
Hobbling Huawei: Inside the U.S. war on China’s tech giant - mancerayder
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/huawei-usa-campaign/
======
Scramblejams
For me, the key quote:

 _The United States and its allies were derelict in not developing a 5G
supplier, former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in a speech
in London in March. “With the benefit of hindsight it beggars belief that the
countries which pioneered wireless technology – the United States, the UK,
Germany, Japan and with wifi, Australia have got to the point where none of
them are able to present to one of their own telcos a national, or a Five
Eyes, champion in 5G,” he said._

I would have thought Qualcomm, Cisco, Intel and the like would have been all
over 5G. Why weren't they?

~~~
otoburb
The US doesn't have large domain players in the telecom space that supply the
broad spectrum of equipment that runs what is known as the 4G EPC[1] or 5G
Core[2] (data & packet processing) and RAN[3] (radio access network).

Qualcomm and Intel focus and specialize on chips. Cisco focuses on layer 2,
layer 3 and partially layer 7 equipment (think: routers & switches). Cisco has
some products that compete against Huawei to a certain extent, alongside a
wider product suite by Ericsson and Nokia, but all three vendors are more
expensive than Huawei.

From the article:

 _" But the options are limited. Huawei is one of only three major global
companies that analysts say can supply a broad range of advanced mobile
network equipment at scale. The other two are Ericsson and Nokia. And Huawei
has a reputation among telecom operators for supplying cost-effective
equipment promptly."_

As per the article, Huwaei is flat out cheaper. On top of this, they provide
good-enough products (sometimes better, sometimes not) across performance,
feature, stability and scale dimensions. The telecom vendor game is often one
of references and precedent, especially when dealing with large telecom groups
operating in multiple countries (think: Orange Group, Deutsche Telekom Group,
Telefonica Group, Vodafone Group, etc.).

[1] [https://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-
acronyms/100-the-...](https://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-
acronyms/100-the-evolved-packet-core)

[2] [https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2018/5/core-network-
evoluti...](https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2018/5/core-network-evolution-
from-epc-to-5g-core-made-easy)

[3] [https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-groups/ran-
plenary](https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-groups/ran-plenary)

~~~
fmajid
According to the Chief Architect of BT, Huawei's 5G technology is so far ahead
of Nokia and Ericsson they are not even contenders:

[https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/bts-mcrae-huawei-
is-t...](https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/bts-mcrae-huawei-is-the-only-
true-5g-supplier-right-now/d/d-id/747734)

For Europeans, they have to balance the possibility of Chinese espionage
against the certainty that the US and UK are already doing it:

* [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/02/wikileaks-us-s...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/02/wikileaks-us-spied-on-angela-merkels-ministers-too-says-german-newspaper)

* [https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq-insid...](https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq-inside-story/)

In that light, Huawei equipment that the Chinese government tries to make as
immune to the 5 Eyes as possible may actually be preferable.

Granted, neither Nokia nor Ericsson are US companies or subject to direct US
pressure the way, say, Lucent would have been, or Cisco is, but the US has
suborned equipment makers in neutral countries before, as with Crypto AG:

[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33676028](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33676028)

~~~
User23
On the plus side, this means there's an opportunity for the US to commit some
tit for tat industrial espionage to catch up.

------
craigsmansion
Looks like the new cold war has found its money-pit. At least it's not nuclear
this time.

> agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret
> eavesdropping agency

Straight from the geniuses that outlawed mathematics.

I'm sure not all of the "cyber security" people are complete idiots, but how
many can resist an offer of unlimited funding, and all you have to do say
things are terrible and very scary without ever being caught out, since it's
all about national security, and your boss doesn't really care because more
bad things mean infinite budget.

"Cyber" really has stopped being a useful word in as far as it's ever been
one, and has been relegated to politics, scaring the population, and fleecing
people and institutions in the name of "security".

1.) 5G is a mobile network that lets people watch really high- resolution cat
videos really fast.

2.) Your country is not under "cyber attack" or "cyber threat".

History tells us most of the threats and developments in Cold War I were
posturing and positioning. Of course Blackbird planes are really cool, but do
we really have to go through the rest of all that bullshit again? Can't we all
just, you know, grow the f* up?

~~~
jarfil
In practice, 5G is less about speed and more about massive IoT deployments,
which could lead to massive surveillance. It's no surprise that those in the
surveillance business are wary of foreign actors.

------
thommark
I'm from Netherlands, and My country recently found some backdoors in Huawei
equipments. This might be why the US/EU is actively blocking Huawei:

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-huawei-
tech/d...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-huawei-tech/dutch-
spy-agency-investigating-alleged-huawei-backdoor-volkskrant-idUSKCN1SM0UY)

~~~
takamh
"Citing unidentified intelligence sources"

An option would be to confidentially share with UK or German intelligence
agencies and verify, but they chose instead to publish a vague article. Seems
doubtful this will result in anything concrete.

~~~
eaim
All is vagueness. It’s popular! Why bother with evidence when agencies /
governments / media can simply make vague statements about threats & security?
Oh & of course we can’t supply evidence because that would threaten our
security also. Circulus In probando

~~~
thommark
I wouldn't call it vagueness, investigation takes time. Plus, our largest
telecom, KPN, already announced they were not going to use Huawei in core-5G -
the first EU telecom to do so, last month. I am sure the intelligence report
had something to do with it.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kpn-huawei-5g/dutch-
telec...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kpn-huawei-5g/dutch-telecom-kpn-
wont-use-huawei-for-core-5g-network-idUSKCN1S20LQ)

~~~
takamh
What is the technical definition of core-5G? A lot of these announcements are
filled with political double-speak.

~~~
eaim
Yes they certainly are.

------
ETHisso2017
If this is a war, then did Google, Broadcom, Microsoft, the rest of the US
tech sector, and the worldwide Android community just get forcibly conscripted
into service by the US government?

~~~
throw20102010
Every American company is at the beck and call of the US government at all
times, with their existence in peril if they disobey. The US government has
been regulating trade like this since before we were born, and most of the
time we don't even notice. This is not the first time that Silicon Valley had
to obey US government regulations. Notice that there are hardly any Iranian or
North Korean tech companies doing business around the world- any US company
that transfers technology to a hostile country gets shut down and people go to
jail, and it's not even controversial.

The only thing that's unique with this case is that it's rare for the US
government to be so openly hostile toward a major trade partner.

~~~
ETHisso2017
So why does the US government accuse Huawei of being a risk for being at the
beck and call of the Chinese government?

~~~
lwf
The lever here is export control, e.g. "you can't export this tech to these
people, countries, vendors" etc, rather than a request to perform some
affirmative action at the behest of a government. ( a "writ", if you will;
c.f.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act#Application_to_e...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Writs_Act#Application_to_electronic_devices)
)

So the USG can tell a company "you cannot transfer this controlled material to
these people, 'cause NatSec", but (probably) can't compel a company "build a
tool for us that does X".

------
chrischen
Has it occurred that the US opposition to using telecom equipment from Huawei
might be because they can't send them a national security letter or otherwise
force them to make a backdoor (kind of like how Apple resisted) for domestic
spying?

I feel like if China were to backdoor 5G equipment deployed to the US it'd be
relatively trivial to detect by operators, and absolutely crippling to the
market share of Huawei if they were found to compromise their equipment.

~~~
geowwy
I think it's partly that, and partly just that having other countries rely on
you for their infrastructure gives you more political leverage. US wants to
deny political leverage to China and take it for itself.

~~~
chrischen
The world would be a better place if people just came out straight to the
point like that.

------
dirkg
Hypocrisy and arrogance at its finest - its ok for us to engage in illegal
spying but not other countries. US leads the world in illegal activities and
spying/stealing from foreign nations.

~~~
adventured
It's not hypocrisy or arrogance in any regard.

The US does not view China as an ally, it's a competitor that the US sometimes
cooperates with economically.

The US and its allies are saying they prefer to keep the spying inside their
own allied domain. That's not only entirely rational, it obviously makes
perfect sense from a national self-interest standpoint.

As an American, if I get to choose, I'm buying my 5G tech from European or
Asian allies. I'll happily pay more for it.

The US isn't saying China can't spy, it's universally understood that China is
spying and will keep trying to, just as the US will. The US is basically
openly saying it's going to attempt to counter or limit that spying, because
China is a global rival in all regards. Just as China will always attempt to
limit the ability of the US to spy on China and its interests. The same goes
for Russia and its spying, going all the way back to the early days of the
USSR.

~~~
cfarm
China can distribute its goods to the world, but the world cannot distribute
its goods to it. I think this is part of the issue. i.e. Huawei can sell its
tech to the US, but Google/Amazon/FB is more or less blocked in China.
Countries obviously understand that they all spy on each other, maybe this is
US' way of making sure tactics are "fair"?

------
femto
This strikes me as a brilliant opportunity to push for a complete Free
Software stack for a phone.

There will soon be a heap of 5G phone hardware going cheap. Software support
will be lacking. The hardware manufacturer may well be open to publicly
releasing the information independent third party developers will require to
write software for their otherwise useless phones. If you're reading this
Huawei, why not dump all the required information on your web site right now?

~~~
0815test
Huawei is not known as an open company, if anything they're the very opposite.
They stopped providing unlock ability for their mobile devices some time back,
and even before that they were known for having by far the hardest system to
work with for phone "modders" \- bricked hardware was exceedingly common, and
zero outside support was provided. That's incredibly harsh even by CN
standards.

~~~
mycall
My Nexus 6P was made by Huawei and was very unlockable. Did I know if Huawei
had a backdoor in the radio bin? idk.

------
sunstone
Hey China has worked to exclude or minimize US tech companies from China so
turn about is fair play. In fact the US would be well within their (tit for
tat) rights to exclude a few more Chinese tech companies.

~~~
m-p-3
Looks like China is getting a taste of its own protectionist measures.

------
Leary
I hope the US and Europe can advance 5G so that it does not need to rely on
Huawei. If there are true security threats, it's fine to not use Huawei, but
we shouldn't use excessive export bans that damage American chip manufacturers
and normal consumers who are just using their cell phones.

------
luka-birsa
Can somebody TLDR; why 5G is so much more dangerous (security wise) vs 4G?

Plus I do like the two-facedness - nobody should spy unless it's us.

~~~
holy_city
It's not _more_ dangerous, it's that the existing infrastructure is not (as)
compromised as new infrastructure to be built with Huawei goods.

It should be self evident that turning over domestic communications
infrastructure to a global rival with the largest military on the planet,
nuclear first strike capability, a history of violence, newly minted dictator,
and global ambitions is a _terrible_ idea.

Also, the US government isn't stealing US IP and giving it to Chinese
businesses. The PLA is, and their ties to Huawei run deep.

~~~
zaro
> the largest military on the planet, nuclear first strike capability, a
> history of violence, newly minted dictator,

When you say it like that it's not quite clear whether you are referring to
China or the US.

~~~
jimclegg
This part, "history of violence", makes it clear we talk of the US.

------
themark
"The chance of a vulnerability with a Huawei piece of kit is much higher than
other vendors,"

Is this British slang or a typo ?

~~~
mhh__
Piece of kit is a british idiom, yes if that's what you mean.

~~~
themark
I have never seen it before, thanks. I read it another way.

~~~
hunta2097
[https://notoneoffbritishisms.com/2012/09/17/piece-of-
kit/](https://notoneoffbritishisms.com/2012/09/17/piece-of-kit/)

------
assblaster
I truly am worried that Huawei technology is compromised. Why? I owned a Nexus
6p, made by Huawei, which was found to have a suspicious hardware "bug" where
the battery's level is measured as higher than what is reported by the device
itself.

Huawei maintains that it is not a hardware issue, while Google says that it is
a hardware problem. A class action lawsuit was just settled because of this.

My suspicion: Huawei surreptitiously collected data, using up CPU threads, and
core Android software did not detect this hardware usage.

I know many many owners of the Nexus 6p that had this problem, and it was only
this Nexus which had it, the only one made by Huawei.

~~~
Topgamer7
Didn't know there was a class action. Mine used to die randomly all the time
until I replaced the battery. I'm contemplating getting a new phone because a
good portion of the time it's still slow AF

~~~
assblaster
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/4/11/18306552/google-
huawei-nexus-6p-class-action-lawsuit-settlement-agreement-compensate)

$400 for you.

