
Bell, Telus to use Nokia and Ericsson, not Huawei, in building their 5G networks - CalmStorm
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bce-5g-ericsson-1.5594601
======
jbay808
For a long period of time, these companies would not publicly commit to going
ahead without Huawei for 5G, and despite pressure from the US (and warnings
from CSIS), the Canadian government still has not made an announcement about
whether Huawei would be restricted as a supplier.

Many Canadians were frustrated by this, feeling like they didn't want Huawei
networks but that they weren't being heard.

It occurs to me now that had any of those steps been taken before reaching a
deal with Ericsson, it would have given Ericsson a much stronger bargaining
position and they probably could have charged a lot more.

This isn't the first time where I've felt frustrated, unheard, and kept in the
dark, only to later realize that there may have been important considerations
that I just wasn't aware of.

~~~
Scoundreller
Just goes to show that Canadian telecom policy is controlled by telecoms, not
by the government. It's very cozy and regularly functions to discourage
competition.

Canadian telecom policy still revolves around "facilities-based competition",
where it's believed that new entrants should build out a new network. It's
designed to fail. Even the incumbents, Bell and Telus, share a 3G/4G mobile
network to avoid redundant infrastructure. Ironically, the two contracted
Huawei and Nokia to build out this network:
[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/bell-teams-up-
wit...](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/bell-teams-up-with-rival-
telus-on-3g/article1200256/)

Huawei was marketing 5G directly to Canadian consumers for a while, but was
careful to never mention/imply that 5G could lower pricing. That would be a
thermonuclear threat to telecoms with dire consequences.

~~~
refurb
People complain about the lack of cell phone providers here in the US, but
damn! Canada is way worse. The cost of phone plans is outrageous and the major
telecoms do everything in their power to stop new entrants from messing up
their gravy train.

~~~
humanlion87
I think it's far more difficult to build a competitive network in Canada vs
the US. Canada is as big as the US, but has 1/10th the population. Building
and maintaining infrastructure for low-density population areas is extremely
capital intensive. I am not saying the existing Telco oligopoly is a good or
ideal situation. Just mentioning that US and Canada have some differences in
this regard

~~~
Scoundreller
Most of the low-density population areas aren't covered anyway. By landmass,
it's single-digit percentages or low double-digit percentages of coverage (And
often it's weak outside of urban/suburban area).

One of the least dense provinces, Saskatchewan, has some of the best pricing
in the country because the government has yet to selloff the provincial
telecom to private investors. Manitoba too before they decided to privatize
and sell off to an incumbent.

And high-density is no panacea for cost. Tall concrete buildings everywhere
can mean _more_ infrastructure costs. Especially if regulations require you to
fit infrastructure into the facade. Medium-density is the least engineering:
Just put up a tower and call it a day. And in Canada, antenna permits are
federal. Once issued, local govs can't stop you from putting up your
monstrosity of white panels on a midrise or a big metal antenna.

But you don't have to just compare Canada against the USA. Australia or
Iceland have rates that Canadians can only dream of, with similarly geo-
population situations.

~~~
SuperPaintMan
There's a reason we fight hard for our crown corperations out here in
Saskatchewan, if this was left to the market we would be screwed. The farther
away from populated centers you get, the harder it is to get decent service
however. I grew up out in Melville, SK where the fastest connections at the
time were 15mbps DSL connections (this was around the time that Google Fiber
was starting to roll out elsewhere). Once you get farther out, copper isn't
even an option so cellular and satellite links are needed. The only nice thing
about fiber is digging up ditches is relatively cheap

Some of us are excited to see how systems such as StarLink develop, maybe
bringing decent rural access to the network is in the cards.

Next time you make a page that requires 10Mb of assets before loading, please
remember there are people dealing with terrible connections. I know my first
100mbps connection was a godsend.

------
rrrrrrrrrrrryan
I'm as much a proponent of free trade as the next guy, but I do think there's
a strong argument for trying to build and maintaining one's own infrastructure
whenever possible, even if it's a bit more expensive. Not just for national
security concerns, but because they're big domestic projects and it's nice to
have to the talent and knowledge at home.

~~~
markus_zhang
Just to note that purchasing equipment from Nokia and Ericsson doesn't mean
that you are "building and maintaining one's own infrastructure".

As a bonus the network is also actively listened by all state players who have
the ability to do so, regardless of supplier.

~~~
rrrrrrrrrrrryan
Right, I was making an argument for domestic solutions, which wouldn't include
Nokia or Ericsson - I could've been more clear.

~~~
TorKlingberg
Mobile network equipment is complicated enough that you can't expect every
country to make their own from scratch. It's a bit like trying to make a
domestic mobile OS or web browser.

------
pselbert
Possibly a bit of a stretch, but to my mind more business for Ericsson means
more guaranteed support for Erlang. That's something to celebrate about in my
book.

~~~
arcticbull
I never put it together that for the the telecom-originating language Erlang,
the "Er" stood for Ericsson. The more you know.

'The name Erlang, attributed to Bjarne Däcker, has been presumed by those
working on the telephony switches (for whom the language was designed) to be a
reference to Danish mathematician and engineer Agner Krarup Erlang and a
syllabic abbreviation of "Ericsson Language".' [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlang_(programming_language)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlang_\(programming_language\))

------
Tiktaalik
Huge relief to the government, who can now "approve" Huawei, and can go to the
Chinese government and say, "see look we play fair in Canada", and still be
sure that this will mean nothing and that no Huawei equipment will be used.

Wouldn't be surprised if the government asked the establishment telcos to do
this favour for them. Huawei and the notion of them building Canadian 5G polls
insanely badly in Canada and the government was in a tough place here.

~~~
arcticbull
The relationship between Canada and China isn't exactly cuddly warm right now,
what with Meng Wanzhou detained in Vancouver at the request of the Americans,
and China's execution of a few unrelated Canadians in retribution [1].

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/china-
sen...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/china-sentences-
another-canadian-man-to-death-amid-huawei-feud)

------
alwaysanon
My mobile carrier in Australia (Vodafone) was 100% Huawei for 4G and,
similarly, has had to pivot away for 5G at great expense (it seems that the
Huawei 5G was a cheaper upgrade to the existing kit they had). It has delayed
them doing 5G for at least a year trying to make both the tech and commercials
work to pivot. [https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/vodafone-signs-
nok...](https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/vodafone-signs-nokia-
for-5g-huawei-sites-to-be-scaled-back-20191230-p53ni6.html)

------
quietthrow
Can somebody articulate why using huawei a bad idea beside it’s a Chinese
company and using those equipments gives China backdoor access into critical
systems and everything it connects to. Or is that basically it? I am trying to
understand this objectively as if sitting on mars why this is a good or bad
idea.

~~~
sangnoir
Using Huawei will pump money into Huawei pockets - allowing them to spend more
on R&D for the next-gen tech (6G), resulting in China cementing technological
primacy in telecoms - which just won't do as such proficiencies tend to spill-
over into related fields (chip design & fabrication, RF engineering & software
chops for civilian and military applications). All this is bad (from the
perspective of the US)

------
O_H_E
For the unfamiliar, these are the bigger 2 of the big 3 ISPs in Canada. The
basically own most of the actual telecommunication infrastructure, Rogers got
some but not much.

~~~
mthoms
>Rogers got some but not much.

The Rogers network is massive. Bell (which is larger in the east) and Telus
(western based) share infrastructure. Rogers is their nation-wide competitor.

Rogers' LTE network covers 95% of the population (according to wiki).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Wireless#LTE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Wireless#LTE)

------
m23khan
As a Canadian, I would say that if Huawei was not selected due to issues
relating to national security -- then why not take some time to setup a crown
corporation / Government-owned company and have them develop indigenous
hardware/software for 5G networks?

I am sure if Canadians can develop their own smartphones, space mission
components (Canada arm) and airplanes, they can develop 5G network equipment.

~~~
giarc
Starting from scratch would mean we would have 5G when everyone else is
upgrading from the "old, outdated" 5G technology.

------
supernova87a
I would love to know whether the fundamental objection over security
vulnerabilities in the hardware and software of Huawei is resolved with this
decision.

Or if Nokia and Ericsson are just as susceptible and it was just political
posturing.

~~~
mthoms
It's not _vulnerabilities_ they're worried about. The Chinese Communist Party
effectively controls Huawei. For obvious reasons this is much more risky than
sourcing equipment from ideological/political allies in Europe.

~~~
mthoms
Hmm, this the first time I've been downvoted so hard and coincidentally, also
the first time I've ever mentioned the CCP.

What a wild coincidence. /s

------
chvid
In other news; here in Denmark the government has barred Huawei by decree.
Also covering Greenland and Faroe Islands. The situation is a bit different
here since as there are multiple competing network operators (at least in
mainland DK).

Germany's main network operators are also decling Huawei; not by direct
government decree though.

So Huawei seems to be loosing 5G contracts all over the western world.

~~~
chvid
Actually in which western countries will Huawei implement 5G networks? I know
they are technically allowed some places but no operators dare to hire them.

~~~
Synaesthesia
South Africa, well I don’t know if it counts as western but we’re rolling out
5G and using Huawei, as we did for our previous gen towers.

~~~
tibbydudeza
Well you can't beat their pricing ... we don't have the luxury of spending $$$
on an ideological decision.

~~~
jotm
Are they really cheaper? Anyone have the prices?

I think even if they're cheaper now, they'll raise their prices later. And
then you'd just be lining up the CCPs pockets at the expense of EU companies
(does not apply to SA, I'm just saying for EU citizens).

I was really disappointed in their newest high end phones. On par with Samsung
in quality and price, but instead of making them more open (for custom mods
and ROMs) they just went down the lockdown route. "Bootloader is locked for
the user's safety"... Yeah, right.

Shame, that's one thing they could've kept doing to distinguish themselves and
their products.

~~~
Synaesthesia
They're really well priced, in terms of phones IMO yeah. In terms of broadcast
hardware I assume that's the case too.

------
abledon
has anyone had to hear their crazy relatives go on about the dangers of 5G? Is
there some penultimate youtube video or resource to point people to to assuage
their fears?

~~~
adventured
I spent many hours arguing with a smart friend about this. I was unable to
find any argument to get her to stop believing 5G is boiling/damaging/altering
people's blood with "high powered energy waves" or similar (the blood clot
revelations have only amplified that conspiracy angle).

I find a commonality among most conspiracy theory people is vast ignorance of
the topic in question and any underlying science. This isn't always true,
however I've found it to be frequently true. They watch YouTube or Facebook
videos on a conspiracy, someone states an incorrect thing that is held up as
being scientifically correct; the conspiracy minded person has no idea it's
wrong because of their ignorance of science, and their eagerness to consume
conspiracies prevents them from being willing to do proper research. They buy
in with no skepticism.

Often the conversation would end on a variation of: when the pandemic is gone,
and 5G is still here, then what happens to your conspiracy? They had no reply,
the future risk of being wrong didn't matter, only the mental juice of the
conspiracy here and now. Or: what about locations where there is no 5G and
people are still widely getting the virus? No answer. Or: why is this event so
interesting as to warrant outlandish conspiracy theories, versus the pandemics
of 1957 or 1968 or 1918, which were not caused by 5G? Or: why didn't 4G kill
everyone, despite the absurd conspiracy theories about that as well? It
usually does no good, they ignore the premise because that's in the past,
they're all about the conspiracy now (it's the only place they can mentally
hide, because the conspiracy going on now is usually still open-ended, yet to
be crushed fully).

The conspiracy they're latched on to in the present is interesting because all
big events are interesting to the conspiracy brain. Particularly big active
events. Once an event is disproven, they usually instantly forget it ever
existed or that they were ever wrong, and move on to the latest thing
occupying the news or culture that is worthy of conspiracy theories (it
typically has to be a major event or their brains won't latch onto it).

I'm convinced at this point in my life, after decades of arguing with
conspiracy-minded types, that it's a mis-wiring or imbalance in the brain that
tilts people aggressively toward being prone to falling for conspiracy
theories. They also seem to need the rush of it (which again makes me wonder
about an imbalance in their brains). The way they behave intellectually is
incredibly similar; when you get inside their way of thinking via long
discussions, you start to see weirdly repeating patterns of thinking, traps,
failures of logic, and so on. I find that people prone to it, can't seem to
help themselves, they swallow conspiracy theories widely about numerous topics
and rarely are capable of intellectual skepticism. It almost strikes me as an
illness in how they seem hostage to it, and sort of reminds me of drug addicts
I've known. Like arguing with a helpless zombie that can't alter their
behavior under any circumstances, no matter what evidence they're presented
with.

~~~
mistermann
In my experience you can find plentiful examples of similar behaviour among
people in general. Take any culture-war-themed thread here on HN and marvel at
the _extensive_ collection of knowledge and facts people have on the subject,
often extending well into unknowable regions that require omniscience, mind
reading, future gazing, etc.

Human beings seem to be highly intuitive thinkers, but you may not notice it
much in environments with low variance in core values and beliefs.

But just so I'm not misunderstood, I don't disagree that conspiracy oriented
communities seem to have an unusually high percentage of people who are highly
open to new and speculative ideas, and are mostly extremely tolerant of
diversity of thought. I don't think it's necessarily as bad as it's made out
to be, I think they provide some legitimate value to society, although whether
it is _net beneficial_ I'm not entirely sure.

------
lihan
Anyone who lives in Canada should comment on this. Their mobile data cost is
over the roof expensive! This is in comparison already expensive cost in
Australia.

They need to manage to give everyone affordable 5G monthly data plan first!

~~~
jbay808
Canadian here. I don't especially care about having a 5G plan, but I support
this decision.

------
dade_
The carriers had every plan to use Huawei, the cost savings would drive far
better profit margins and faster rollout for the same capital investment.

However, with the extradition situation with Meng and the threats from the
CCP, it is clear that it isn't possible to do business with the company. The
risk of a future need to tear out and replace Huawei product due to geo-
political/ cyber-warfare in the future outweighs the savings from dealing with
Ericsson or Nokia.

------
LatteLazy
Despite zero actual evidence, everyone seems sure that Huawei are a security
issue.

Despite enormous evidence, everyone seems sure that Western countries are NOT
a security issue.

Last time I checked, Huawei actually offered a better product (speed, price,
reliability).

Am I missing something or are people cheering for the opportunity to pay more
for a worse product with more security issues?!

~~~
bb123
The issue isn't the product itself - the issue is that the company that
produces is controlled by an outwardly hostile foreign nation that has a
history of carrying out state sponsored cyber attacks against critical
infrastructure in the west.

~~~
LatteLazy
Help me out here: link me to an actual Chinese state sponsored cyber attack.
There are a few that might of possibly could have been something or maybe not
according to someone. I don't doubt china are capable, but they don't seem to
be doing it.

And that's exactly the same as the US. Plus the US are actively spying
including using their power to support US companies and undermine democracies.

I wanna be clear here, neither "side" is to be trusted or safe or fine. But
China is no more of a threat to third party nations' network security that the
US as far as I can tell.

And I am normally the one being Hawkish on China.

~~~
TecoAndJix
Check out Mandiant's summary on APT1 [0]. Two brief excerpts from that report:

-APT1 is believed to be the 2nd Bureau of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) General Staff Department’s (GSD) 3rd Department (总参三部二局), which is most commonly known by its Military Unit Cover Designator (MUCD) as Unit 61398 (61398部队).

-APT1 has systematically stolen hundreds of terabytes of data from at least 141 organizations, and has demonstrated the capability and intent to steal from dozens of organizations simultaneously.

[0] [https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-
www/services/pdf...](https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-
www/services/pdfs/mandiant-apt1-report.pdf)

------
marc3842h
Here in Switzerland, all carriers which build their own cellular networks have
chosen different partners for their 5G infrastructure:

* Swisscom: Ericsson

* Sunrise: Huawei

* Salt: Nokia

The whole Huawei scandal wasn't too big news here in Switzerland (as far as I
know?) which is the reason that Swisscom and Sunrise were able to cover 90% of
Swiss population with 5G at the same time (end of 2019).

------
rubatuga
Bell is already using Huawei components in other parts of their network. When
I opened my Bell fiber modem last year, I noticed Bell was using a 1.25 Gbit
Huawei SFP+ transceiver. Is there any possibility of a backdoor?

~~~
kevin_nisbet
> Is there any possibility of a backdoor? In a transceiver, I find it quite
> unlikely. Usually the main question is to ask, what would the benefit and
> cost of that backdoor be (and the risk of discovery).

So if Huawei managed to backdoor that transceiver, what could they accomplish
with it? Chain it to exploit some vulnerability in the router the component is
plugged into. Include a bunch of extra hardware and a capacitor, to allow it
to surge the port on command to try and burn out your router? Try and sniff
intelligence on that 1.25gbps connection, using some tiny low power embedded
processor?

If your worth investing in an attack against, their are probably far cheaper
ways to attack you specifically, instead of backdooring every transceiver and
hoping you end up getting one.

Now, if you're the government your threat model might look a bit different,
although, a transceiver is still a hard component to do something useful with
a backdoor.

------
gdsdfe
Canadians don't realize how high their telco bills are because that's their
reality they don't know prices elsewhere and the closest neighbour have also
high prices

~~~
majormjr
Oh we realize they are extremely expensive, unfortunately there isn't much we
can do to increase telco competition with the current regulatory boards such
as CRTC.

~~~
giarc
The only trick I have heard of to get lower rates is to rent a PO box in SK,
sign up for Sasktel and get a SK number (Sasktel being government owned has
lower rates I guess). Seems pretty complicated though.

------
zinckiwi
Ah, but will conspiracy theorists use Bic or Zippo to burn them down?

------
arrty88
Does it really matter?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19449824](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19449824)

~~~
sorenjan
Nokia phones are made by HMD Global, a different company that licenses the
Nokia brand.

------
augustt
That's great. Picking Scandinavia over China (CCP really) should be a no-
brainer, if you care about who you're doing business with.

~~~
mrweasel
I love seeing Nokia and Ericsson do well, but in all this I feel like there's
something most people, and governments fail to realize:

Sure, Huawei could add backdoors to their equipment, but why bother? Telcos
often have Huawei run their networks anyway, they have access to the network
via the Chinese employees. That's also the only way they would be able to
exfiltrate large amounts of data without anyone noticing.

I don't know about Nokia, but Ericsson manages networks from low wage eastern
European countries. I'm sure that China could easily pay off a few Romanians
with they really cared enough.

The mandate on the phone companies should be to manage their own networks, or
require staff local to the country in which the network is deployed.

