Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications United States

FCC Estimates It'll Cost $1.8 Billion To Remove Huawei, ZTE Equipment From US Networks (cnet.com) 40

Posted by msmash from the complications dept.
The Federal Communications Commission on Friday said it could cost an estimated $1.8 billion to remove and replace Huawei and ZTE equipment that's in US telecommunications networks receiving federal funds. From a report: In June, the FCC officially classified Huawei and ZTE as national security threats, though since 2019, the agency has barred carriers from using its $8.3 billion a year Universal Service Fund to purchase equipment from the two Chinese tech giants. US President Donald Trump also signed legislation in March that stops carriers from using government funds to buy network equipment from Huawei and ZTE. "By identifying the presence of insecure equipment and services in our networks, we can now work to ensure that these networks -- especially those of small and rural carriers -- rely on infrastructure from trusted vendors," said FCC Chairman Ajit Pa in a release, adding that he would "once again strongly urge" Congress to appropriate funding to reimburse carriers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Estimates It'll Cost $1.8 Billion To Remove Huawei, ZTE Equipment From US Networks More

FCC Estimates It'll Cost $1.8 Billion To Remove Huawei, ZTE Equipment From US Networks

Comments Filter:

  • pretty much zilch in terms of the scale of government spending.

    Money well spent.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by slazzy ( 864185 )
      Seems like money well spent! Get rid of spying Chinese equipment. Let's stop manufacturing everything there while we're at it. Other countries are western friendly like Taiwan, India or Mexico.

      • Get rid of spying Chinese equipment.

        Huawei, ZTE, and Cisco all make networking equipment.

        But only one has been found to be compromised by spyware.

        Can you guess which one?

        Hint: It starts with a "C".

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by xlsior ( 524145 )
          What are the odds that the biggest issue with huawei isnt so much who can spy, but more who *can't* spy (as easily)?

        • Huawei has backdoors [cnet.com]. And ZTE is notorious for backdoors in their boot loader firmware.

          If I am going to be secretly monitored, I'd rather it be by the US than China. The US, at least, doesn't practice wholesale concentration camps (well it did, in the 1940s - but not since then) of ethnic minorities, nor kill journalists who are critical of the Government, lock up citizens who try to exercise their Constitutional right to free speech (which "exists" in China - but is not allowed unless the Government dee

        • Sure Shanghai

        • Which therefore would mean the one with the "H" has copied spyware.

      • If I were in the USA, the equipment I would want is Huawei. We know for a fact that companies like CISCO intentionally put in back doors for the NSA and that RSA libraries and NIST cryptographic standards were compromised to make it easier for them to get in. It is inconceivable that what was discovered were the only cases, instead logic suggests this is the norm. So... for a person in the USA, who would you rather have spying on you? An agency that can jail you arbitrarily, or a foreign government that

    • pretty much zilch in terms of the scale of government spending.

      If it's "pretty much zilch", then I assume you'd also support about that much going to the US Post Office. I mean, infrastructure security is infrastructure security, after all.

      • I have nothing against supporting the post office. They're a public good.

        Frankly, I think his appointee has taken things too far in "efficiency", since they're demonstrably less efficient at delivering packages now.

      • If we're just going to start handing out money, could I get some as well? I'll take $1.8 million which is a mere one one-thousandth of pretty much zilch. I think I can also present a compelling argument about it not being any more of a waste of tax payer money than any other organization or agency that receives funding.

      • Only if the bill authorizing that expenditure does nothing to prop up bankrupt state pension funds in states like California, Illinois, and New Jersey.

        • Only if the bill authorizing that expenditure does nothing to prop up bankrupt state pension funds in states like California, Illinois, and New Jersey.

          Why? If the amount involved is "pretty much zilch", then what's the problem with bailing out pension funds? We're talking about basically no money involved at all, according to the OP, so why not?

          • Because we shouldn't help bloody thieves. The USPS actually does something useful.

            • Because we shouldn't help bloody thieves. The USPS actually does something useful.

              So, your objection is to "moral hazard". Did you cash your stimulus check? Are you familiar with the term, "helicopter money"?

  • How about we spend that 1.8 billion on American tech this time around?

    • That's made in China & assembled in China. By American Companies, controlled by Chinese investors, suppliers & raw materials.

    • How about we spend that 1.8 billion on American tech this time around?

      Because that would cost a lot more than $1.8B.

      • Well it doesn't have to though. Simple price fixing above profitability but below "whatever the market can bear" (because the market can't actually tell and doesn't know to begin with) should fix the problem of people trying to pile on more than the market can actually bear.

      • Surprisingly not. Many of my customers are moving production from China to either Malaysia, Mexico, or the US. Prices in Malaysia are on-par with China; Mexico runs about 7-10% more, and the US about 12-15% more. Once you factor in delivery costs, communications issues (linguistic and timezone), and flexibility (lots of US manufacturers are fine doing build volumes 1/10th of that of China), it's not really more expensive. Flex's biggest plant is in Jalisco, Mexico, and makes not only electronics by Nike

    • I think this is tough luck.
      assume everything claimed about security is true. Would you replace this or would cost matter? Okay well there's your answer.

      • Can't we just like, force Texas Instruments to make us some new modems and force Mexico to pay for them?

  • That's why humans won over lizards and we won over the Nazis.

  • Of course ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Friday September 04, 2020 @03:01PM (#60474214)

    "By identifying the presence of insecure equipment and services in our networks, we can now work to ensure that these networks -- especially those of small and rural carriers -- rely on infrastructure from trusted vendors," said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai ...

    ... that should be "allegedly" and/or "assumed" insecure as there's no hard evidence/proof -- as far as I, or these "experts" [theverge.com] know -- in quotes as Senators Marco Rubio and Mark Warner are quoted in the article. In any case, the U.S. government (*cough* NSA *cough*) prefers all equipment to have U.S. spyware installed and insecurities only it knows about ...

    • Yeah, it's funny as hell, as it has already been proven that US made hardware is full of backdoors for agencies, but no proof whatsoever for chinese based hardware. The real culprit is actually that the chinese hardware is too secure which prevent US agencies to hack it and spy on their own citizens and allies...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If they want to get rid of insecure devices they should start by throwing out all their Cisco gear.

      https://it.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org]

      How much is that going to cost?

  • Recoup some of the costs, and hurt these Chinese government spy companies even more by dumping all of the used equipment onto the market.

  • is for kit that would have been replaced over the next 2-3 years ?

  • That's retail of course (Score:3)

    by marcle ( 1575627 ) on Friday September 04, 2020 @05:35PM (#60474730)

    Pai: Let's just give the telcos the money they ask for, this ruling isn't their fault.
    Telcos: Good thing we exaggerated the price, we can negotiate a wholesale deal and keep the change.

  • Really, 1.8 billion isn't that much money these days. Then if you consider how much money the government pissed away on Solyndra and other similar boondoggles, 1.8 billion is nothing to ensure that the Chinese aren't spying on us.

Slashdot Top Deals

Make sure your code does nothing gracefully.

Close