Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bell, Telus to use Nokia and Ericsson, not Huawei, in building their 5G networks

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 200 posts

Re: Bell, Telus to use Nokia and Ericsson, not Huawei, in building their 5G networks

#51

Post by harpratap »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #6

I'm as much a proponent of free trade as the next guy, but I do think there's a strong argument for trying to build and maintaining one's own infrastructure whenever possible, even if it's a bit more expensive. Not just for national security concerns, but because they're big domestic projects and it's nice to have to the talent and knowledge at home.

If you want that then you also want 100% open hardware. Because let's be honest, you will be wasting a lot of time and effort solving already existing problems a 100 times over if everyone does the same thing. Less reliance on one country or company and less chance of states spying on you.

Re: Bell, Telus to use Nokia and Ericsson, not Huawei, in building their 5G networks

#52

Post by gen220 »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #30
brandon272 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons used by Canada's telcos to rationalize Canada's sky-high wireless rates is that it costs them more to build out the networks than it does for other countries. I would hate to give them one more excuse to lean on by having them source this equipment domestically.

I'm American, but I'd love to see more of our infrastructure projects pseudo-nationalized, personally. Governments manage to build roads and deliver mail just fine, and I don't see why digital infrastructure couldn't have more government financing and involvement as well.

Some municipalities have tried to get into the high-bandwidth-ISP-as-a-public-utility business, because they’re too small for $BIG_TELECO to invest in, but they want fiber networks to attract businesses and remote tech workers. It’s mostly been unsuccessful because running a local and profitable ISP is hard.

In the few municipalities where they’ve been successful, the big telecom companies have been more successful in lobbying state legislatures to make such municipal enterprises illegal. “It won’t be fair to private businesses to have to compete with a tax-funded local teleco.”

It’s a reasonable argument, but it perpetuates the problem. Maybe the solution is for cities to award a prize (say, $2mm) to private ISPs that can offer high bandwidth connections.

Re: Bell, Telus to use Nokia and Ericsson, not Huawei, in building their 5G networks

#53

Post by mullingitover »

arcticbull wrote: post #26
Scoundreller wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just goes to show that Canadian telecom policy is controlled by telecoms, not by the government. It's very cozy and regularly functions to discourage competition. Canadian telecom policy still revolves around "facilities-based competition", where it's believed that new entrants should build out a new network. It's designed to fail. Even the incumbents, Bell and Telus, share a 3G/4G mobile network to avoid redundant i…

> Just goes to show that Canadian telecom policy is controlled by telecoms, not by the government. It's very cozy and regularly functions to discourage competition. It's easy to say that, but Canada has a smaller population than California, but spread over the surface area larger than that of the United States. How many carriers, and how much competition, can you possibly expect in that environment? Especially in an…

> It's easy to say that, but Canada has a smaller population than California, but spread over the surface area larger than that of the United States.

That is an extremely misleading statement. Approximately 75% of Canada's population lives within 150km of the US border, and even that is not a uniform distribution , there are dense urban population clusters.

Re: Bell, Telus to use Nokia and Ericsson, not Huawei, in building their 5G networks

#54

Post by arcticbull »

refurb wrote: post #36
Scoundreller wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just goes to show that Canadian telecom policy is controlled by telecoms, not by the government. It's very cozy and regularly functions to discourage competition. Canadian telecom policy still revolves around "facilities-based competition", where it's believed that new entrants should build out a new network. It's designed to fail. Even the incumbents, Bell and Telus, share a 3G/4G mobile network to avoid redundant i…

People complain about the lack of cell phone providers here in the US, but damn! Canada is way worse. The cost of phone plans is outrageous and the major telecoms do everything in their power to stop new entrants from messing up their gravy train.

Is it really though? I mean, it used to be.

Rogers wants $75/mth (CAD - $55 USD) for 10GB data and unlimited talk and text. Let's compare to the US:

- AT&T wants 65++ USD ($87 CAD) for a comparable plan.

- Verizon wants 70++ USD ($94 CAD) for a comparable plan.

- TMo wants 70 (all in) USD ($94 CAD) for a comparable plan.

And each network in Canada is dramatically better than AT&T and TMo, and roughly comparable to Verizon.

Back in the day, there was a huge difference, these days, it's kinda the same. I remember when the iPhone first came out and you could get an unlimited AT&T plan for $60/mth and Rogers wanted $120++. Those days are long past, though.

Re: Bell, Telus to use Nokia and Ericsson, not Huawei, in building their 5G networks

#55

Post by arcticbull »

mullingitover wrote: post #53
arcticbull wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just goes to show that Canadian telecom policy is controlled by telecoms, not by the government. It's very cozy and regularly functions to discourage competition. It's easy to say that, but Canada has a smaller population than California, but spread over the surface area larger than that of the United States. How many carriers, and how much competition, can you possibly expect in that environment? Especially in an…

> It's easy to say that, but Canada has a smaller population than California, but spread over the surface area larger than that of the United States. That is an extremely misleading statement. Approximately 75% of Canada's population lives within 150km of the US border, and even that is not a uniform distribution , there are dense urban population clusters.

Totally, I know that, but even with that, the density isn't comparable. I mean, how many Californias can you fit into this coverage map? [1] I'm guessing a lot of Californias -- Alberta alone is 1.67 Californias by land area.

And then there's the geography. You can drive to each major point in California in a couple hours, but it's not as easy to get to Moose Factory or Fort Mac, let alone lay the backhaul to supply the towers in the middle of absolutely nowhere.

[1] https://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Our_network_coverage

Re: Bell, Telus to use Nokia and Ericsson, not Huawei, in building their 5G networks

#56

Post by sneak »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #30
brandon272 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons used by Canada's telcos to rationalize Canada's sky-high wireless rates is that it costs them more to build out the networks than it does for other countries. I would hate to give them one more excuse to lean on by having them source this equipment domestically.

I'm American, but I'd love to see more of our infrastructure projects pseudo-nationalized, personally. Governments manage to build roads and deliver mail just fine, and I don't see why digital infrastructure couldn't have more government financing and involvement as well.

You really don’t want the state being the practical arbiter of whether or not you can connect to the internet.

Sure, you might have legal recourse if they decide to unplug your entire political party’s ports one month before an election, but in the meantime, you’ve lost the election.

Right now you just go get a different SIM.

The state being in direct control of who and how to censor is a loaded gun aimed at the head of a free society.

Re: Bell, Telus to use Nokia and Ericsson, not Huawei, in building their 5G networks

#57

Post by jbay808 »

Scoundreller wrote: post #48
jbay808 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have an issue with Huawei phones being available. I have the option not to buy them. It's not the same as network equipment.

But if Huawei is a Chinese spy, shouldn't the government put some restrictions on that too for public benefit? But they can't with the ban-but-not-a-ban on Huawei. It would be too obvious that there was a ban if providers scrubbed Huawei consumer products entirely, and those consumers pay the price. And while you have the option to not buy them, it's not so easy to avoid communication with anyone with a Huawei device…

They just have to ban them from secure zones / departments, and companies that value their security can ban them internally.

If you don't trust who you're communicating with to follow the same measures, then you shouldn't be sending them your secrets.

Re: Bell, Telus to use Nokia and Ericsson, not Huawei, in building their 5G networks

#58

Post by Scoundreller »

humanlion87 wrote: post #49
refurb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People complain about the lack of cell phone providers here in the US, but damn! Canada is way worse. The cost of phone plans is outrageous and the major telecoms do everything in their power to stop new entrants from messing up their gravy train.

I think it's far more difficult to build a competitive network in Canada vs the US. Canada is as big as the US, but has 1/10th the population. Building and maintaining infrastructure for low-density population areas is extremely capital intensive. I am not saying the existing Telco oligopoly is a good or ideal situation. Just mentioning that US and Canada have some differences in this regard

Most of the low-density population areas aren't covered anyway. By landmass, it's single-digit percentages or low double-digit percentages of coverage (And often it's weak outside of urban/suburban area).

One of the least dense provinces, Saskatchewan, has some of the best pricing in the country because the government has yet to selloff the provincial telecom to private investors. Manitoba too before they decided to privatize and sell off to an incumbent.

And high-density is no panacea for cost. Tall concrete buildings everywhere can mean more infrastructure costs. Especially if regulations require you to fit infrastructure into the facade. Medium-density is the least engineering: Just put up a tower and call it a day. And in Canada, antenna permits are federal. Once issued, local govs can't stop you from putting up your monstrosity of white panels on a midrise or a big metal antenna.

But you don't have to just compare Canada against the USA. Australia or Iceland have rates that Canadians can only dream of, with similarly geo-population situations.

Re: Bell, Telus to use Nokia and Ericsson, not Huawei, in building their 5G networks

#59

Post by kevin_nisbet »

humanlion87 wrote: post #49
refurb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People complain about the lack of cell phone providers here in the US, but damn! Canada is way worse. The cost of phone plans is outrageous and the major telecoms do everything in their power to stop new entrants from messing up their gravy train.

I think it's far more difficult to build a competitive network in Canada vs the US. Canada is as big as the US, but has 1/10th the population. Building and maintaining infrastructure for low-density population areas is extremely capital intensive. I am not saying the existing Telco oligopoly is a good or ideal situation. Just mentioning that US and Canada have some differences in this regard

I agree with you in concept, but I don't know that the geography fully explains the discrepancy. As an example, there are government incentives to do the build out to more rural areas, but that might be true in the US as well.

We also tried to implement more carriers several years ago, with a wireless spectrum auction that reserved spectrum for new entrants. These startups tried to focus solely on urban areas with their build outs, and then could roam on the big 3, but struggled immensely. IIRC, one of the big complaints was we don't allow foreign ownership, which made it difficult to raise the immense capital needed for a proper build out. How much that plays into it I don't know, but unless Canadians want to put together a massive amount of capital it seems unlikely to force stronger competition.

Re: Bell, Telus to use Nokia and Ericsson, not Huawei, in building their 5G networks

#60

Post by bgee »

Scoundreller wrote: post #48
jbay808 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have an issue with Huawei phones being available. I have the option not to buy them. It's not the same as network equipment.

But if Huawei is a Chinese spy, shouldn't the government put some restrictions on that too for public benefit? But they can't with the ban-but-not-a-ban on Huawei. It would be too obvious that there was a ban if providers scrubbed Huawei consumer products entirely, and those consumers pay the price. And while you have the option to not buy them, it's not so easy to avoid communication with anyone with a Huawei device…

Disclaimer: China national working for the American company behind Android; opinions are my own.

> But if Huawei is a Chinese spy

Has Huawei been caught with a smoking gun? Is Huawei worse in terms of security compared to other telecom suppliers?

If (national) security is really Canada's top priority, it seems the most needed ban is on American consumer products/websites [0]?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

Post reply on HN