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

Hobbling Huawei: Inside the U.S. war on China’s tech giant

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 108 posts

Re: Hobbling Huawei: Inside the U.S. war on China’s tech giant

#41

Post by freeflight »

likeabbas wrote: post #37
otoburb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A modern wireless operator in its most simple terms is comprised of two very different networks: a radio access network of cell sites (aka RAN), and a data and packet processing network (aka Core). The two types of network are not heterogenous because their layer 1 characters are completely different (electromagnetic spectrum vs. wires), which has led to vendor specialization over the years as few companies are/were…

Couldn’t one argue that their strength in cost efficiency was largely built on the theft of IP? Without the IP barriers western countries abide by, they were able to take the best technology from multiple companies, implement it and sell it at a fraction of the price?

Sure one could argue that, but to do that convincingly it would probably best to bring concrete evidence of what IP was supposedly stolen to facilitate the Huawei tech.

Re: Hobbling Huawei: Inside the U.S. war on China’s tech giant

#42

Post by zaro »

holy_city wrote: post #33
luka-birsa wrote: post #5

Can somebody TLDR; why 5G is so much more dangerous (security wise) vs 4G? Plus I do like the two-facedness - nobody should spy unless it's us.

It's not more dangerous, it's that the existing infrastructure is not (as) compromised as new infrastructure to be built with Huawei goods. It should be self evident that turning over domestic communications infrastructure to a global rival with the largest military on the planet, nuclear first strike capability, a history of violence, newly minted dictator, and global ambitions is a terrible idea. Also, the US gover…

> the largest military on the planet, nuclear first strike capability, a history of violence, newly minted dictator,

When you say it like that it's not quite clear whether you are referring to China or the US.

Re: Hobbling Huawei: Inside the U.S. war on China’s tech giant

#43

Post by DEADBEEFC0FFEE »

ralph84 wrote: post #17
Scramblejams wrote: post #3

For me, the key quote: The United States and its allies were derelict in not developing a 5G supplier, former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in a speech in London in March. “With the benefit of hindsight it beggars belief that the countries which pioneered wireless technology – the United States, the UK, Germany, Japan and with wifi, Australia have got to the point where none of them are able to pres…

This goes back to Carly Fiorina gutting Lucent (Western Electric and Bell Labs) before she gutted HP. Quite a career to set up the decline of two of the most iconic US tech companies.

Let that animosity flow to the shareholders too.

Re: Hobbling Huawei: Inside the U.S. war on China’s tech giant

#44

Post by otoburb »

likeabbas wrote: post #37
otoburb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A modern wireless operator in its most simple terms is comprised of two very different networks: a radio access network of cell sites (aka RAN), and a data and packet processing network (aka Core). The two types of network are not heterogenous because their layer 1 characters are completely different (electromagnetic spectrum vs. wires), which has led to vendor specialization over the years as few companies are/were…

Couldn’t one argue that their strength in cost efficiency was largely built on the theft of IP? Without the IP barriers western countries abide by, they were able to take the best technology from multiple companies, implement it and sell it at a fraction of the price?

>>Couldn’t one argue that their strength in cost efficiency was largely built on the theft of IP?

There are plenty of accusations that this was the case -- I'm not going to comment on the veracity of those accusations. However, if it were true, then that would certainly be a huge factor why Huawei was able to catch up and overtake other domain players within a relatively short period of time.

In defense of Huawei, I would like to point out that Bunnie Huang[1] noticed a certain type of generically Chinese innovation leading him to coin the term "Gongkai"[2][3], the effects of which led to him cataloguing and writing a book[4]. I think the combination of this laissez-faire "flexibility" around WTO-mandated IP rights and a grueling and debilitating 996[5] work ethic helped Huawei, among other Chinese companies, to catch up with Western firms pretty quickly.

[2] https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?page_id=3107

[3] https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297

[4] https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4605

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/996_working_hour_system

Re: Hobbling Huawei: Inside the U.S. war on China’s tech giant

#45

Post by DEADBEEFC0FFEE »

adventured wrote: post #13
Scramblejams wrote: post #3

For me, the key quote: The United States and its allies were derelict in not developing a 5G supplier, former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in a speech in London in March. “With the benefit of hindsight it beggars belief that the countries which pioneered wireless technology – the United States, the UK, Germany, Japan and with wifi, Australia have got to the point where none of them are able to pres…

I think there was substantial skepticism among those nations and those companies that anybody was going to beat them to the punch, specifically that China would present such a credible offering. China went from barely having any tech in 1999, to showing up for the race by 2009, to competing to lead in 5G by 2019. If you asked Intel, Cisco, Qualcomm, or the European suppliers, about that in 2005 or 2010, they would ha…

Absolutely right. Look at the profits if the incumbents over the last 20 years. Look at the huge number of vulnerabilities for Cisco alone and in many cases the ridiculousness of them (passwords, keys, backdoors). They largely became a licensing, consulting and training company.

Re: Hobbling Huawei: Inside the U.S. war on China’s tech giant

#46

Post by JTon »

otoburb wrote: post #29
beaner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonder if someone could elaborate on the hardware or what makes cell network hardware unique? Isn't it all just chips, boards, and cables?

A modern wireless operator in its most simple terms is comprised of two very different networks: a radio access network of cell sites (aka RAN), and a data and packet processing network (aka Core). The two types of network are not heterogenous because their layer 1 characters are completely different (electromagnetic spectrum vs. wires), which has led to vendor specialization over the years as few companies are/were…

> Huawei's strength comes in their ability to provide an end-to-end turnkey solution for both types of networks at competitive prices with hardware & software that works

Plus an army of support engineers to help you turn-up and operate your new network.

Re: Hobbling Huawei: Inside the U.S. war on China’s tech giant

#47

Post by freeflight »

holy_city wrote: post #33
luka-birsa wrote: post #5

Can somebody TLDR; why 5G is so much more dangerous (security wise) vs 4G? Plus I do like the two-facedness - nobody should spy unless it's us.

It's not more dangerous, it's that the existing infrastructure is not (as) compromised as new infrastructure to be built with Huawei goods. It should be self evident that turning over domestic communications infrastructure to a global rival with the largest military on the planet, nuclear first strike capability, a history of violence, newly minted dictator, and global ambitions is a terrible idea. Also, the US gover…

> Also, the US government isn't stealing US IP and giving it to Chinese businesses. The PLA is, and their ties to Huawei run deep.

No, it's stealing "allies" IP and giving it to US businesses [0] while subsidizing Intel to the tune of billions [1].

Still, nobody writes headlines along the lines of "State-sponsored Intel processors come with ME backdoor for government spying." instead we get, super trustworthy, articles how the NSA totally helped with disabling the backdoor [2], because a sucker is born every minute.

The absurdity of it all is immense, yet still seems to elude most US Americans.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Examples_of_industrial...

[1] https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/intel

[2] https://www.csoonline.com/article/3220476/researchers-say-no...

Re: Hobbling Huawei: Inside the U.S. war on China’s tech giant

#48

Post by beaner »

vageli wrote: post #30
beaner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonder if someone could elaborate on the hardware or what makes cell network hardware unique? Isn't it all just chips, boards, and cables?

"Just" chips? The amount of research and development that goes into designing and fabricating chips used for wireless radio technologies is not so easily written off with a "just".

I was hoping I could get away with an honest simple question without having to qualify all the assumptions and naïvities in it.

Re: Hobbling Huawei: Inside the U.S. war on China’s tech giant

#49

Post by eaim »

craigsmansion wrote: post #35

Looks like the new cold war has found its money-pit. At least it's not nuclear this time. > agents of the Australian Signals Directorate, the nation’s top-secret eavesdropping agency Straight from the geniuses that outlawed mathematics. I'm sure not all of the "cyber security" people are complete idiots, but how many can resist an offer of unlimited funding, and all you have to do say things are terrible and very sca…

Good commentary, well & clearly stated!

Re: Hobbling Huawei: Inside the U.S. war on China’s tech giant

#50

Post by eaim »

takamh wrote: post #31
thommark wrote: post #23

I'm from Netherlands, and My country recently found some backdoors in Huawei equipments. This might be why the US/EU is actively blocking Huawei: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-netherlands-huawei-tech/d...

"Citing unidentified intelligence sources" An option would be to confidentially share with UK or German intelligence agencies and verify, but they chose instead to publish a vague article. Seems doubtful this will result in anything concrete.

All is vagueness. It’s popular! Why bother with evidence when agencies / governments / media can simply make vague statements about threats & security? Oh & of course we can’t supply evidence because that would threaten our security also. Circulus In probando
Post reply on HN