Live data from Hacker News

Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027

bbc.com

471–480 of 481 posts

Re: Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027

#471

Re-posting a nested comment at top level for those who see incongruity in "national security risk" and "seven years to phase out Huawei": This is a good example of the kinds of tradeoffs which must be made at the highest levels of public service. Huawei, just like any Chinese corporation operating overseas, is an attack vector for intelligence gathering. Anyone presenting a counter-argument to this is either a shill…

> Re-posting a nested comment at top level

Please don't. Duplicating lowers the signal/noise ratio. If you want to refer to what was posted elsewhere, a link is a perfectly good tool.

Re: Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027

#472
post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 5G uses the same old frequencies as 2/3/4G for the bulk of the traffic, it only uses the >1Ghz frequencies for microcells in malls and other dense areas where appropriate. That's simply not true. 5G cannot achieve its advanced speeds without higher frequencies, which cannot be deployed without greater density of base stations. Higher frequencies beget faster signal falloff and greater susceptibility to obstruction.…

I said ‘where appropriate’. It’s unlikely to be rolled out fully throughout the entirety of the providers network. So you’ll see it in high density areas where people are mostly outside. As I said, malls etc. Also higher speeds at the regular sub-ghz frequencies are achievable through beam-forming.

To send more data per second, you either need a carrier wave of higher frequency (which 5G is doing), or an increased number of simultaneous data streams at the present frequency (which 5G is also doing).

Beamforming can't overstep the physical limitations of a carrier wave, it just adapts the radiation pattern of the antenna array to improve range and reduce interference. This is useful to extend the range of high-band signals, because they operate in object-dense space with a high density of clients. It is also useful at the lower frequencies, because it allows an improvement in spectrum efficiency in an otherwise crowded part of the spectrum.

You are basically saying that beamforming allows more single-user MIMO to improve the data speed of an individual user's connection at the lower frequencies. I agree with that. However, you still need more base stations because (A) you won't see the massive advertised 5G speeds without sub-6GHz and mm-wave, and (B) you need more antennas as you improve MIMO to serve more simultaneous data streams to each individual user at sub-GHz.

I am not familiar with the authors of this paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.07678.pdf), but it offers a good explanation with some images:

  The spectral efficiency of Massive MIMO grows monotonically
  with the number of antennas [28]. Thus, we can expect a
  future where hundreds or thousands of antennas are used to
  serve a set of users. There are, however, practical limits to
  how many antennas can be deployed at conventional towers
  and rooftop locations, for example, determined by the array
  dimensions allowed by the site owner, the weight, and the
  wind load. [...] Nevertheless, the spatial multiplexing
  capability of these two dimensional planar arrays in our
  three-dimensional world is far from what has been demonstrated
  in the academic literature, where large one-dimensional arrays
  are often considered in a two-dimensional world. In many
  practical deployment scenarios, the user channels are mainly
  separable in the horizontal domain [35] since the variations
  in elevation angle between different users and scattering
  objects are relatively small. [...] However, to deploy more
  than a few hundred antennas per site and to obtain a truly
  massive spatial resolution in the horizontal domain, we need
  new antenna deployment strategies.
       Instead of gathering all the antennas in a single box,
  which will be visible and heavy, the antennas can be
  distributed over a substantially larger area and made
  invisible by integrating them into existing construction
  elements.
Also, you're going to see mid-band (sub-6GHz) rolled out in a lot of places where mm-wave wouldn't be appropriate.

Re: Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027

#473
post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said ‘where appropriate’. It’s unlikely to be rolled out fully throughout the entirety of the providers network. So you’ll see it in high density areas where people are mostly outside. As I said, malls etc. Also higher speeds at the regular sub-ghz frequencies are achievable through beam-forming.

To send more data per second, you either need a carrier wave of higher frequency (which 5G is doing), or an increased number of simultaneous data streams at the present frequency (which 5G is also doing). Beamforming can't overstep the physical limitations of a carrier wave, it just adapts the radiation pattern of the antenna array to improve range and reduce interference. This is useful to extend the range of high-b…

... as I said ‘where appropriate’.

However I don’t think for one minute that you’re going to get that super fast data everywhere. :-)

Re: Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027

#474
post #394
post #60

U.S. is just concerned that China, and not them, will get an edge in spying and the next industrial revolution. Speaking of human rights it should be noted that U.S. not only wantonly attacks or bullies other countries, but it also has the highest incarceration rate in the world - in absolute terms the number of inmates is comparable to that of China and India combined.

Literally no country which fought the Nazis was completely moral. Should nobody have fought the Nazis?

Does nobody have a counterargument to this?

Re: Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027

#476
post #471

Re-posting a nested comment at top level for those who see incongruity in "national security risk" and "seven years to phase out Huawei": This is a good example of the kinds of tradeoffs which must be made at the highest levels of public service. Huawei, just like any Chinese corporation operating overseas, is an attack vector for intelligence gathering. Anyone presenting a counter-argument to this is either a shill…

> Re-posting a nested comment at top level Please don't. Duplicating lowers the signal/noise ratio. If you want to refer to what was posted elsewhere, a link is a perfectly good tool.

Oops, my mistake. Sorry to be a pain!

Is there a reason why something reasonably substantive like this which addresses both a specific query from users (nested) and apparently at top level to shouldn't be allowed? I guess upvotes are an imperfect measure but this post appears to be contributing more than many other top-level comments.

(Thanks for taking the time to explain! Either way consider me corrected.)

Re: Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027

#477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the most practical realization - That everyone is doing it, and will probably continue doing it until the end of time. If you accept this, then you can quickly constrain the things you should actually worry about to a much smaller list. The first thing that pops into my mind here is the importance of end-to-end encryption. If you cannot trust anything in the middle (presumably because the internet goe…

This (and parent) is interesting to read considering the effort France has been putting into transitioning various government services to matrix in order to take advantage of the end to end encryption it offers. Seems they probably agree with a lot of these points!

They transitionned to Citadel, which is a Thales product based off Matrix which made technical decisions which will drive the product off the Matrix dev flow (namely the authentication).

Re: Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027

#478

Carrier maintenance modes still allow you to access the memory of the device and force screenshots to fire

This is about carrier equipment, not phones. In fact, phones are exempt from this decision.

Please re-read what I said. The carrier equipment can read the memory of your phone remotely dog. It's a "feature" in nearly all Qualcomm chips

Re: Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027

#479
post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China puts their own citizens in concentration camps. They're using machine learning to generate social scores. If you don't like America or the UK, you can leave. Try doing that in China. Dying in a free zone is preferable to the enslavement that the Chinese are subjected to. Freedom has a price, and it's not racist to not like these horrible cultural values or to go against them.

Please stop posting nationalistic and/or ideological flamewar comments to HN. It's against the side guidelines, and it evokes worse from others. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Hi, sorry I am not sure what you consider nationalistic, or a flamewar. I am not solely criticizing the east, in another post I consider the US stuck in the 50s. I have family in China+HK and do not like the cultural values now. What would have been a better way to post that? I think the comment is relevant in a thread about Huawei and 5g and why people are pushing back against China.

Re: Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027

#480

All providers had their infamy moment at some point, leaving a backdoor behind. Maybe for spying, maybe because QA failed. Huawei is on the US radar but somehow when Cisco left a backdoor on some routers it was "just a mistake". Every country is guilty of stabbing in the back others (occasionally or all the time), it has been the case for centuries and is not likely to change. I am French, we do not have our own tech…

I've wondered how EU people feel about things like this. Euros have been inundated with "Americana" for the last 40 years or so. They watch TV shows about Americans, movies about Americans. They use American social media networks. It's like a culture-overload like USA is always "in your face". USA never had any problem with Skype as a Danish company being used by a significant number of Americans. But TikTok, a Chine…

I do not think we are particularly influenced by American culture, mostly breveté we belive that ours is truly extraordinary and should radiate on the whole world :)

We do watch US movies and series, but probably less the ones that decpit US everyday life and more the well known ones (say, Westworld - but not to start to live like them. Or Avengers).

One of the huge successes of the past was Dallas. Everyone was watching it but there was zero influence on normal life, it was a tale of aliens on another planet.

So no culture overload for us.

Post reply on HN