Removing 5G is one, it is not an important one.
4G is far more widely used - as is FTTC.
Again, you're arguing clearly from an ignorant POV.
I'm saying no one cares about your internet traffic.
And yet Huawei is being removed from the RAN, which isn't even the core network. So what are the security concerns if not from traffic travelling through?
There are no real security concerns in the sense you mean. The problem isn't security in the sense of surveillance, but the security of the network from failures and disruption because the supplier is unable to supply kit promptly and to the expected standard because the US government is trying to shut them down.....
So we're substituting that for the risk of failures and disruptions thanks to ripping out large quantities of kit which will need replacing on timescales not commercially realistic ?
Particularly should this become Europe-wide, and strain the supply chain.
One imagines Ericsson and Nokia are about to make cash calls to their shareholders. There's also going to be huge investment in European and US based equipment manufacturing, the government needs to jump on this now and introduce the right kinds of tax incentives to capture the new investment rather than see it disappear to the US under pressure from the US government.
Both Ericsson and Nokia are net cash (albeit only marginally), so I wouldn't expect them to need to raise equity. That being said, goodness me, those stocks (Ericsson and Nokia) have been twenty year dogs.
Both of those have been a disaster because of the decline in their handset divisions, Nokia is well documented. Ericsson was a failure in Sony-Ericcson which was the second largest brand of phones in the pre-smartphone era. The network equipment division kept Ericsson going in the late 2000s until they sold their equity in SE to Sony.
As for the cash call, I think there's going to be a short term need for investment in European manufacturing and helping supply chain partners to move out of China as well.
So we're substituting that for the risk of failures and disruptions thanks to ripping out large quantities of kit which will need replacing on timescales not commercially realistic ?
Particularly should this become Europe-wide, and strain the supply chain.
Yes, too many people worrying about the Chinese goverment reading their emails — even though almost all important traffic is encrypted, as is the majority of all traffic — and not enough people worrying about having a reliable network. Never mind the cost, economic impact, diplomacy etc.
Reasonable point but as I said before, these points apply just as widely to the removal of Huawei equipment from the RAN as they do from FTTC cabinets say.
The logic of removing them from the core network I get but removing from the RAN but not for 2G, 3G, 4G or removing them from FTTC/FTTP doesn't make sense.
Reliability reduction as a consequence of a move that will make barely any difference from a security POV, clearly was not considered.
The *political* point is to start a move away from China in telecoms.
As has been mentioned down thread, 2/3/4g will be removed in the near future, to make more bandwidth available for 5G.
Extraordinary interview with Lord (Jim) O'Neill of Gatley on WatO today, in which the sinophile ex GS staffer got a bit emotional about dropping Hwawei. I wonder why.
So we're substituting that for the risk of failures and disruptions thanks to ripping out large quantities of kit which will need replacing on timescales not commercially realistic ?
Particularly should this become Europe-wide, and strain the supply chain.
Yes, too many people worrying about the Chinese goverment reading their emails — even though almost all important traffic is encrypted, as is the majority of all traffic — and not enough people worrying about having a reliable network. Never mind the cost, economic impact, diplomacy etc.
Reasonable point but as I said before, these points apply just as widely to the removal of Huawei equipment from the RAN as they do from FTTC cabinets say.
The logic of removing them from the core network I get but removing from the RAN but not for 2G, 3G, 4G or removing them from FTTC/FTTP doesn't make sense.
Reliability reduction as a consequence of a move that will make barely any difference from a security POV, clearly was not considered.
The *political* point is to start a move away from China in telecoms.
As has been mentioned down thread, 2/3/4g will be removed in the near future, to make more bandwidth available for 5G.
Not in the near future is 2G/4G going to be removed.
3G yes but 2G/4G is going to stick around for years to come.
I think we've got to do it anyway. The west needs to reduce its reliance on China, Huawei is just another company that has benefited from huge state subsidies and used those to undercut European and US companies to drive them out of business. It's no surprise that as Huawei gained prominence and we relaxed the rules all over Europe for them our own companies underwent a huge amount of turmoil and consolidation.
We must recognise China for what it is, a hostile actor who want nothing more than to make the world subservient. We're in a cold war and with them and they're they only ones fighting it.
I don't entirely disagree, but I do think it's much better to order "rip it all out" once there are viable alternatives rather than before. I hope the people calling for this realise it will cost a lot of money to replace kit, and will require a lot of money invested in alternate suppliers to get us out of this mess.
Ericsson has just brought standalone 5G to the market, it's a viable product that doesn't need to be built on top of 4G. Nokia are said to have a similar product ready for early 2021. In terms of 5G I think there are now products available that weren't previously. The issue is going to be the rest. If the Tory rebels succeed in forcing 4G to be switched over as well BT, in particular, are completely fucked, especially if they get their 2024 target date. I'm not sure how they will do it other than just throwing money at the problem and local signal blackouts and broadband dropouts.
Why would it worry him? If Rishi succeeds, then the economy will do well and Boris will take the credit. If he fails, Boris will look bad, but then so will Rishi. Wise Chancellors don't spend their every waking moment looking to undermine the PM, as the Teebee-Geebees psychodrama proved.
If the poll was "is Sunak doing a good job as Chancellor?" I'd agree with you - having popular ministers isn't a bad thing at all as PM at all. It tends to reflect well on a team captain or manager if other team members are playing well.
But the poll is "best PM". So quite a few people appear to be saying "the Government as a whole isn't doing well, but the minister I see as most competent could probably do a better job managing it than the PM."
Look at it this way - if the prevailing view was that Sunak is an effective member of an effective Government, the natural response would be, "Great! So Johnson is best PM, and Sunak is best Chancellor... let's keep it all as it is, and long may it continue!" But that isn't what quite a few are saying.
Cricket is a good analogy here. The captain very often isn't the best player, and nobody gives a fig about it if the team is winning. As soon as it isn't, though, and it starts to look like lions led by a donkey, the calls come for the captain to be replaced with one of the star players.
Quite right. Mike Brearley never really deserved his place in the team on merit, but he led a winning team. But when the star of the team (Botham) took over, it was a bit of a disaster.
Brearley is an outlier in that respect though. Most of the excellent captains have been excellent players too. A list of IMO very very good captains since Brearley is Lloyd, Richards, Imran Khan, Border, Taylor, Waugh, Dhoni, and Vaughan. All of those would have walked straigh into almost any Test team.
The main difference is that captains are not dropped as quickly when they go through a patch of bad from.
So we're substituting that for the risk of failures and disruptions thanks to ripping out large quantities of kit which will need replacing on timescales not commercially realistic ?
Particularly should this become Europe-wide, and strain the supply chain.
Yes, too many people worrying about the Chinese goverment reading their emails — even though almost all important traffic is encrypted, as is the majority of all traffic — and not enough people worrying about having a reliable network. Never mind the cost, economic impact, diplomacy etc.
Reasonable point but as I said before, these points apply just as widely to the removal of Huawei equipment from the RAN as they do from FTTC cabinets say.
The logic of removing them from the core network I get but removing from the RAN but not for 2G, 3G, 4G or removing them from FTTC/FTTP doesn't make sense.
Reliability reduction as a consequence of a move that will make barely any difference from a security POV, clearly was not considered.
The *political* point is to start a move away from China in telecoms.
As has been mentioned down thread, 2/3/4g will be removed in the near future, to make more bandwidth available for 5G.
Not in the near future is 2G/4G going to be removed.
3G yes but 2G/4G is going to stick around for years to come.
4G is currently required for 5G, so
Ericsson have just released standalone 5G to the market. The final consumer tests were successful. That's basically the solution to this, but the cost is going to be eyewatering until Nokia have a competing solution next year.
Based on some professional analysis, the mobile networks that are most impacted by this news is EE/BT Mobile.
Least impacted O2/Vodafone but with Cornerstone unwind, Vodafone might also be severely impacted going forward.
I've heard the bigger worry is that the UK removing Huawei will bring irresistible pressure on NATO allies to follow suit and what might be a £1.5bn bill for Vodafone and BT turns into a €20bn bill for European telecoms companies. Vodafone are less exposed in the UK than they are in Germany, their German network is mostly Huawei based and they would need to spend billions on ripping it all out and selling for pennies to the pound on the secondary markets.
Additionally if the Tory rebels succeed in backporting this advice to 2G, 3G and 4G a £1.5bn bill for BT and Vodafone turns into a £3.5bn bill and if the date is set to 2024 it turns into a £5.5bn bill or the same £3.5bn with signal dropouts in rural areas for 4-5 years. If Europe follows suit on the 2G, 3G and 4G removal of Huawei and sets an aggressive date it will cost legitimately tens of billions to get it done and there will be a huge shortage of non-Huawei equipment that meets the requirements. The telecoms industry feels that they need to halt this here in the UK or they face a decade of new investment and no profits for basically what they see as no gain because it doesn't get them anything better than what they have now.
Yep, a total bloody mess. Consolidation in the telecoms industry has bitten us on the arse.
I think the standalone 5G might be the saviour of the telecoms industry in Europe. I've heard loads are planning to roll it out aggressively and cannibalise 2G and 3G spectrum for 5G and then turn them off by 2025 meaning there is only a bill for 4G replacement which is a lot lower and can be done more easily by the time 2025 rolls around and 70-80% of network traffic is running on standalone 5G. That is the ideal scenario but it means Ericsson and Nokia need to deliver a huge amount in a short period of time and do so with mainly European and US manufactured components. It's not going to be easy.
If you crack open a typical base station, there's a lot of stuff in there - from SAW filters and complex radios to ethernet cables. It's not necessary to move commodity stuff - that can be bought from China, India, Thailand, Poland or wherever - to local manufacture.
A lot of the complex, proprietary stuff, is software that runs on FPGAs. (And historically, that was true of Huawei too - they'd buy Altera/Intel FPGAs and put their own stuff on it. Now, of course, they're developing their own FPGA capability.)
My point is that if you force Ericsson and Nokia to massively up their local content (to the level where it's not just core proprietary technology), then you increase their costs, which means that when it's a Brazilian or South African company that is looking to buy telecoms equipment, then they are at a price disadvantage.
'Muzzles' and 'face nappies'; the laid back, common sense of so-called libertarians just staying calm and carrying on should be an inspiration to us all.
Oh dear. Sometimes one has to calll out those of their own political persuasion when they’re being idiots, and these libertarians are being idiots. There’s a really nasty virus going round, haven’t they noticed?
Keep your eyes on Alabamy, mammy! Today is Alabama US Senate Republican Runoff Primary.
Personally now heading down for observer training at King Co Elections; sadly have misplaced my hazmed suit. Will give you report IF I survive the training & round trip on the bus.
Lockdown can only be maintained for a certain period of time and can flatten the peak and help with containment but can not be a way of life. So countries that prematurely lockdown have risked using up their lockdown period where it wasn't required only to then see the virus enter their society which now has no herd immunity and is already frustrated with lockdown restrictions, thus seeing a surge in cases post-lockdown.
However in countries that delayed lockdown and 'flattened the curve' after lockdown restrictions are lifted there is a much greater herd immunity effect so that even if there isn't full herd immunity it is easier to keep R down to below 1.
Which is basically what our SAGE scientists were saying back in March.
I think the herd immunity aspect is a red herring here- UK has 290k recorded cases. Even if that's a 10th of the real cases we're talking a tiny proportion of the population, not enough to make any real impact on infection rates. Plus the length of immunity isn't yet settled science, so you're counting your chickens early.
So putting that aside, what you're describing is my scenario 2., that there's no safe way to exit lockdown and our cases will inevitably skyrocket like SA's. In that case, we haven't benefited from locking down late, all it means is that our second peak is delayed a little, not that we're going to avoid it.
Also, I think your model of having a single, hard lockdown, which then gets lifted and we return to normal is wrong. For one thing, there are several things that can happen during lockdown which lead to an improvement even after it's lifted. Masks and hand sanitizer are now much more available than they were. There's been time for messaging about safety (hand washing, masks indoors, social distancing) to settle in during lockdown. Many offices have been reconfigured to allow people to work distanced from each other. Etc. This would all have happened in an earlier lockdown too. There's also test-and-trace which is more effective the fewer cases there are, so an earlier lockdown would have actually lead to a lower R after lockdown was lifted.
And the other thing is that the need to reopen quickly is in part because of the length and hardness of the lockdown. If we'd locked down earlier, we could have partially reopened much sooner, and then remained in that partial-reopen state much longer, which would have managed economic damage while keeping R to safe levels.
I don't agree that herd immunity is a red herring. In particular if those most exposed (each bus drivers, shopkeepers etc) got it first time around and are now immune they're not able to act as superspreaders second time around. Hence a very real and meaningful impact on R.
You're ruling out a very real factor without evidence as to why.
You haven't presented any evidence either.
But fine, let's agree to disagree on that point- it doesn't contradict most of what I'm saying. And in fact an earlier, softer lockdown would have been perfect if you wanted to enable super-spreaders to develop herd immunity while protecting those most at risk (e.g. people in care homes).
I think Sunak is great at his job - obviously his policies have not been tested significantly, but so far so good. That doesn't really lead me to want him as PM, it leads me to want him to stay as Chancellor. It is in many ways a much more important job. Why would we want to lose Sunak as Chancellor and find a new one, so he can spend more time kissing babies and opening motorways?
Broken down by vote at the last general election however Tory voters still prefer Johnson to Sunak by 59% to 30%.
Labour voters though prefer Sunak to Johnson by 51% to 22%, SNP voters prefer Sunak to Johnson by 49% to 15% and LDs prefer Sunak to Johnson by 50% to 22%.
Yet those same Labour voters prefer Starmer to Sunak by 63% to 19%, SNP voters prefer Starmer to Sunak 59% to 23% and LD voters prefer Starmer to Sunak 46% to 31%.
That is little different to the 64% of Labour voters who prefer Starmer to Johnson, the 53% of SNP voters who prefer Starmer to Johnson and the 58% of LD voters who prefer Starmer to Johnson. 77% of Tory voters prefer Johnson to Starmer, slightly more than the 69% of Tory voters who prefer Sunak to Starmer https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-uk-voting-intention-8-july/
It's as if those voters are pro-Sunak as a way of being anti-Johnson.
That COULD be the case, and people who say they like Sunak may not be prepared to vote for him.
However, swing voters do still exist and it could also be that a lot of those people are saying "I'm Labour now... but call me back if Sunak is Tory leader, as I like him better than Johnson". i.e. it may not be a Machiavellian response to undermine Johnson but a genuine view Sunak would be more likely to get their vote.
The poll shows 19% of Labour voters and 31% of LD voters prefer Sunak to Starmer and 23% of SNP voters prefer Sunak to Starmer. However 20% of Labour voters prefer Boris to Starmer ie more than prefer Sunak and the same is true for SNP voters where 26% prefer Boris to Starmer, however more LDs prefer Sunak to Starmer than prefer Boris to Starmer as only 26% of them prefer Boris to Starmer.
Given 77% of Tories prefer Boris to Starmer but only 69% of Tories prefer Sunak to Starmer that suggests the only net gains Sunak would make for the Tories over Boris would be with LDs but he risks losing some Tory voters to the Brexit Party or Labour
Dear old HY
If you take two names and give people a forced choice, many will say that they prefer one to the other. That does not mean - when other options are also available - that voters are going to pile in on Sunak because the only alternative is the Labour Party.
Based on some professional analysis, the mobile networks that are most impacted by this news is EE/BT Mobile.
Least impacted O2/Vodafone but with Cornerstone unwind, Vodafone might also be severely impacted going forward.
I've heard the bigger worry is that the UK removing Huawei will bring irresistible pressure on NATO allies to follow suit and what might be a £1.5bn bill for Vodafone and BT turns into a €20bn bill for European telecoms companies. Vodafone are less exposed in the UK than they are in Germany, their German network is mostly Huawei based and they would need to spend billions on ripping it all out and selling for pennies to the pound on the secondary markets.
Additionally if the Tory rebels succeed in backporting this advice to 2G, 3G and 4G a £1.5bn bill for BT and Vodafone turns into a £3.5bn bill and if the date is set to 2024 it turns into a £5.5bn bill or the same £3.5bn with signal dropouts in rural areas for 4-5 years. If Europe follows suit on the 2G, 3G and 4G removal of Huawei and sets an aggressive date it will cost legitimately tens of billions to get it done and there will be a huge shortage of non-Huawei equipment that meets the requirements. The telecoms industry feels that they need to halt this here in the UK or they face a decade of new investment and no profits for basically what they see as no gain because it doesn't get them anything better than what they have now.
Yep, a total bloody mess. Consolidation in the telecoms industry has bitten us on the arse.
I think the standalone 5G might be the saviour of the telecoms industry in Europe. I've heard loads are planning to roll it out aggressively and cannibalise 2G and 3G spectrum for 5G and then turn them off by 2025 meaning there is only a bill for 4G replacement which is a lot lower and can be done more easily by the time 2025 rolls around and 70-80% of network traffic is running on standalone 5G. That is the ideal scenario but it means Ericsson and Nokia need to deliver a huge amount in a short period of time and do so with mainly European and US manufactured components. It's not going to be easy.
If you crack open a typical base station, there's a lot of stuff in there - from SAW filters and complex radios to ethernet cables. It's not necessary to move commodity stuff - that can be bought from China, India, Thailand, Poland or wherever - to local manufacture.
A lot of the complex, proprietary stuff, is software that runs on FPGAs. (And historically, that was true of Huawei too - they'd buy Altera/Intel FPGAs and put their own stuff on it. Now, of course, they're developing their own FPGA capability.)
My point is that if you force Ericsson and Nokia to massively up their local content (to the level where it's not just core proprietary technology), then you increase their costs, which means that when it's a Brazilian or South African company that is looking to buy telecoms equipment, then they are at a price disadvantage.
I had completely missed that bit - Nokia and Ericsson will have a duopoly across Europe and North America while the rest of the world will be 100% Huawei / ZTE....
I think we've got to do it anyway. The west needs to reduce its reliance on China, Huawei is just another company that has benefited from huge state subsidies and used those to undercut European and US companies to drive them out of business. It's no surprise that as Huawei gained prominence and we relaxed the rules all over Europe for them our own companies underwent a huge amount of turmoil and consolidation.
We must recognise China for what it is, a hostile actor who want nothing more than to make the world subservient. We're in a cold war and with them and they're they only ones fighting it.
I don't entirely disagree, but I do think it's much better to order "rip it all out" once there are viable alternatives rather than before. I hope the people calling for this realise it will cost a lot of money to replace kit, and will require a lot of money invested in alternate suppliers to get us out of this mess.
Ericsson has just brought standalone 5G to the market, it's a viable product that doesn't need to be built on top of 4G. Nokia are said to have a similar product ready for early 2021. In terms of 5G I think there are now products available that weren't previously. The issue is going to be the rest. If the Tory rebels succeed in forcing 4G to be switched over as well BT, in particular, are completely fucked, especially if they get their 2024 target date. I'm not sure how they will do it other than just throwing money at the problem and local signal blackouts and broadband dropouts.
That 2024 target date needs to be removed otherwise it's going to be impossible to meet....
The thing here is that I'm at a loss as to what has changed with this announcement beyond making what was implicit advice explicit while seriously annoying China.
Based on some professional analysis, the mobile networks that are most impacted by this news is EE/BT Mobile.
Least impacted O2/Vodafone but with Cornerstone unwind, Vodafone might also be severely impacted going forward.
I've heard the bigger worry is that the UK removing Huawei will bring irresistible pressure on NATO allies to follow suit and what might be a £1.5bn bill for Vodafone and BT turns into a €20bn bill for European telecoms companies. Vodafone are less exposed in the UK than they are in Germany, their German network is mostly Huawei based and they would need to spend billions on ripping it all out and selling for pennies to the pound on the secondary markets.
Additionally if the Tory rebels succeed in backporting this advice to 2G, 3G and 4G a £1.5bn bill for BT and Vodafone turns into a £3.5bn bill and if the date is set to 2024 it turns into a £5.5bn bill or the same £3.5bn with signal dropouts in rural areas for 4-5 years. If Europe follows suit on the 2G, 3G and 4G removal of Huawei and sets an aggressive date it will cost legitimately tens of billions to get it done and there will be a huge shortage of non-Huawei equipment that meets the requirements. The telecoms industry feels that they need to halt this here in the UK or they face a decade of new investment and no profits for basically what they see as no gain because it doesn't get them anything better than what they have now.
Yep, a total bloody mess. Consolidation in the telecoms industry has bitten us on the arse.
I think the standalone 5G might be the saviour of the telecoms industry in Europe. I've heard loads are planning to roll it out aggressively and cannibalise 2G and 3G spectrum for 5G and then turn them off by 2025 meaning there is only a bill for 4G replacement which is a lot lower and can be done more easily by the time 2025 rolls around and 70-80% of network traffic is running on standalone 5G. That is the ideal scenario but it means Ericsson and Nokia need to deliver a huge amount in a short period of time and do so with mainly European and US manufactured components. It's not going to be easy.
If you crack open a typical base station, there's a lot of stuff in there - from SAW filters and complex radios to ethernet cables. It's not necessary to move commodity stuff - that can be bought from China, India, Thailand, Poland or wherever - to local manufacture.
A lot of the complex, proprietary stuff, is software that runs on FPGAs. (And historically, that was true of Huawei too - they'd buy Altera/Intel FPGAs and put their own stuff on it. Now, of course, they're developing their own FPGA capability.)
My point is that if you force Ericsson and Nokia to massively up their local content (to the level where it's not just core proprietary technology), then you increase their costs, which means that when it's a Brazilian or South African company that is looking to buy telecoms equipment, then they are at a price disadvantage.
I had completely missed that bit - Nokia and Ericsson will have a duopoly across Europe and North America while the rest of the world will be 100% Huawei / ZTE....
No, loads of Asia is falling into line with the US as well. The Chinese manufacturers will be limited to China, Russia, Africa and part of South America where America doesn't have any reach.
Extraordinary interview with Lord (Jim) O'Neill of Gatley on WatO today, in which the sinophile ex GS staffer got a bit emotional about dropping Hwawei. I wonder why.
One of the greatest put downs I have ever seen was by then Goldman Sachs International Chairman Peter Sutherland to Jim O'Neill.
Jim had just given a speech at Goldman conference in which he said - and I'm slightly paraphrasing - "I have been all over China, and I have heard a consistent message. The Chinese people do not want democracy, at least not yet."
Peter Sutherland stood up and said "Well, I'm glad that Jim has been able to divine the will of the Chinese people from his meetings with senior members of the Communist Party."
Based on some professional analysis, the mobile networks that are most impacted by this news is EE/BT Mobile.
Least impacted O2/Vodafone but with Cornerstone unwind, Vodafone might also be severely impacted going forward.
I've heard the bigger worry is that the UK removing Huawei will bring irresistible pressure on NATO allies to follow suit and what might be a £1.5bn bill for Vodafone and BT turns into a €20bn bill for European telecoms companies. Vodafone are less exposed in the UK than they are in Germany, their German network is mostly Huawei based and they would need to spend billions on ripping it all out and selling for pennies to the pound on the secondary markets.
Additionally if the Tory rebels succeed in backporting this advice to 2G, 3G and 4G a £1.5bn bill for BT and Vodafone turns into a £3.5bn bill and if the date is set to 2024 it turns into a £5.5bn bill or the same £3.5bn with signal dropouts in rural areas for 4-5 years. If Europe follows suit on the 2G, 3G and 4G removal of Huawei and sets an aggressive date it will cost legitimately tens of billions to get it done and there will be a huge shortage of non-Huawei equipment that meets the requirements. The telecoms industry feels that they need to halt this here in the UK or they face a decade of new investment and no profits for basically what they see as no gain because it doesn't get them anything better than what they have now.
Yep, a total bloody mess. Consolidation in the telecoms industry has bitten us on the arse.
I think the standalone 5G might be the saviour of the telecoms industry in Europe. I've heard loads are planning to roll it out aggressively and cannibalise 2G and 3G spectrum for 5G and then turn them off by 2025 meaning there is only a bill for 4G replacement which is a lot lower and can be done more easily by the time 2025 rolls around and 70-80% of network traffic is running on standalone 5G. That is the ideal scenario but it means Ericsson and Nokia need to deliver a huge amount in a short period of time and do so with mainly European and US manufactured components. It's not going to be easy.
If you crack open a typical base station, there's a lot of stuff in there - from SAW filters and complex radios to ethernet cables. It's not necessary to move commodity stuff - that can be bought from China, India, Thailand, Poland or wherever - to local manufacture.
A lot of the complex, proprietary stuff, is software that runs on FPGAs. (And historically, that was true of Huawei too - they'd buy Altera/Intel FPGAs and put their own stuff on it. Now, of course, they're developing their own FPGA capability.)
My point is that if you force Ericsson and Nokia to massively up their local content (to the level where it's not just core proprietary technology), then you increase their costs, which means that when it's a Brazilian or South African company that is looking to buy telecoms equipment, then they are at a price disadvantage.
I had completely missed that bit - Nokia and Ericsson will have a duopoly across Europe and North America while the rest of the world will be 100% Huawei / ZTE....
No, loads of Asia is falling into line with the US as well. The Chinese manufacturers will be limited to China, Russia, Africa and part of South America where America doesn't have any reach.
Japan and South Korea I could understand, India and Pakistan though?
Based on some professional analysis, the mobile networks that are most impacted by this news is EE/BT Mobile.
Least impacted O2/Vodafone but with Cornerstone unwind, Vodafone might also be severely impacted going forward.
I've heard the bigger worry is that the UK removing Huawei will bring irresistible pressure on NATO allies to follow suit and what might be a £1.5bn bill for Vodafone and BT turns into a €20bn bill for European telecoms companies. Vodafone are less exposed in the UK than they are in Germany, their German network is mostly Huawei based and they would need to spend billions on ripping it all out and selling for pennies to the pound on the secondary markets.
Additionally if the Tory rebels succeed in backporting this advice to 2G, 3G and 4G a £1.5bn bill for BT and Vodafone turns into a £3.5bn bill and if the date is set to 2024 it turns into a £5.5bn bill or the same £3.5bn with signal dropouts in rural areas for 4-5 years. If Europe follows suit on the 2G, 3G and 4G removal of Huawei and sets an aggressive date it will cost legitimately tens of billions to get it done and there will be a huge shortage of non-Huawei equipment that meets the requirements. The telecoms industry feels that they need to halt this here in the UK or they face a decade of new investment and no profits for basically what they see as no gain because it doesn't get them anything better than what they have now.
Yep, a total bloody mess. Consolidation in the telecoms industry has bitten us on the arse.
I think the standalone 5G might be the saviour of the telecoms industry in Europe. I've heard loads are planning to roll it out aggressively and cannibalise 2G and 3G spectrum for 5G and then turn them off by 2025 meaning there is only a bill for 4G replacement which is a lot lower and can be done more easily by the time 2025 rolls around and 70-80% of network traffic is running on standalone 5G. That is the ideal scenario but it means Ericsson and Nokia need to deliver a huge amount in a short period of time and do so with mainly European and US manufactured components. It's not going to be easy.
If you crack open a typical base station, there's a lot of stuff in there - from SAW filters and complex radios to ethernet cables. It's not necessary to move commodity stuff - that can be bought from China, India, Thailand, Poland or wherever - to local manufacture.
A lot of the complex, proprietary stuff, is software that runs on FPGAs. (And historically, that was true of Huawei too - they'd buy Altera/Intel FPGAs and put their own stuff on it. Now, of course, they're developing their own FPGA capability.)
My point is that if you force Ericsson and Nokia to massively up their local content (to the level where it's not just core proprietary technology), then you increase their costs, which means that when it's a Brazilian or South African company that is looking to buy telecoms equipment, then they are at a price disadvantage.
I had completely missed that bit - Nokia and Ericsson will have a duopoly across Europe and North America while the rest of the world will be 100% Huawei / ZTE....
No, loads of Asia is falling into line with the US as well. The Chinese manufacturers will be limited to China, Russia, Africa and part of South America where America doesn't have any reach.
Japan and South Korea I could understand, India and Pakistan though?
This is why most Tories are so relaxed. Sunak is a cut above Starmer on ability, intelligence and making a connection with the public and I think they have someone who can win in 2024. Do Labour have anyone capable of replacing Starmer that can win a majority or even become PM with an SNP coalition? I'm scratching my head but no one comes to mind.
Sunak may do an excellent job of managing the major economic problems that are heading our way but at the moment he's like the most popular guy in the pub buying everyone drinks. Let's see how many of his new mates stick around once the money runs out.
Based on some professional analysis, the mobile networks that are most impacted by this news is EE/BT Mobile.
Least impacted O2/Vodafone but with Cornerstone unwind, Vodafone might also be severely impacted going forward.
I've heard the bigger worry is that the UK removing Huawei will bring irresistible pressure on NATO allies to follow suit and what might be a £1.5bn bill for Vodafone and BT turns into a €20bn bill for European telecoms companies. Vodafone are less exposed in the UK than they are in Germany, their German network is mostly Huawei based and they would need to spend billions on ripping it all out and selling for pennies to the pound on the secondary markets.
Additionally if the Tory rebels succeed in backporting this advice to 2G, 3G and 4G a £1.5bn bill for BT and Vodafone turns into a £3.5bn bill and if the date is set to 2024 it turns into a £5.5bn bill or the same £3.5bn with signal dropouts in rural areas for 4-5 years. If Europe follows suit on the 2G, 3G and 4G removal of Huawei and sets an aggressive date it will cost legitimately tens of billions to get it done and there will be a huge shortage of non-Huawei equipment that meets the requirements. The telecoms industry feels that they need to halt this here in the UK or they face a decade of new investment and no profits for basically what they see as no gain because it doesn't get them anything better than what they have now.
Yep, a total bloody mess. Consolidation in the telecoms industry has bitten us on the arse.
I think the standalone 5G might be the saviour of the telecoms industry in Europe. I've heard loads are planning to roll it out aggressively and cannibalise 2G and 3G spectrum for 5G and then turn them off by 2025 meaning there is only a bill for 4G replacement which is a lot lower and can be done more easily by the time 2025 rolls around and 70-80% of network traffic is running on standalone 5G. That is the ideal scenario but it means Ericsson and Nokia need to deliver a huge amount in a short period of time and do so with mainly European and US manufactured components. It's not going to be easy.
If you crack open a typical base station, there's a lot of stuff in there - from SAW filters and complex radios to ethernet cables. It's not necessary to move commodity stuff - that can be bought from China, India, Thailand, Poland or wherever - to local manufacture.
A lot of the complex, proprietary stuff, is software that runs on FPGAs. (And historically, that was true of Huawei too - they'd buy Altera/Intel FPGAs and put their own stuff on it. Now, of course, they're developing their own FPGA capability.)
My point is that if you force Ericsson and Nokia to massively up their local content (to the level where it's not just core proprietary technology), then you increase their costs, which means that when it's a Brazilian or South African company that is looking to buy telecoms equipment, then they are at a price disadvantage.
I had completely missed that bit - Nokia and Ericsson will have a duopoly across Europe and North America while the rest of the world will be 100% Huawei / ZTE....
No, loads of Asia is falling into line with the US as well. The Chinese manufacturers will be limited to China, Russia, Africa and part of South America where America doesn't have any reach.
Japan and South Korea I could understand, India and Pakistan though?
India just banned TikTok. Pretty sure tough on China is going to be a huge vote winner there as well. Pakistan will be forced to choose keeping their US Aid or picking China. The US has a lot of surrogates in Asia.
So we're substituting that for the risk of failures and disruptions thanks to ripping out large quantities of kit which will need replacing on timescales not commercially realistic ?
Particularly should this become Europe-wide, and strain the supply chain.
Yes, too many people worrying about the Chinese goverment reading their emails — even though almost all important traffic is encrypted, as is the majority of all traffic — and not enough people worrying about having a reliable network. Never mind the cost, economic impact, diplomacy etc.
Reasonable point but as I said before, these points apply just as widely to the removal of Huawei equipment from the RAN as they do from FTTC cabinets say.
The logic of removing them from the core network I get but removing from the RAN but not for 2G, 3G, 4G or removing them from FTTC/FTTP doesn't make sense.
Reliability reduction as a consequence of a move that will make barely any difference from a security POV, clearly was not considered.
The *political* point is to start a move away from China in telecoms.
As has been mentioned down thread, 2/3/4g will be removed in the near future, to make more bandwidth available for 5G.
Not in the near future is 2G/4G going to be removed.
3G yes but 2G/4G is going to stick around for years to come.
4G is currently required for 5G, so
Ericsson have just released standalone 5G to the market. The final consumer tests were successful. That's basically the solution to this, but the cost is going to be eyewatering until Nokia have a competing solution next year.
The hunger for spectrum is almost palpable - repurposing the old frequencies (which often have advantages) to push more Mb/s is inevitable. The only question is how long.
The Huawei news is not unexpected and there may be good political and security reasons for it. However, what it also means is that the UK is going to fall further behind in the roll-out of 5G, while it is now a lot more likely that UK businesses will be followers rather than leaders in areas such as the IoT and 4IR. All this stems from a total failure in Europe and the US to plan properly for the new era of connectivity. Huawei did not have to be a global leader in this field. It was allowed to be. That is our fault, not China's or Huawei's.
Mr. Battery, if your chief attacks on Sunak are that he had the temerity to not be born in poverty or marry a sufficiently poor wife then that stands him in good stead.
Sunak, born into privilege and married a billionaire.
Starmer, born into a working class family and worked his way up to be director of public prosecutions.
I know which one understands ordinary people more.
Sunak is the son of an immigrant GP and pharmacist who sacrificed a lot to send their kids to private school. Hard work, not privilege, got the Sunak family to where they are today. Don't get the two mixed up. That's not to say Starmer didn't work hard either.
The Huawei news is not unexpected and there may be good political and security reasons for it. However, what it also means is that the UK is going to fall further behind in the roll-out of 5G, while it is now a lot more likely that UK businesses will be followers rather than leaders in areas such as the IoT and 4IR. All this stems from a total failure in Europe and the US to plan properly for the new era of connectivity. Huawei did not have to be a global leader in this field. It was allowed to be. That is our fault, not China's or Huawei's.
Yes, it is our fault, but the issue goes back 20 years when the world decided in 2001 that China was deserving of full WTO membership and the all of the privileges and responsibilities that comes with. We allowed the fox into the henhouse.
Mr. Battery, if your chief attacks on Sunak are that he had the temerity to not be born in poverty or marry a sufficiently poor wife then that stands him in good stead.
Just wondering why you put Mr in front of my name, there's really no need? Just call me Horse, please.
Its a shame really: a torn up Conservative membsership card was formerly a mark of sanity now it seems people are leaving becasue Boris is exactly as they expected him to be.
Maybe if enough of them leave this time around the party will become inhabitable again.
The Huawei news is not unexpected and there may be good political and security reasons for it. However, what it also means is that the UK is going to fall further behind in the roll-out of 5G, while it is now a lot more likely that UK businesses will be followers rather than leaders in areas such as the IoT and 4IR. All this stems from a total failure in Europe and the US to plan properly for the new era of connectivity. Huawei did not have to be a global leader in this field. It was allowed to be. That is our fault, not China's or Huawei's.
Yes, it is our fault, but the issue goes back 20 years when the world decided in 2001 that China was deserving of full WTO membership and the all of the privileges and responsibilities that comes with. We allowed the fox into the henhouse.
Though in 2001 it looked like China was serious about reforming. Even after Jiang retired and was replaced by Hu the future still seemed optimistic.
It is since Xi took over that China has taken a dark turn and people have not faced up to that quick enough.
Its a shame really: a torn up Conservative membsership card was formerly a mark of sanity now it seems people are leaving becasue Boris is exactly as they expected him to be.
Maybe if enough of them leave this time around the party will become inhabitable again.
The last time it was 'habitable' under your terms the tories were ten points behind the brexit party
Lockdown can only be maintained for a certain period of time and can flatten the peak and help with containment but can not be a way of life. So countries that prematurely lockdown have risked using up their lockdown period where it wasn't required only to then see the virus enter their society which now has no herd immunity and is already frustrated with lockdown restrictions, thus seeing a surge in cases post-lockdown.
However in countries that delayed lockdown and 'flattened the curve' after lockdown restrictions are lifted there is a much greater herd immunity effect so that even if there isn't full herd immunity it is easier to keep R down to below 1.
Which is basically what our SAGE scientists were saying back in March.
I think the herd immunity aspect is a red herring here- UK has 290k recorded cases. Even if that's a 10th of the real cases we're talking a tiny proportion of the population, not enough to make any real impact on infection rates. Plus the length of immunity isn't yet settled science, so you're counting your chickens early.
So putting that aside, what you're describing is my scenario 2., that there's no safe way to exit lockdown and our cases will inevitably skyrocket like SA's. In that case, we haven't benefited from locking down late, all it means is that our second peak is delayed a little, not that we're going to avoid it.
Also, I think your model of having a single, hard lockdown, which then gets lifted and we return to normal is wrong. For one thing, there are several things that can happen during lockdown which lead to an improvement even after it's lifted. Masks and hand sanitizer are now much more available than they were. There's been time for messaging about safety (hand washing, masks indoors, social distancing) to settle in during lockdown. Many offices have been reconfigured to allow people to work distanced from each other. Etc. This would all have happened in an earlier lockdown too. There's also test-and-trace which is more effective the fewer cases there are, so an earlier lockdown would have actually lead to a lower R after lockdown was lifted.
And the other thing is that the need to reopen quickly is in part because of the length and hardness of the lockdown. If we'd locked down earlier, we could have partially reopened much sooner, and then remained in that partial-reopen state much longer, which would have managed economic damage while keeping R to safe levels.
I don't agree that herd immunity is a red herring. In particular if those most exposed (each bus drivers, shopkeepers etc) got it first time around and are now immune they're not able to act as superspreaders second time around. Hence a very real and meaningful impact on R.
You're ruling out a very real factor without evidence as to why.
There's that.
There's also the fact that the pandemic started here at the end of the winter. Any resurgence would likely be at the start of the coming winter, providing several more months of the best conditions for viral spread. We might not see the dramatic spread that we did at the beginning of the pandemic, but a much more drawn out process is quite possible.
And of course it's not impossible that we have a reasonably effective vaccine available in some quantity before the year end, which would enable vaccination in areas around any outbreaks.
Forecasting numbers is futile; what we should be looking at instead is the most cost effective and least disruptive interventions (of which masking is, I believe, one).
I believe Galloway's vehicle for saving the Union doesn't include tiresome details like him running for Holyrood. I think we all know the reason for that.
Its a shame really: a torn up Conservative membsership card was formerly a mark of sanity now it seems people are leaving becasue Boris is exactly as they expected him to be.
Maybe if enough of them leave this time around the party will become inhabitable again.
The last time it was 'habitable' under your terms the tories were ten points behind the brexit party
Seems fair to me: the principle is that I'm not a bigot and I don't want to be associated with a party that has stolen the clothes of bigots for electoral gain.
You on the other hand either are a bigot or don't mind being associated with them. It's your call.
Lockdown can only be maintained for a certain period of time and can flatten the peak and help with containment but can not be a way of life. So countries that prematurely lockdown have risked using up their lockdown period where it wasn't required only to then see the virus enter their society which now has no herd immunity and is already frustrated with lockdown restrictions, thus seeing a surge in cases post-lockdown.
However in countries that delayed lockdown and 'flattened the curve' after lockdown restrictions are lifted there is a much greater herd immunity effect so that even if there isn't full herd immunity it is easier to keep R down to below 1.
Which is basically what our SAGE scientists were saying back in March.
I think the herd immunity aspect is a red herring here- UK has 290k recorded cases. Even if that's a 10th of the real cases we're talking a tiny proportion of the population, not enough to make any real impact on infection rates. Plus the length of immunity isn't yet settled science, so you're counting your chickens early.
So putting that aside, what you're describing is my scenario 2., that there's no safe way to exit lockdown and our cases will inevitably skyrocket like SA's. In that case, we haven't benefited from locking down late, all it means is that our second peak is delayed a little, not that we're going to avoid it.
Also, I think your model of having a single, hard lockdown, which then gets lifted and we return to normal is wrong. For one thing, there are several things that can happen during lockdown which lead to an improvement even after it's lifted. Masks and hand sanitizer are now much more available than they were. There's been time for messaging about safety (hand washing, masks indoors, social distancing) to settle in during lockdown. Many offices have been reconfigured to allow people to work distanced from each other. Etc. This would all have happened in an earlier lockdown too. There's also test-and-trace which is more effective the fewer cases there are, so an earlier lockdown would have actually lead to a lower R after lockdown was lifted.
And the other thing is that the need to reopen quickly is in part because of the length and hardness of the lockdown. If we'd locked down earlier, we could have partially reopened much sooner, and then remained in that partial-reopen state much longer, which would have managed economic damage while keeping R to safe levels.
I don't agree that herd immunity is a red herring. In particular if those most exposed (each bus drivers, shopkeepers etc) got it first time around and are now immune they're not able to act as superspreaders second time around. Hence a very real and meaningful impact on R.
You're ruling out a very real factor without evidence as to why.
There's that.
There's also the fact that the pandemic started here at the end of the winter. Any resurgence would likely be at the start of the coming winter, providing several more months of the best conditions for viral spread. We might not see the dramatic spread that we did at the beginning of the pandemic, but a much more drawn out process is quite possible.
And of course it's not impossible that we have a reasonably effective vaccine available in some quantity before the year end, which would enable vaccination in areas around any outbreaks.
Forecasting numbers is futile; what we should be looking at instead is the most cost effective and least disruptive interventions (of which masking is, I believe, one).
On this I agree with you 100%.
I can't understand people who are wanting to keep the devastating social distancing regulations instead of wearing a simple mask and getting back to normal.
Masks plus normal life is more liberal and tolerable than no masks but pubs shut and major restrictions on our lives.
The Huawei news is not unexpected and there may be good political and security reasons for it. However, what it also means is that the UK is going to fall further behind in the roll-out of 5G, while it is now a lot more likely that UK businesses will be followers rather than leaders in areas such as the IoT and 4IR. All this stems from a total failure in Europe and the US to plan properly for the new era of connectivity. Huawei did not have to be a global leader in this field. It was allowed to be. That is our fault, not China's or Huawei's.
Yes, it is our fault, but the issue goes back 20 years when the world decided in 2001 that China was deserving of full WTO membership and the all of the privileges and responsibilities that comes with. We allowed the fox into the henhouse.
Though in 2001 it looked like China was serious about reforming. Even after Jiang retired and was replaced by Hu the future still seemed optimistic.
It is since Xi took over that China has taken a dark turn and people have not faced up to that quick enough.
Is that really true? My understanding is that pretty much since the humiliations of the Victorian era, China has been on a gradual mission to supplant the West and dominate the world, by whatever means necessary. I believe this mission goes from the top of the country to the citizens on the ground. The country has been frantically acquiring Western tech for decades using espionage and dodgy business practises (MG Rover springs to mind as just one example).
I don't hate China for this, or even blame them for it particularly. Our mission should always have been to be good friends, express appropriate regret for the past, acknowledge China's status and understand their wish for enhanced national prestige, but at the same time, secure the UK, its companies and its tech, from their espionage activities and unacceptable business practises. This clearly has not happened. Current policy seems a bit punch drunk. I don't support us making big moves on China at the moment when we're in the midst of the coronavirus situation - it needs to be done in the cold light of day.
Its a shame really: a torn up Conservative membsership card was formerly a mark of sanity now it seems people are leaving becasue Boris is exactly as they expected him to be.
Maybe if enough of them leave this time around the party will become inhabitable again.
The last time it was 'habitable' under your terms the tories were ten points behind the brexit party
Seems fair to me: the principle is that I'm not a bigot and I don't want to be associated with a party that has stolen the clothes of bigots for electoral gain.
You on the other hand either are a bigot or don't mind being associated with them. It's your call.
You may or may not be a bigot but you are certainly closed minded and ignorant.
Comments
Note o2 isn’t as exposed as suggested here due to some work done before.
CTIL is Cornestone between o2 and Vodafone that is being unwound.
EE 5G
>99% Huawei (4 nations)
1% Nokia (1 nation)
1% Other vendor(s)
EE 4G
65% Huawei (4 nations)
35% Nokia (3 nations)
<1% Other vendor(s)
EE core
Huawei EPC
Three 5G
100% Huawei (4 nations)
Three 4G
>60% Samsung (4 nations)
<40% Huawei (4 nations)
<1% Other vendor(s)
Three core
Low levels of Huawei components
Vodafone 5G
Ericsson (3 nations)
Huawei (3 nations)
Vodafone core
No reported Huawei components
O2 5G
Ericsson (4 nations)
Huawei (3 nations)
Nokia (1 nation)
O2 core
No reported Huawei components
CTIL 4G
Huawei (3 nations) North West, West Midlands and Wales heavily dependent on Huawei RAN.
Ericsson (3 nations)
Nokia (1 nation)
Other vendor(s)
All access network
Medium levels of Huawei cell site gateways, other Huawei components also in existence.
Please note that this is intended to be a snapshot of deployments at the time of posting, and no guarantees are made for the accuracy of the above information.
EE are most exposed in terms of site volume. Three are most exposed in terms of vendor choice. VF/O2 are most exposed in terms of largest geographical zones covered by only Huawei.
https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/comment/96892852/#Comment_96892852
Also who provides the network for Sky mobile? That’s right o2.
You're ruling out a very real factor without evidence as to why.
Particularly should this become Europe-wide, and strain the supply chain.
MBNL is primarily for sharing of sites, not for 2G fallback. In a sense 3G coverage is shared, 4G and 5G are separate.
Headline - 26
7 Days - 24
Yesterday - 5
Edit. Given the Dunning-Kruger effect is rife amongst Leavers, not all of them are aware that they do actually need Sunak. But they will decide his fate. Johnson and Cummings are well aware of their success and longevity depend on the whim of unthinking Leavers.
We must recognise China for what it is, a hostile actor who want nothing more than to make the world subservient. We're in a cold war and with them and they're they only ones fighting it.
The logic of removing them from the core network I get but removing from the RAN but not for 2G, 3G, 4G or removing them from FTTC/FTTP doesn't make sense.
Reliability reduction as a consequence of a move that will make barely any difference from a security POV, clearly was not considered.
As for the cash call, I think there's going to be a short term need for investment in European manufacturing and helping supply chain partners to move out of China as well.
As has been mentioned down thread, 2/3/4g will be removed in the near future, to make more bandwidth available for 5G.
The last poll showed the SNP winning seats on the List vote despite taking almost all the FPTP seats.
3G yes but 2G/4G is going to stick around for years to come.
4G is currently required for 5G, so
Lloyd, Richards, Imran Khan, Border, Taylor, Waugh, Dhoni, and Vaughan. All of those would have walked straigh into almost any Test team.
The main difference is that captains are not dropped as quickly when they go through a patch of bad from.
A lot of the complex, proprietary stuff, is software that runs on FPGAs. (And historically, that was true of Huawei too - they'd buy Altera/Intel FPGAs and put their own stuff on it. Now, of course, they're developing their own FPGA capability.)
My point is that if you force Ericsson and Nokia to massively up their local content (to the level where it's not just core proprietary technology), then you increase their costs, which means that when it's a Brazilian or South African company that is looking to buy telecoms equipment, then they are at a price disadvantage.
Personally now heading down for observer training at King Co Elections; sadly have misplaced my hazmed suit. Will give you report IF I survive the training & round trip on the bus.
AND HAPPY BASTILLE DAY!
But fine, let's agree to disagree on that point- it doesn't contradict most of what I'm saying. And in fact an earlier, softer lockdown would have been perfect if you wanted to enable super-spreaders to develop herd immunity while protecting those most at risk (e.g. people in care homes).
https://twitter.com/TDucklo/status/1282988981756583936?s=19
If you take two names and give people a forced choice, many will say that they prefer one to the other. That does not mean - when other options are also available - that voters are going to pile in on Sunak because the only alternative is the Labour Party.
The thing here is that I'm at a loss as to what has changed with this announcement beyond making what was implicit advice explicit while seriously annoying China.
Jim had just given a speech at Goldman conference in which he said - and I'm slightly paraphrasing - "I have been all over China, and I have heard a consistent message. The Chinese people do not want democracy, at least not yet."
Peter Sutherland stood up and said "Well, I'm glad that Jim has been able to divine the will of the Chinese people from his meetings with senior members of the Communist Party."
AHHHH! Shy Trump voters. Shy Trump voters. Shy Trump voters. How many times do we need to tell them.
Here's what you could have won....
I saw the polling on Alex Salmond's party - which was a "Yes/No" to "Do you think you might vote for the new party with your list vote?”
He got 24%, which once you factor in acquiescence bias is surely not enough to convince Alex that it's worthwhile.
Starmer, born into a working class family and worked his way up to be director of public prosecutions.
I know which one understands ordinary people more.
Maybe if enough of them leave this time around the party will become inhabitable again.
It is since Xi took over that China has taken a dark turn and people have not faced up to that quick enough.
Sunak is a massive lay.
There's also the fact that the pandemic started here at the end of the winter. Any resurgence would likely be at the start of the coming winter, providing several more months of the best conditions for viral spread.
We might not see the dramatic spread that we did at the beginning of the pandemic, but a much more drawn out process is quite possible.
And of course it's not impossible that we have a reasonably effective vaccine available in some quantity before the year end, which would enable vaccination in areas around any outbreaks.
Forecasting numbers is futile; what we should be looking at instead is the most cost effective and least disruptive interventions (of which masking is, I believe, one).
https://twitter.com/WPB_Scotland/status/1282799787767668742?s=20
I believe Galloway's vehicle for saving the Union doesn't include tiresome details like him running for Holyrood. I think we all know the reason for that.
Anyone got any big bits of cardboard?
You on the other hand either are a bigot or don't mind being associated with them. It's your call.
I can't understand people who are wanting to keep the devastating social distancing regulations instead of wearing a simple mask and getting back to normal.
Masks plus normal life is more liberal and tolerable than no masks but pubs shut and major restrictions on our lives.
I don't hate China for this, or even blame them for it particularly. Our mission should always have been to be good friends, express appropriate regret for the past, acknowledge China's status and understand their wish for enhanced national prestige, but at the same time, secure the UK, its companies and its tech, from their espionage activities and unacceptable business practises. This clearly has not happened. Current policy seems a bit punch drunk. I don't support us making big moves on China at the moment when we're in the midst of the coronavirus situation - it needs to be done in the cold light of day.