Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Canada Network

Canadian Major Telcos Effectively Lock Huawei Out of 5G Build (zdnet.com) 68

Posted by BeauHD from the Great-White-North dept.
Canadian carriers Bell and Telus announced on Tuesday that each of them would not be continuing the use of Huawei equipment in their respective 5G networks, having signed deals with the Chinese giant's rivals instead. ZDNet reports: For Bell, it announced Ericsson would be supplying its radio access network. It added that it was looking to launch 5G services as the Canadian economy exited lockdown. Bell, which in Febraury announced it had signed an agreement with Nokia, said it was maintaining the use of multiple vendors in its upcoming network, as it had for 4G. "Ericsson plays an important role in enabling Bell's award-winning LTE network and we're pleased to grow our partnership into 5G mobile and fixed wireless technology," said Bell chief technology officer Stephen Howe.

Meanwhile, the British Columbia-based Telus also chose to go with a combination of Ericsson and Nokia. The company said it had spent CA$200 billion on its network since the turn of the century, and would part with a further CA$40 billion over the next three years to deploy its 5G network. Both Bell and Telus had previously used Huawei equipment in their networks. In February, Telus told the Financial Post it would be using Huawei in its 5G network. The third member of the Canadian major telco triumvirate -- Rogers -- said in January it would be using Ericsson equipment for its 5G rollout. The decisions from Canada's three major carriers now mean Huawei is increasingly isolated from 5G builds within the Five Eyes nations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian Major Telcos Effectively Lock Huawei Out of 5G Build More

Canadian Major Telcos Effectively Lock Huawei Out of 5G Build

Comments Filter:

  • If you are going to use some other Chinese manufacturer, why avoid using Huawei at all?

    Although there is a point of shady illegally about Huawei itself, the main reason not to embed Chinese networking gear in your core telco network is national security, which is going to be a risk with any company based in China and therefore controlled by the government.

    • Re:Missing the point... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @07:27PM (#60142688)

      Ericsson is Swedish and Nokia is Finnish.

      Not Chinese.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Gabest ( 852807 )

        I would examine those "swedish" and "finnish" equipment a bit closer, there could be a few "Made In China" labels here and there.

      • Ericsson is Swedish and Nokia is Finnish.

        Not Chinese.

        If it's made in China it's Chinese.

    • Maybe because they're basing their decisions on something other than dumbass jingoism? Saying that all companies in China are controlled by their government is quite nearly as stupid as saying that all American companies are controlled by the US government.

      Maybe there's a real security problem with Huawei equipment in particular. Or, more likely, maybe their equipment just isn't the best deal.

      So far it mostly looks like the Huawei security scare is a Trumpian fiction for twisting China's arm.

      • You were doing fine, right up until your final paragraph. Congratulation you win the award, thanks for demonstrating your bias and stupidity.

        • So far we have zero pubic evidence of any real security problems, and multiple offers by Trump to make Huawei-related problems go away if China makes concessions in his dumbass trade war. This choice by Canadian telcos is the best evidence we have so far that there may be something to it, and that's still not much.

          • s/pubic/public/g...classic...

          • Last time I checked the chinese were stealing or technology, ignoring or trademarks, copying our gadgets, preventing businesses from competing fairly in china ect. Have they stopped?

            • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • No, but how is that specific to Huawei? If you see that as a problem, there must be better ways of counteracting it than this gangster's approach of having something unfortunate happen to one of China's prized businesses.

          • We know you're paranoid enough to say any US-based reference can't be trusted, so here's one from the UK [bbc.com]. Which happens to line up with what's been found in the US [zdnet.com]. But then, what do you expect from a country that just completely ignored it's own pledge to allow Hong Kong to have self-determination through 2047, and edits everything posted on any Chinese communications platform (like WeChat, for instance).

            Go to China, try to talk about Tiananmen Square (the anniversary is tomorrow) and see what happens...

            • We know you're paranoid enough to say any US-based reference can't be trusted,

              [citation needed]

              so here's one from the UK [bbc.com]. Which happens to line up with what's been found in the US [zdnet.com]. But then, what do you expect from a country that just completely ignored it's own pledge to allow Hong Kong to have self-determination through 2047, and edits everything posted on any Chinese communications platform (like WeChat, for instance).

              Security vulnerabilities that resemble backdoors are hardly unique to Huawei, American companies make the same mistakes(?) all the time, Cisco is notorious for them, for example.

              Go to China, try to talk about Tiananmen Square (the anniversary is tomorrow) and see what happens...

              This is getting off-topic, but while China's human rights problems are worse, Generalissimo Tweety is doing his best to close the gap. The first step to having an American Tiananmen Square would be sending the military in to suppress protesters...

              • This is getting off-topic, but while China's human rights problems are worse, Generalissimo Tweety is doing his best to close the gap. The first step to having an American Tiananmen Square would be sending the military in to suppress protesters...

                And now we know just how deranged and demented you really are... Seriously, lighten up on the tinfoil, it's poisoning your brain.

                • I wonder how many kids at Kent State thought the people saying the situation was dangerous had their tinfoil on too tight.

                  • I wonder how many kids at Kent State thought the people saying the situation was dangerous had their tinfoil on too tight.

                    The kids were idealistic fools with no life experience, and chose to ignore the "old people" who - it turns out - were right. It was a tragedy, but a preventable one. The University had already canceled the protest, the protesters were throwing rocks at armed National Guardsmen - and one Guardsman made a bad judgment, setting off shootings for 13 seconds. If they had ended the protest when the University had said to do it, if they hadn't attacked the Guardsmen with rocks and tear gas canisters, it wouldn

                    • That's right, exercise those apologism skills, they may be needed again soon.

                    • Sad that some people still believe that those "old people" were right.

                      Kent State was what galvanized me to get on a bus to a Washington protest, to put my own tender ass on the line.

                    • Keep your tinfoil tight, and your fight against "the man" on medium-high!

                    • Speaking of which, keep up the good search for some evidence that Huawei is any more of a threat than any other telecoms megacorp...THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

                    • Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Australia - all are refusing to buy Huawei gear. Maybe they know something you don't? If you wish to side with the oppressive regime in Beijing - go for it! Of course, you also like to see censorship here, too... The Voltairian ideals we used to have as a society mean nothing to you, do they?

                    • Canada, the UK, New Zealand, Australia - all are refusing to buy Huawei gear. Maybe they know something you don't?

                      Argument from secret intelligence, those have never led us wrong before! All the Five Eyes countries were spurred on by the US, whose leader has repeatedly suggested that trade war concessions could make the problem go away.

                      Of course, you also like to see censorship here, too... The Voltairian ideals we used to have as a society mean nothing to you, do they?

                      I do believe that the vaguely Voltaire-inspired "marketplace of ideas" philosophy was a disastrous failure, disproven by our present reality of mainstreamed disinformation and resurgent fascism - we live in its aftermath. I do support deplatforming, an idea entirely compatible with the l

                    • I do believe that the vaguely Voltaire-inspired "marketplace of ideas" philosophy was a disastrous failure

                      It may seem that way, until you look at the history of crank ideas. If you think about it, it's impossible to say if something is a success, or is getting better/worse, without looking at the history of the thing. Doom and gloom stories sell, but modern day crankery is comparatively tame compared to, say, the 18thC.

                      If you go look at societies which do *not* promote a market place of ideas, you'll see that they are in comparatively bad shape indeed. Esp. on the crank nonsense.

                    • Crankery seems pretty bad in the present day, especially compared to our level of scientific knowledge. People in the 1800s didn't have 21st-century science/reporting and easy access to all of it at their fingertips to tell them that their crankery was nonsense, much of it was operating in a vacuum of knowledge. But now, in the face of irrefutable scientific evidence and/or modern everyone-covering-everything-from-every-angle journalism, we have climatology conspiracism, creationism and its 'roided-up flat

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Rhipf ( 525263 )

              Did you even read the article you linked?

              "It was introduced at the manufacture stage but the path by which it came to be there is unknown and the fact that it looks like an exploit that is linked to the NSA doesn't mean anything," Prof Woodward said.

              "It could be organised crime gangs, which are increasingly interfering with the supply chain, or it could be someone playing geo-politics to discredit Huawei.

              "There is no evidence that the company has done anything malicious or any evidence they were under pressure from the state."

              https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47800000

              The second article is a bit misleading as well since they don't bother to examine/mention what the average security problems of Huawei's competitors are. I'm sure that almost every competitor has "'at least one potential backdoor'.

        • The Huawei security scare is a Trumpian fiction for twisting China's arm, according to the Western companies who have decided to use Huawei for their 5G networks, including at least one of the 5-Eyes countries.

      • Saying that all companies in China are controlled by their government is quite nearly as stupid as saying that all American companies are controlled by the US government.

        Chinese companies might not be run by the government but, by law they have to adhere to government requests which will never be made public. The difference with the US is that companies still have protections under law and can fight such government requests. Just look at how long the US government has been trying to get Apple to compromise their encryption. In China, such a request would be adhered to and the public would never even hear about it.

        • US companies may have better legal protections, but that doesn't mean the same kind of thing doesn't happen to American companies. See the "warrant canary" mechanism and what makes it necessary. There is good evidence that encryption has been weakened before to make certain technologies more surveillance-friendly - for example Skype dropped E2E encryption and added a "supernode" system shortly after MS bought it out. Apple's encryption fight only happened because they had the corporate power and legal resou

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Kisai ( 213879 )

          For now you mean.

          See how well that works for Apple. Make a good product, not even the manufacturer can compromise it.

          The issue with Huawei is more political than technology. Trump, personally, wants to punish Iran for whatever reason, so he picks on Huawei who was circumventing restrictions placed on Iran. The issue with China and Russia is that geo-politically, they don't believe they are doing anything wrong when they steal tech, and believe they are filling a need rather than being thieves.

          There is a rea

          • When you say punish Iran for whatever reason I think you mean because they are a bad actor and responsible for the most state sponsored terrorism of any country, or perhaps because they are like to capture ships belonging to the British to try and manipulate world powers or even that their national motto is something like death to the US and Israel?

        • Chinese companies might not be run by the government but, by law they have to adhere to government requests which will never be made public.

          So sort of like National Security Letters then..

        • While they bend over and take it up the ass on cloud. No encryption, no restriction. Sole service provider with 0 othe option. Yup definitely privacy first!
      • Check out who owns and controls Huawei [wikipedia.org]. A group of 115 people on an elected committee; but the candidates are selected by the CCP only. Those 115 control 99% of all voting shares. It's controlled completely by the CCP, as would be expected since China considers telecom, transportation, banking, medical, energy and a few other industries as "critical" and thus always under control of the CCP - even if it accepts minority ownership from private/foreign investors.

  • TFA does touch on several issues linked to Huawei's alleged ties with the Chinese government and industrial espionage. But what's not clear is whether the privately-owned telcos dropped Huawei at the request of the Canadian authorities, because they're afraid of future such requests from the Canadian authorities, or purely for economic reasons - as in, the competitors have better offerings on the table. Or maybe they decided to pay a premium to lower their risk.

    That's what I would've wanted to read in the a

  • Theft (Score:3)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @07:55PM (#60142780)

    It's impossible to use 5G without either stealing from, or paying, Huawei. They have many inventions/patents that are used in 5G technology. I think they are one of the biggest patent holders in 5G. While Huawei might have stolen tech, it doesn't mean the stealing from a thief isn't stealing too. As in, I steal your table am I justified in stealing your chair? Maybe. I still think it is stealing though.

    • Stealing from the biggest thief on the planet is okay in my book, and should be encouraged by every country out there. Unless they want to repay about 9 trillion to the US, Canada and other countries first.

    • Re:Theft (Score:5, Insightful)

      by enigma32 ( 128601 ) on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @08:14PM (#60142850)

      Paying them is fine.

      Money isn't the issue here; being able to trust the provider of your hardware is. China hasn't really been very high up on the "trusted places" list recently.
      Before someone makes a point about companies and countries not being the same thing, let me point out that they frequently are in China.

      (We'll ignore, for the moment, the ongoing legal battle over whether Huawei violated sanctions-- another breach of trust, if it is true.)

      If their IP is being used inappropriately, there are appropriate ways for them to take legal action. But I highly doubt Ericsson and Nokia are selling devices that illegally infringe on Huawei's IP.

      • Before someone makes a point about companies and countries not being the same thing, let me point out that they frequently are in China.

        And to reinforce your point, in the case of Huawei It is controlled lock, stock, and barrel by the CCP [wikipedia.org]by virtue of 99% of the voting stock being controlled by a committee of 115 people - that are "elected" by the other shareholders, but the list of who those shareholders can vote for is compiled by the CCP.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Huawei isn't unique when it comes to trust issues though. We can't trust US companies because the government hacks them, intercepting their hardware in transit to install malware. We can't trust a lot of European hardware, especially British, because again their governments are known to interfere and compromise security. And some just have a really bad reputation for severe security flaws, e.g. Intel and Apple.

        As for Ericsson and Nokia infringing Huawei IP, it might happen. Huawei is obliged to licence its

      • Samsung won a patent infringement case against apl, and was in position to ban apple products. The US government stepped in and made it go away. But sure, there's legal things huawei can do

    • Hrm, no, I think it IS justified. Keep in mind that patents are a government-granted monopoly, not some natural right. The entire premise of patents is to encourage invention and innovation. I think if a company (and their host country) doesn't play by the rules, blatantly stealing others IP and technology, hiding behind protectionist rules and regulations, then other governments have every justification in rescinding the granted monopoly for those patents.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • No, but we do have International IP treaties (governed by the WIPO), and most countries abide by them. China being the the most notable violator of their WIPO commitments with IP.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        That works both ways. If a country doesn't play by the rules, targets specific foreign companies to help its own compete when they were out-innovated, uses it as a target in some dubious trade war, then other governments have every justification in rescinding the patent rights of US companies, right?

        • They do indeed. I think if other countries see the US as a bad faith actor in regards to IP law and international treaties, they're free to rescind our patent protection within their borders, being sovereign nations. Of course, we're also free to decide who our preferred trading partners are.

          As a general rule, I don't think it's a bad thing for the US to be held to the same level of scrutiny that we want to hold others to. I'd just hope that we're held to the same standards.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Yeah, sounds tough but grown up countries like to resolve their differences with negotiation and through agreed arbitration like the WHO, not just unilaterally take action. That's because the moment you unilaterally take action every other country thinks you are unreliable and liable to break treaties whenever some politician needs to get re-elected.

            That's basically why China's retaliation has been so restrained thus far. They will wait and see if Trump gets back in while watching the US self destruct, and

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Atticka ( 175794 )

      Nortel just rolled over in their grave.

  • Take off you communist hosers, eh?

  • Samsung also makes 4G eNodeBs and 5GNR (Score:3)

    by williamyf ( 227051 ) on Wednesday June 03, 2020 @09:48PM (#60143102)

    And they are located in Korea, last itme I checked. And fujitsu does too, and they are in Japan....

    Let's face it, in telco the big Four are Ericsson, Huawei, Nokia and ZTE. Since two of those are chinese, there is not much choice, but beyond that, lies a plethora of smaller players.

    An operator as big as Bell or Rogers can grant 30% of their RAN to a bit player (in the telco space) like samsung or fujitsu and become like a rockstar-super-vip client to them. And is not like samsung or fujitsu will go broke, or stop honouring support and service contracts...

    But intertia, lack of imagination and other problems make that the big operators in the five eyes (and elsewhere too) stick with Ericsson and Nokia only.... just a shame...

  • Same as with the US using Canada, to push TTIP through anyway, as CETA. (Via NAFTA.)

    OK, a certain subset of US government, made up entirely of thugs and thieves, to be fair. Most Americans were just as much not fans of it.

  • Given the Canadian Government arrested, and is trying to extradite Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou to the USA, relations between the Chinese and Canadian governments are more than a bit strained, and likely to remain brittle for the foreseeable future. The Canadian Government is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and Canada does not share the world's longest undefended border, and most integrated national economies, with China.
    That harsh political reality likely makes blocking out Huawei a prudent busine

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Given the Canadian Government arrested, and is trying to extradite Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou to the USA, relations between the Chinese and Canadian governments are more than a bit strained, and likely to remain brittle for the foreseeable future. The Canadian Government is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and Canada does not share the world's longest undefended border, and most integrated national economies, with China.
      That harsh political reality likely makes blocking out Huawei a prudent busines

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close