Huawei Allowed Limited Access To UK's 5G Networks as Britain Defies US Pressure (cnbc.com) 86
Britain will allow Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei to play a limited role in its next generation 5G mobile networks. From a report: The U.K. government said that Huawei will be restricted from being involved in "sensitive functions" in a network of features labeled as "core." There is also a limit in place on how much equipment networks can buy from one "high risk vendor" for a particular part of the infrastructure known as the Radio Access Network (RAN.) This is essentially the part of the network that hooks up your devices with the actual 5G signal. That cap is set at 35%. "The cap at 35% ensures the U.K. will not become nationally dependent on a high risk vendor while retaining competition in the market and allowing operators to continue to use two Radio Access Network (RAN) vendors," the U.K.'s National Cyber Security Centre said in its review of the country's telecommunications supply chain on Tuesday.
Myopic dullards. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Myopic dullards. (Score:5, Funny)
It's a political decision. The UK is about to be in deep, deep shit after brexit. There are no good options available and the last thing they want to do is upset China who may be a key trading partner in the near future.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Yeah, the UK couldn't possibly survive without being in the EU. China is already a key trading partner to the UK. Anti-brexit people are ignorant of how the world really works. The EU could collapse tomorrow and the world would not end.
The reason for the EU was to go against the US (Score:3, Insightful)
Britain doesn't really have the economic clout to go toe to toe with the US. It's entirely possible, even likely, that the US was encouraging Brexit on the sly to undermine the EU for trade negotiations. If I was running the CIA I certainly would be doing that.
The world might not end, but the UK will have much less leverage in trade negotiations.
Re: (Score:1)
it was meant to present a unified economic front that could bargain effectively against the (much larger) US economy.
That has failed spectacularly. All they have done is to put in increasing levels of protectionism over the years, mostly for the continent, and their much vaunted 'FTA's and how long they take to get ratified in any way tells you that. From Brexit to Trump's tariffs the walls are closing in. The EU and the Single Market is horrifically vulnerable in the current climate because they are an overproducing economic zone, and worse, they still depend on food mountains and wine lakes and a network of subsidies to
The talk will start after Brexit (Score:3, Interesting)
The UK's economy is awful, just like the United States is. It's going to get a lot worse when London ceases to be a global financial center for the rest of the world to access the EU markets.
Brexit was always about stopping immigration in the hopes manufacturing jobs will come back. They won't. Those jobs will be automated. Just like they are in the United States.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Not the U.S. was encouraging Brexit, just a malformed part of the U.S. Government.
Re: (Score:3)
On the sly? Hardly. Trump was tweeting his support of Brexit to the world. He was on camera praising it. There was no 'on the sly' about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm definitely looking forward to cheaper Cotswald cheese.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the UK couldn't possibly survive without being in the EU. China is already a key trading partner to the UK. Anti-brexit people are ignorant of how the world really works. The EU could collapse tomorrow and the world would not end.
Britain collapsing is alot more likely at this stage. We're at the point of selling out the US for China. I'm sure this will end well.
Re: (Score:3)
Britain will collapse, the skies will fall, the firstborn of every house will die in his sleep, swarms of locusts will descend amongst the farmlands. Woe betide anyone who wishes to leave the un-democratic bankers paradise that is the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness, Scotland can rejoin the EU, and Ireland can rejoin Ireland.
The Welsh will probably be stuck married to England, but that's they deserve for backstabbing Prince Charlie.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of U.S. debt China holds is roughly $1.1 trillion. The amount of U.S. that is foreign held is roughly $4.12 trillion. The total amount of U.S. debt is roughly $23 trillion but moving up to the tune of $1 trillion/yr starting in 2019 for as far as the eye can see. Most U.S. debt is held in the U.S.
If you mean Britain is selling out the U.S. for China, I don't know what that could mean.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of U.S. debt China holds is roughly $1.1 trillion. The amount of U.S. that is foreign held is roughly $4.12 trillion. The total amount of U.S. debt is roughly $23 trillion but moving up to the tune of $1 trillion/yr starting in 2019 for as far as the eye can see. Most U.S. debt is held in the U.S.
If you mean Britain is selling out the U.S. for China, I don't know what that could mean.
I mean we're starting to move away from this 'special relationship' and starting to buddy up to china. Probably because like you say US has a ton of debt and China has the cash these days.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, and I bet you think that Boris et. al. are going to reduce migration too like they promised right?
That's why the report they commissioned has come out today suggestion we lower the salary level migrants should have to earn to get a visa and to increase the number of skilled migrants allowed in each year whilst also reducing the requirements to be defined as "skilled" after all.
Brexiteers are a special kind of stupid, they'll literally believe any lie they're sold like good little bootlickers of the we
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the UK will survive, but personally I aspire to have a slightly better quality of life than merely surviving.
We are one of the smaller trading partners for China. Germany does a lot more trade with them than we do. Strange that, we were told we needed to come out of the EU to do more trade but Germany is in the EU and already doing it. Hmm...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Strange that. I was told we needed to come out the EU because the EU is an anti-democratic bankers paradise ran by unelected beaurocrats. Hmmm....
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Now compare EU banking to US banking. Do the same people spew the opposite propaganda?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, yeah, "strange" that foreign trade partners would give you "advice" that harms your trade position.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK can survive outside the EU, sure. It'll just take a temporary economic disaster, followed by the negotiation of new trade deals which will probably turn out to be as restrictive as EU membership, if not even more so.
I suspect that might be part of the Conservative party plan though. They can get lots of unpopular things they want in the US trade deal - relaxation of financial regulations, elimination of animal welfare laws, loosening of environmental protection - and then when the public gets outrage
Re: (Score:2)
The conservatives didn't want brexit though?
Re: (Score:2)
Initially, no. The party shifted position. Before the referendum, they (and all other major parties) opposed brexit - they permitted the referendum only because no-one thought that leave had a snowball's hope in hell of winning. After the referendum there was a period of complete chaos, during which the party shifted their position to become the main pro-brexit party.
Re: (Score:2)
Relaxing animal welfare rules would destroy the export market. The whole purpose of the US asking for that in trade negotiations is so we can export more meat to the UK that would be cheaper than what you can produce over there, due to available land and the alternative uses available for that land. In the US we have lots of semi-arid land that isn't good for much else than raising livestock.
Why would you want to loosen environmental regulations as part of trade negotiations? That's a local issue between yo
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. under the current alleged administration is weakening environmental regulation due to farmer and ranch and coal industry executives claiming a Paradise as soon as we're all too sick to live.
Re: (Score:2)
1) The vast majority of regulations are at the State level
2) He'll be out of office before most of his proposed changes take effect, and so they might not.
What has actually happened is that some of the new federal regulations that would be coming into effect have not.
Re: (Score:2)
Relaxing animal welfare rules would indeed destroy the export market, and would be bad for the UK in that regard, but there are two good reasons to do it - for a loose definition of 'good.' Firstly, ideological: The Conservative party, much like the Republicans over in America, is opposed to regulation in general and believes that it only gets in the way of the free market. Secondly, because it's something that the US very much wants - the ability to sell meat to the UK, a potentially very lucrative market
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is a tiny market, and the US mostly doesn't care. It would barely even show up in the sales figures. You underestimate the population of the United States, the amount of meat the average American consumes, and how much meat the US already exports.
For us it is pennies, for the UK it is the loss of a major national industry, to be replaced by 2 or 3 companies owned by a handful of people.
Also, the Conservatives are arguing for ideology-driven polices where they lies about the expected results. One thin
Re: (Score:1)
LOL, no (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a political decision. The UK is about to be in deep, deep shit after brexit. There are no good options available and the last thing they want to do is upset China who may be a key trading partner in the near future.
The UK will be fine. The Brits are the first to formally leave, but they won't be the last to exit that Superpower Wannabe in Brussels. And forget about Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland leaving the UK. Once they realize that the EU will never allow them to join (because France and Spain won't allow it, for fear of encouraging a precedent, i.e. Basques and Catalans), they'll never cut themselves off from the money flowing from London. Scotland in particular is almost completely dependent upon Parliament
Re: (Score:2)
I could see Spain going for Scotland in the EU figuring by their twisted sense of geopolitics that they will then get Gibraltar back and pink unicorns will roam rampant across the landscape as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bless. Get back to your Guardian and BBC. They'll tell you those lovely comforting tales you obviously love to lap up.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU will be happy to have Scotland back in, and can't really refuse NI as it will simply become a part of Ireland who is already a member.
The Catalan thing is a red herring. The EU respects democracy so as long as Scotland leaves democratically it's fine. That's why there was little support for the Catalans, basically unless Spain allows them to have a referendum any attempt to become independent is seen as illegitimate.
Scotland will use the courts to get their referendum, and do it all legally.
Re: (Score:2)
Scotland may get their referendum, but there is no chance of the current government supporting it, and going through the courts or waiting for another election will take years.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU will be happy to have Scotland back in
This is a fantasy with no basis in reality: Independent Scotland 'would find it extremely difficult to join EU' [theguardian.com]
""It will be extremely difficult to get the approval of all the other member states to have a new member coming from one member state," he said.
"We've seen that Spain has been opposing even the recognition of Kosovo, for instance, so it's to some extent a similar case because it's a new country and so I believe it's going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, a new member state coming out of one of our countries getting the agreement of the other [existing member states]."
And with the exit actually upon them, the Scots are now waking up to reality: Doubts over independent Scotland rejoining EU quickly as Brexit clock counts down [scotsman.com]
"Holyrood’s Europe committee was told that while there was “goodwill” towards Scotland within the EU, if it were to become independent, it would need to do so “in co-operation with Westminster” to be legally recognised.
MSPs were taking evidence on the EU Withdrawal Bill from experts, including former UK diplomat Dame Mariot Leslie, Kings College Professor of European Politics and Foreign Affairs, Anand Menon and Dr Fabian Zuleeg, chief executive of the European Policy Centre.
Asked by SNP MSP Kenny Gibson about how Scotland “was perceived by other European nations, and by the EU currently”, and how this might change if it became independent, the committee was told that while the EU had “sympathies” towards Scotland, it would take its lead from London – and MSPs were warned not to expect the same “flexibility” from the EU as has been shown to Northern Ireland."
As long as other EU member states have veto power over who can join, Spain and France will never agree to breakaway British states. And that's that.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that your first link is based on the premise that the UK would still be in the EU at the time, which is obviously not the case now.
Sorry I couldn't be bothered to check the rest when the first one was chosen so carelessly.
Re: (Score:2)
"The EU respects democracy"
Someone hasn't been paying attention. That seems to be a common thread in the pro-EU lot.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Myopic dullards. (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, making critical infrastructure further dependent on a growing authoritarian power is what's myopic.
How about making critical decisions about one's future based on mere allegations backed up with no evidence whatsoever? That's is smart?
I'd rather be poor but in charge of my life. And why do you call them critical? The company has been allowed what the British refer to as limited access.
I smell what some call the "Colonial Mentality" here. In other words, "Do as I say and I won't allow questions."
The British should entertain no influence from anyone. Including the [mighty] USA. Afterall, the USA has also ignored a number of other countries' interests in the past.
I am glad that its influence is beginning to subside, perhaps...
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know there's no evidence? If the NSA or whomever shared with the Brits, do they have to clear it with YOU first and publish an online article about it afterwards?
Simple...I'll fix this for you [reuters.com] fast!
Re: Myopic dullards. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because again, they would actually publish it if they knew. Sigh.... so dumb.
So we should all just believe and follow like sheep or ducks...just because they say so...huh?? How old are you?
Remember the WMDs? So many American lives lost, not forgetting widows and orphans for...what really?
It's people like you that are responsible for all the mayhem around the world...keep on following...keep on dude!
Re: Myopic dullards. (Score:1)
As an aside, they don't need to spy
Re: (Score:2)
... given that Huawei is essentially the Chinese government,
This is what some have called fake news.
Their level of surveillance of their own people exceeds anything the West could dream of doing.
You appear to be describing the NSA and several 3-letter agencies. The NSA in particular denied ever spying on Germany till Snowden spilled the beans!!
You think they're going to ship clean stuff to everyone else because they have respect for Western culture of privacy?
The British have seen the source code and seem to be satisfied. They say the so called "threat" is manageable.
Look, Americans can do what they want. Let other nations do likewise. They should never dance to anyone's whims.
I think Americans are worried they will find it harder to spy on nations that go with Huawei e
Re: (Score:3)
making critical infrastructure further dependent on a growing authoritarian power
Are you referring to China or the growing authoritarianism of the US?
Huawei has been integral in creating the bloody 5G standards, seems only reasonable to include them.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. 1/3 of a network is a substantial chunk of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Better than going 100% Cisco, which many countries learned the hard way.
Re: (Score:2)
Brexit continues, now they've chosen to leave 5 Eyes. As a nerd, I like it better as 4 Eyes, but I never would have predicted it would be the UK leaving. Or at least, demanding we kick them out.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
By this time next year there will be 20 billion IoT devices out there, all of them needing communications. Your connected refrigerator or other consumer toy is a minor portion of this, most of them are going to be things like smart streetlights, weather stations, field moisture monitors, building air quality monitors, and the really big one, factory automation. Some, like a highway tunnel carbon monoxide detector, have very low bandwidth needs, but others, like an electrical substation fault monitor, are
Re: (Score:3)
The idea of making your communication system dependent on any single corporation is completely idiotic no matter what country the corporation is from.
Re: (Score:2)
To make matters worse, a country (read USA), with no serious 5G patents - let alone native 5G capable companies to talk about, is the same country that wants to dictate what others should or should not do!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung
Huawei
ZTE
Ericsson
Qualcomm
LG
Intel
Sharp
China Academy of Telecom
Nokia
Top 5 5G companies are in order:
Huawei
Ericsson
Hisilicon
Nokia
Qualcomm
Could be better but hardly nothing.
Anne Sacolas? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Is There A Fact Base? (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, this CNN article [cnn.com] an Op-Ed by former GOP Congressman - and now the Chairman of lobbying group "5G Action Now", Mike Rogers, sets out a lot of arguments, but when you read them closely, most of them look like, "If we don't do this, China will win all the overseas contracts - and that would be bad..."
It's also worth thinking about this for any non-Five-Eyes (United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand) country, because in that case the calculus is *entirely* different, and can be stated as: "Who do you want to hack your 5G network? The Americans, the Russians, or the Chinese?"
The problem with these security concerns is that whilst for all we know they might be entirely legitimate, the entity making them - the US Federal Government - was shown by Edward Snowden to have conducted *massive* snooping against foreign nations. More, the problem is that Snowden's revelations showed not only the extent of old-school surveillance and interception, but the ways in which the US government would co-opt US-manufactured products to penetrate the national security of other countries. That undeniable fact base makes it that much harder to put this argument forward now.
National security is a concern for all countries and I don't mean to make light of the issue, but I can't help feel that if the federal government cared so much about it, then maybe it would be helpful to heed the warnings of cryptographers and technologists - and to implement robust security everywhere.
Specifically with respect to 5G and the concerns raised against Huawei, why not simply make sure that the 5G network design implemented robust, end-to-end encryption able to safeguard against MITM attacks in the first place? Surely that's the best defence? A robust, secure protocol and implementation?
Re: (Score:3)
It's purely because Huawei developed most of the core 5G technology, has all the patents on it and has a big head start releasing 5G hardware.
Western companies are in the position of having to licence the technology from Huawei (usually by cross licencing their own patents in return) and then play catch-up. With everyone racing to install 5G by the time they get their act together most of the juicy contracts will be gone and everyone will have standardized on Huawei equipment and training.
Western companies
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Chinese companies respect Western IP and licence it. Huawei licensed the 4g patents it need, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
The current story that I'm getting is China is aggressively working for world dominance. I find that premise easy to believe. And coupled with this, the political elites in America are going along with it. I find that slightly hard to swallow but it may be mostly due to being short sighted as well as greedy than anything really conspiratorial.
Steve Bannon's interview (referenced below) is a good place to start with that over arching premise. Also add to this the interview with Former Brigadier General
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They destroyed the European steel industry by dumping thousands of tons of (excellent quality) Chinese steel in to Europe at loss-making prices, specifically because they knew that in a just a few short years they would gut the entire European sector. It worked.
They are signing deals across Africa and South America - for natural resources. China alrea
So should we in the UK (Score:4, Informative)
also limit other "high-risk" suppliers like Cisco [arstechnica.com] ?
Re: So should we in the UK (Score:1)
It is because they make over priced buggy inferior crap. Why would anyone even consider Cisco's products?
Another reason to use end2end encryption (Score:2)
Blind trust of technology, corporations or the government is stupid. Assume all communication is intercepted.
Re: Another reason to use end2end encryption (Score:1)
Arenâ(TM)t the main issues that: (1) the infrastructure in question will by its very nature have to have access to unencrypted metadata in order to route packets around the network [queue debate about onion routing], and (2) the 5G network is envisaged for uses where companies have not in practice shown to have encryption and security at the forefront of their development [queue discussion about how incredibly perfect smart fridge network protocols are]?
Would be interested to be corrected!
Huawei Is Already In UK's Mobile Network (Score:2)
Huawei has been a popular choice amongst UK mobile networks for years, and their equipment is already used extensively in the 4G network. Their equipment is certainty used by EE and Vodafone, and I would imagine the other networks as well. If Huawei is a security threat, then it's a bit too late to start worrying about it now.
One has to wonder whether it even is a security threat. Firstly, end-to-end encryption is being used extensively these days, so even if you have access to the network equipment, all
Trade war, not Security... (Score:2)
...haven't we learnt by now... never trust the pipes. Assume the line is tapped / sniffed and run the appropriate protocols over that. You can pretty much guarantee the whoever's equipment is installed will have backdoors.
This Chinese 5G backdoor crap is from the same stable as the "hidden chip on motherboard" rubbish that came out years ago. Surely we are big enough to see through this?
Good! (Score:2)
China is everyones enemy. (Score:2)
Why does the US hate its own allies now? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you want us to do?
Do you think that we should turn over our communications networks to governments that are proven to steal IP? To spy on its own citizens?
Do you have a point?