news


UK MPs recommend faster Huawei removal if China doesn’t behave itself

The Parliamentary Defence Committee has published a detailed report on UK 5G security, which takes a robust position over China.

The report is headlined ‘We must not surrender our national security for the sake of short-term technological development’, which leaves no doubt where the 11 committee members stand on the matter. Their investigation focused on the competing needs of UK security, UK operators and US diplomatic pressure.

The key paragraph is all the way down at number 131. “The Government has faced pressure to remove Huawei more quickly than by 2027. The evidence we have received would suggest that a quicker timescale could result in signal blackouts, delay the 5G rollout significantly and cost both operators and the economy greatly,” it says.

“For the time being we consider the plan for a removal by 2027 to be a sensible decision. Should pressure from allies for a speedier removal continue or should China’s threats and global position change so significantly to warrant it, the Government should, however, consider whether a removal by 2025 is feasible and economically viable. The Government should also be alert to the fact that other factors may warrant an earlier removal despite the risk of costs or delays.”

Leaving aside the slippery use of language that characterises US threats as ‘pressure’, the matter of Chinese threats is intriguing. “Pressure has been exerted by China on the UK Government to retain the presence of Huawei in its 5G infrastructure through both covert and overt threats,” says paragraph 109. “More recently, following the Government’s announcement for the long-term withdrawal of Huawei from its 5G network, China has threatened to withdraw from the UK’s economy, including in critical infrastructure such as nuclear.”

Since China is making it increasingly clear that it’s prepared to commandeer its own companies to pursue its political strategies, that threat should be taken very seriously. The following paragraph recommends that if China keeps this up, the UK government should consider removing Chinese companies from other parts of the national infrastructure too.

UK operators will presumably be reassured by paragraph 136. “The Government should consider providing compensation to operators, whether direct or indirect, whose networks are currently reliant on Huawei if the 2027 deadline is moved forward, in order to minimise costs to, and delays for, consumers. They should also consider legislation to give networks the right of access to sites.”

While the exact cost of being forced to swap out Huawei kit is up for debate, it seems reasonable to compensate operators for any capex that can be shown to have resulted from the Huawei ban. After all, we’ve been happy to chuck billions of pounds around in a futile bid to suppress a virus, what’s a few million more in the great scheme of things?

Tags: , , , ,
  • Private Networks in a 5G World

  • 5G Networking Digital Symposium

  • Telecoms.com LIVE: Getting the Best out of 5G

  • 5G Ecosystem Digital Symposium

  • 2020 Vision Executive Summit

  • TechXLR8

  • BIG 5G Event

  • 5G World

  • 5G Latin America


8 comments

  1. Avatar Andy Tiller 08/10/2020 @ 3:02 pm

    They make it sound like China is the aggressor in this, which would be true if there was any proof that security backdoors have been designed into Huawei kit for use by Chinese government spies, but I’m still waiting for someone to show us those. In the meantime, the US is the aggressor and China’s response seems very reasonable so far.

    • Scott Bicheno Scott Bicheno 08/10/2020 @ 4:29 pm

      Even the appropriation of the private sector for state purposes?

      • Avatar Andy Tiller 08/10/2020 @ 6:00 pm

        Well, I’d say that depends if the ‘state purposes’ are nefarious.

        • Scott Bicheno Scott Bicheno 09/10/2020 @ 9:23 am

          Tough one to know for sure. One way to have an educated guess is to look at the broader M.O. of said state.

          • Avatar Andy Tiller 09/10/2020 @ 2:23 pm

            The MO of the Chinese state is certainly different from the MO of the US state, but neither is squeaky clean. My point is really that I suspect the US position is motivated much more by trade dominance and power than by genuine national security concerns.

    • Avatar happiman 11/10/2020 @ 3:48 am

      Please spare 10 minutes of your time and google “Huawei backdoor”. There are too many evidences event to list here.

  2. Avatar Ewa 09/10/2020 @ 1:43 pm

    Sad that even the most developed countries in Europe are pappetts of the US, can’t make their own decisions. All the jump to the tune of the US. Great to still have North Korea and Russia which do not tolerate this kind bullying.

    • Avatar happiman 11/10/2020 @ 3:28 am

      You think the most developed countries in Europe are puppets of the US, and North Korea, the least democratic country, North Korea, is behaving indecently and supporting China?

Leave a comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Polls

What would be the future role of satellite communications?

Loading ... Loading ...