news


DCMS and NCSC warn UK telco review might impact 5G supply chain

The metal chain is disconnected with the red-hot link, feeble link. 3d illustration

A letter has reportedly been sent to UK operators warning them about network security but the DCMS has played down any anti-China sentiment that may have been read into it.

The letter itself, which will not be officially released to the industry, has been signed by Matthew Gould, Head of Digital Policy at the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and Ciaran Martin, Chief Executive of the National Cyber Security Centre, and reportedly suggests telcos should evaluate the resilience and security of their supply chains ahead of the much hyped 5G euphoria.

“The Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review set out our long term plans to provide world class digital connectivity through full fibre connectivity and 5G mobile coverage,” the DCMS stated. “As part of this, we are conducting a review of the supply chain underpinning those ambitions to ensure a healthy, diverse and secure supply base, now and into the future.”

Although reports have emerged in the FT this morning, with anti-China rhetoric featuring heavily throughout, DCMS has distanced itself from such a targeted and calculated review. The review, and letter, is not targeted at a specific country, or firms which call that country home, but ensuring the UK has the right overall framework in place to ensure secure and resilience telecoms networks. The review will consider the economics of 5G, as well as aiming to create the desired resilience and security standards.

What is worth noting is that this letter is not new. The review and communications with telcos has been discussed in the House of Commons, while the letter itself was sent to executives weeks ago and originally unearthed by Politico. The anti-China rhetoric, which is outwardly present in other nations, seems to be more interpretation from the industry in this case.

That said, it is not completely misguided to assume the review does have a couple of nations in mind. NCSC has previously warned operators against using ZTE equipment in their networks as this might impact the long-term security of the UK, and with the rest of the world pointing a suspecting finger at Huawei, it would not be out of the question for the UK to jump on the band wagon.

While President Trump has been aggressively leading the anti-China sentiment across the US, Australia followed suit by banning the firm from participating in the Aussie 5G bonanza and South Korean telcos coincidentally left Huawei out from their preferred suppliers.

The conundrum the UK faces is focused around future trade and relationships with the rest of the world. With Brexit on the horizon, and looking increasingly unfavourable for the UK, bonds will need to be strengthened with other nations. Unfortunately this leaves the UK in a difficult position, with historic partner US on one side of the argument and the Chinese, a country various UK governments have attempted to get closer to, on the other.

While DCMS and the UK on the whole seemingly wants to justifiably maintain a neutral position in such reviews, we don’t doubt there will be a few cogs in the machine who are harbouring suspicions of the Chinese, which are starting to become commonplace.

This might not be a Chinese witch hunt, though it is certainly reasonable to assume that a level of biased suspicion will be present in some minds. What impact this has on the UK’s relationship with China and its kit vendors remains to be seen.

  • Automation Everywhere

  • 2020 Vision Executive Summit

  • LTE Advanced Pro and Gigabit LTE: The Path to 5G

  • TechXLR8

  • The BIG Communications Event

  • 5G North America

  • 5G World


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Polls

Should privacy be treated as a right to protect stringently, or a commodity for users to trade for benefits?

Loading ... Loading ...