Slashdot Mirror


US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network

An anonymous reader writes "The U.S. government has cited national security as a reason not to let Chinese company Huawei build an LTE public safety network. They're worried about Huawei's close ties to the Chinese government and the threat of any devices Huawei manufactures being bugged. Of course, whoever gets the contract is going to be manufacturing their devices in China anyway, but it looks like a Chinese company won't be allowed to deploy the infrastructure."

156 comments

  1. Obligitory by Moheeheeko · · Score: 0

    /tinfoil hat

    1. Re:Obligitory by CaptSlaq · · Score: 2

      /tinfoil hat

      Would be "The Fed wants to maintain its monopoly on cellphone snooping".

    2. Re:Obligitory by Synerg1y · · Score: 3, Interesting

      after stuxnet? :)

      Totally feasible, would slashdot feel better if they were excluding muslims rather than the Chinese? :)

    3. Re:Obligitory by zlives · · Score: 1

      exploding cell phones... great now its not just cancer i have to worry about!

    4. Re:Obligitory by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      They are called IPhones. A damaged battery tended to go boom.

  2. Huawei was in the news in Europe as well... by thrill12 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... for advertising with a lot of important and big customers' "success stories" (such as TGV) that were in fact never real customers of Huawei/were never worth a success story. Guess they really are trying hard to set foot 'here'. (http://www.automatiseringgids.nl/nieuws/2011/41/%E2%80%98huawei-jokt-over-europese-klanten%E2%80%99)

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
    1. Re:Huawei was in the news in Europe as well... by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not surprised. Just like the 'Chinese success', it is all predicated on constant lies and deceptions. But considering that Huawei is Chinese gov (in fact, more Chinese gov, than America Air was US Gov). In fact, unless a company has outside participation, it is 100% owned AND MANAGED by the gov.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Huawei was in the news in Europe as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to break it to you but they ALL do that. Had a small consulting gig with a minor department of a subsidiary of a big corporation? *BAMM* Big corporation as reference!

    3. Re:Huawei was in the news in Europe as well... by chrb · · Score: 2

      Yeah, all corporations stretch the truth about the success of their product deployments... remember Microsoft trumpeting their London Stock Exchange big success story? But it turned out that the LSE had so many problems they eventually dumped the entire platform and bought a provider of Linux-based systems instead. Microsoft don't talk about that so much anymore.

      But then what did you expect, that a corporation would actually come out and tell the truth? "We deployed our software at customer site; it was problematic and buggy, and led to downtime and multiple redesigns, patches and redeployments." Too much honesty, marketing would never allow it.

    4. Re:Huawei was in the news in Europe as well... by Sun · · Score: 1

      "We deployed our software at customer site; it was problematic and buggy, and led to downtime and multiple redesigns, patches and redeployments."

      I do not expect the whole truth from companies' marketing divisions. Just the truth. If, after you have removed all unsuccessful installations you have nothing left, keep you mouth shut.

      Shachar

    5. Re:Huawei was in the news in Europe as well... by m.ducharme · · Score: 4, Funny

      In fact, unless a company has outside participation, it is 100% owned AND MANAGED by the gov.

      Which is totally incompatible with the American model, where the government is 100% owned and managed by the corporations.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    6. Re:Huawei was in the news in Europe as well... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I agree with you 100%.
      That is why we need 2 new amendments:

      1) a balanced budget amendment. It should be a weak on in which a deficit can be ran IFF 55% of both houses and the president agree. HOWEVER, upon running a deficit and not having approval, then the deficit needs to be automatically dropped 20% and continues each year by that amount, unless congress goes lower or approves more deficits. By making it weak, it should prevent a single party from doing what is being done today. By doing automatic cuts across the board, it will make congress either work together or be forced to take responsibility.

      2) a term-limits on federal congress. 12 years total max in either house. That means possible 6 terms in the house and 2 terms in the senate.
      In addition, they get public funding for THEIR elections. No other money is allowed to them. However, PACS will be allowed, of which all money that flows to them must be published. If a penny comes to them anonymously, then it is put into kitty for public funding. In addition, only REGISTERED VOTERS are allowed to put money into PACS (though anybody can contribute to public funding kitty). The registered voter will have a max that they can give to a single PAC and a max to all pacs. All political parties are converted into a PACs, of which they can ONLY use the money on their own candidates.

      With the above 2 amendments, we get our nation back. Right now, America is a laughing stock thinking that US citizens are backing much of US laws and actions.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:Huawei was in the news in Europe as well... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Except when said government goes into the business of buying out corporations?

      Oh dear, we seem to have created a loop.

    8. Re:Huawei was in the news in Europe as well... by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      No, see when the USG buys a corporation, they don't get to actually run it or take any of the profits. Mostly they just end up absorbing that corp's liabilities, then letting the profitable parts go. The gov doesn't so much "buy" the corp as it "insures" it.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    9. Re:Huawei was in the news in Europe as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you about both a balanced budget amendment and term limits.....

      But IMHO your term limit idea is too lenient. How about a 1-term term-limit. That way whoever is elected into office won't be consumed with doing things that will get him or her re-elected. Or to put it another way, the congressperson won't be afraid of doing unpopular things anymore, and maybe for once will do what is best for this country.

      Oh, and repeal the law that pays ex-congressmen for life too.

    10. Re:Huawei was in the news in Europe as well... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      hehehe. love the last part.

      However, the advantage of the house is that they HAVE to stay close to those that the represent. The problem is that is the case today: Large businesses.

      We need to prevent businesses from being able to influence pols, and then they will stay close to US. Hopefully with that case, they will start putting the NATION first. For example, top dem leaders push for amnesty for illegals. Pubs scream about illegals, however ever single one of their GD bills are GUTTED. They speak of building a wall to stop illegals, but it did not work for Berlin. Heck, drugs and illegals flow through the fences that are there. The reason that pubs do this is because large businesses want to continue to use illegals here. Little to No taxes. They can pay a great deal less. And they can flaunt the laws and not worry about being sued (though that last part is changing).
      However, if businesses, unions, foreigners were prevented from being able to control pols, then pubs would be all over this and have put forward DECENT illegal control bills. We would have e-verify required at each business, with severe penalty for cheating. So, by stopping outside influence on our pols, we make them responsive to the ..... voters.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  3. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Free market, right?

    So the next step is that the Chinese block sales of semiconductors to the US citing national security as the reason...

    1. Re:Great by headhot · · Score: 2

      Good, then it will be harder from them to copy them.

    2. Re:Great by erroneus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sounds great! Then we will be FORCED to bring labor back to the US and then there will be jobs and prosperity again.

      Money isn't as much about hoarding money as much as it is about circulating it.

    3. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Money isn't as much about hoarding money as much as it is about circulating it.

      Obviously you're not one of the 1% who owns the Republican Party.

    4. Re:Great by digitig · · Score: 1

      I didn't realise that the US was in the habit of copying Chinese semiconductors. Maybe you don't understand the word "to", maybe US innovation is in a worse state than I thought.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    5. Re:Great by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

      Is this question from personal observation? Or Envy? Or both?

    6. Re:Great by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

      I know, responding to an A/C is pointless, but a question arises.

      What if the decision maker is female? Then it would be vanity. I have found that suggesting someones view is from about half way inside their handlers colon to be informative, and non sexist.

    7. Re:Great by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

      Concerning the conservative in the wild, my personal experience has been; intensely amazing, definitely not for the week of spirit. But that is not the reason of this thread.

  4. Emergency Response by MrSmith0011000100110 · · Score: 1

    Let's see, so the people that need a strong working network get the choice of Motorola or Huawei? Can I throw my hat in the ring and offer them tin cans and miles of string? At least my solution would work.

    1. Re:Emergency Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Difference is, Huawei notoriously counterfeited hardware for years. Highest profile example was Huawei v Cisco, Huawei basically ripped off the hardware and the software 1:1, hex edited their name on to the OS. Huawei does not deserve to be in our market at all.

    2. Re:Emergency Response by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      Ha! But your portables, batteries and accessories would NEVER enjoy the immense Floating Point support that's built in to Motorola RF products, batteries, and accessories!

      (For the uninitiated - no, the decimal point never floats to the left.)

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    3. Re:Emergency Response by Kagetsuki · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've dealt with Huwei wireless gear on and off and have constantly found it to be absolutely awful. That is unless you expect things like 3G data adapters to tweak out after 5 minutes because they overheat or IP Phone boxes that drop connections like it's a sport. Seriously, I'd trust tin cans and string with my life before a Huwei product.

    4. Re:Emergency Response by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      It would have been more diplomatic for the U.S. to have stated that Huawei was denied because of its "Convection" to a prior "cost cutting" business model. Also, I believe that there is a requirement for products that are used for Emergency or Military Communications to be manufactured in the U.S.. Not all things, but definitely Communication Package Systems. In that case, anyone outside the U.S. gets a "red flag" regardless of nationality. From a global point of view, Huawei can peddle its comm. gear anywhere on the planet. And from a U.S. perspective, U.S. Trade Balances are so far in the "red" that saying, "no" to other venders outside the U.S. is a help to those of us in the U.S. that can't swap sovereign boundaries like, um, a Bidet.

    5. Re:Emergency Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you cruising for a lawsuit? because that's the same thing Americans said about Japanese products not so long ago..

    6. Re:Emergency Response by w_dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And at the time it was true of the Japanese products. And before that it was the Germans supplying the low-quality junk products. Today it's China, and tomorrow it will be someone else.

    7. Re:Emergency Response by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What if I devide by 10?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Emergency Response by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      OMG the portable Motorola radios used by the public safety (P25 on 850MHz band) in the county I live in..... $3000 each. They don't even work properly 10% of the time!

      I don't even want to see the receipts for the network itself with the towers, relay dishes, and base infrastructure.

    9. Re:Emergency Response by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

      LOL, P25 works great as long as you're outside and the building is not on fire.

      So what if you need to reach the tower to talk to the guy in the next room - what could possibly go wrong! /sigh

      --

      help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

    10. Re:Emergency Response by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      And at the time it was true of the Japanese products. And before that it was the Germans supplying the low-quality junk products. Today it's China, and tomorrow it will be someone else.

      Incremental improvements. The Japanese are famous for that, and it paid off handsomely for them.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    11. Re:Emergency Response by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      And now the Japanese say the same things about American products...

      I'm not talking about the past or the future, I'm talking about now. And now Huwei makes absolute crap. If they constantly have that pointed out to them then at some point perhaps they'll get their act together and make things that are good, until then they're crap.

  5. US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network by omar.sahal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Makes you wonder sometimes why the US gets so suspicions of other nations some times! You need to look at an accusation sometimes and figure out if this is telling you more about the accuser than the accused!

    1. Re:US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually...you should note that it's more of a national security issue. China's not on the US' friend list. They're not really on anyone's when you get to brass tacks. By law, things that are National Security related can only be allowed by companies affiliated with countries that're our allies and the countries themselves that're our allies. This is pretty much standard for ANY country, including China. Do you think they'd let us build out a similar infrastructure if they weren't able to do it themselves because of their tinkering with their economy like we did back several decades back? If you think they would, I've got some nifty oceanside property on the Florida coast to sell you.

    2. Re:US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cheap anti american b.s.
      They are banned by the UK & India, their "employees" were caught red-handed trying to steal info in Indonesia & India.
      Not to mention that they usually copy products from rivals such as Cisco.

      Seriously, have you any idea what a threat the Chinese government poses to the world? even though they love money now, the country is still run by totalitarian freaks. Do you think anyone at a Chinese corporation can stand up to the Chinese intelligence agencies and say "no"?

    3. Re:US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Just like rape cases!

    4. Re:US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Makes you wonder sometimes why the US gets so suspicions of other nations some times!

      I don't wonder at all. The US is suspicious of other nations because it would be stupid not to be. Every nation should be suspicious of every other it it wants to continue to exist.

      You need to look at an accusation sometimes and figure out if this is telling you more about the accuser than the accused!

      I don't see any accusations being made.

      Are you trying to suggest that the US is spying on China? Congratulations, you can see the bleeding obvious; you can cancel that ophthalmologist appointment. It's not a secret, it's not a surprise, and you'd be a fool to believe it's not reciprocal.

    5. Re:US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network by elsurexiste · · Score: 0

      So... They are wary of having a disrupted or manipulated emergency network? They are wary of being eavesdropped by a company with dubious credentials? Just like me, I guess. What's insightful about it?

      But let's say Huawei does the same thing Cisco and other big players do, the only difference is it's reported as "eavesdropping" instead of "cooperating with law enforcers". It would be just a case of a government being xenophobic. Business as usual.

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    6. Re:US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      No one is stopping you from buying the red cans and strings. Go for it.

    7. Re:US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Huawei is a for-profit company, but it's also a government subsidiary. It's like a more freely operated USPS.

      Imagine if there was an article: "US government wants to build public cell phone network in China"

      I think the Chinese would be concerned private communist party communications would be intercepted and read by the US government -- and chances are they would be right.

    8. Re:US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, I wonder how US-based network providers like Cisco feel about this? They make a lot of money in China, helping them build the Great Firewall and all that. If there is one sure outcome of this action, it's that China will want to reciprocate in kind. There is no way an insult like this will go unanswered. So I think we have to see this as part of a larger trade war that may be brewing. Stock up on iPhones, everybody!

    9. Re:US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network by Ihmhi · · Score: 2

      Industrial espionage and other types of more mundane spying are the norm during times of general peace. China is well known for their industrial espionage and they're either bad at hiding it or just don't care. It'd be like hiring a man with multiple arrests for burglary as a security guard at a storage center - you're just asking for something bad to happen.

    10. Re:US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the US is afraid the Chinese _won't_ put any kind of tracking/monitoring/spying capabilities into the network. Which, when looking at diminishing civil rights in this country and increasing ignorance of the Constitution, is clearly a major concern for the US government.

      Imagine how quickly the "#OccupyWallStreet" protests could have been thwarted if there was an "unplanned outage" in the NYC area...

    11. Re:US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network by cavreader · · Score: 2

      China requires foreign companies wanting to set up in their market to enter into a formal partnership with the government (ie. the government basically gets a % of the company), pay higher tax rates than Chinese companies, and basically sign away all patent rights for any technology made or used in the company. Of course they have the right to do anything they want in regard to their policies but they shouldn't be surprised when they get turned down by another country for whatever reason. China might not be on the US friends list but countries don't have "freinds" they have "interests" when it comes to profitable trade opportunities.

    12. Re:US Blocks Huawei From Building LTE Network by Builder · · Score: 1

      Banned in the UK ? Really ?

      They are providing most of the core tech behind 21CN, the country's next big network. They are the reason that Marconi no longer exists.

  6. They never really mean it by erroneus · · Score: 1

    You know, it was like the whole security thing. They put people through hell and all the while, the borders remain free and open to the drug trade and to illegal workers... because you know, "terrorists" would never use those channels to get into the US to do their dirty work right?

    Now they are saying "oh no! we can't let the chinese set up things here... they are too close to the chinese government!" Meanwhile, all manufacturing is in China having who-knows-what installed along with the stuff they are making.

    The risks are obvious to see and they pretend they don't see them. If the government really wanted security, it would do what it wants to do regardless of how much it would upset the 1%. That 1% has interests in all of the things above including the drug trade, illegal workers and manufacturing in China. It's all about the money and profits. Threaten those and you should fear for your life.

    1. Re:They never really mean it by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      There is no reasonable way to seal US borders.
      There are 12,034 km of land boarders and 19,924 km of coastline.

      Even if our entire military people was stationed at the borders smugglers could still fly over or tunnel under. Much of this border is in areas that are totally or nearly uninhabited, costs to feed and transport this border protection force would be on the scale of a major war. You would also have to have these people inspect every container that comes into US ports. 7 million containers come into this nation by sea every year. You would also need to throughly inspect every rail-car and tractor-tailer that crosses a border.

      Sealing the borders would totally destroy the US economy and people would starve because of it.

      Sources:
      https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_Security_Initiative

    2. Re:They never really mean it by erroneus · · Score: 1

      While I won't disagree with the problems of real and total security, doing this ridiculous partial security thing isn't even approaching to be the answer.

      And believe me when I tell you I know what it was like from the beginning -- I was among the first batch of TSA screeners and was one for about two years. I saw LOTS and LOTS of stupid.

    3. Re:They never really mean it by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      So were you really hard up for a job or just a sicko?

    4. Re:They never really mean it by Duradin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "costs to feed and transport this border protection force would be on the scale of a major war."

      Given just the cost of transporting fuel in Afghanistan moving the troops there to the Mexican border would probably be on the scale of a minor police action and not a major war.

      Move some bases down there and do boot camp on the border.

      Tunnels can be detected (to a point where they'd have to dig too deep to be practical) if anyone bothers to put the devices and manpower in and flights over the border would make for cheap gunnery practice.

      As for people starving, NPR interviewed a tomato farmer all upset that his illegals were fleeing some new laws, illegals that had skills the local work force lacks, hmm, sounds like the job for a work visa, of course, they wouldn't be cheap illegals then.

    5. Re:They never really mean it by readin · · Score: 1

      There is no reasonable way to seal US borders. There are 12,034 km of land boarders and 19,924 km of coastline.

      Even if our entire military people was stationed at the borders smugglers could still fly over or tunnel under.

      I guess this is why the wall Israel built has been such a huge failure [sarcasm] and why South Korea has removed all obstacles and stopped patrolling along their border with North Korea [more sarcasm].

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    6. Re:They never really mean it by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Compare the size of those nations and who their neighbors are.
      We have more uninhabited coastline in AK than the whole border of Israel.

    7. Re:They never really mean it by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      We have a massive coastline. Moving fuel and troops to the AK coastline would probably cost near as much as Afghanistan. There are no roads, you would have to build them.

      The Mexican border is similar, lots of it is just desert, you could not find enough troops to fill such boot camps. The stuff you are talking about doing would cripple the US economy.

    8. Re:They never really mean it by readin · · Score: 1

      Look a the shapes and resources of those nations. Our biggest current issue, the border with Mexico, is far smaller compared to our GDP and resources than what South Korea and Israel have to defend from North Korea and terrorist attacks.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    9. Re:They never really mean it by Duradin · · Score: 2

      Moving goods/people to AK and through Canada back to the US wouldn't be cheap for the ne'er-do-wells either.

      Don't need to lock down the entirety of the borders, just the ones profitable enough to violate. Alaska would work much like the bulk of Russia, let the land itself be the defenses.

      We seem to be up for supporting multiple foreign fronts in under developed areas. Pull the bulk of the troops out of foreign theaters and what standing army we have can be standing in Roman style border posts.

    10. Re:They never really mean it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should also look at how much money has gone from the US to Israel and... shockingly, South Korea. It isn't a small number, for either country. Also shockingly, relatively large projects are much easier to complete when you have an even larger country bankrolling substantial portions of the costs of those projects. .... Which country, exactly, is going to be doing this for the US, again?

    11. Re:They never really mean it by Duradin · · Score: 1

      China?

    12. Re:They never really mean it by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      As someone else already explained, the coastline of most of Alaska is irrelevant. Anyone landing there would have a hell of a time getting just about anywhere else. I agree: we could spend the money currently being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya, etc. along our "lower 48" borders instead. The money would stay at home rather than being pissed away overseas, and there are enough people to do a decent job.

    13. Re:They never really mean it by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      While I won't disagree with the problems of real and total security, doing this ridiculous partial security thing isn't even approaching to be the answer.

      Dude... That's all we do here in the U.S. Safety costs too much money from about 2000 A.D. on.

    14. Re:They never really mean it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flying drones, camera sentry robots, barbed wire.

  7. THE TOOK OUR JOBS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MADE IN AMERICA

    1. Re:THE TOOK OUR JOBS by erroneus · · Score: 0

      de T'k err jerbz!

  8. Even if it is bugged... by CMcQueeny · · Score: 3, Informative

    Even if we assume they're both tainted with devious Chinese spyware (and I'm not sure that China would want to harm such a huge and valuable debtor, by the way) which of these sounds like a bigger threat:

    1. A large Chinese-built wireless network which the government can monitor or shut down with relative ease.

    2. A vast semi-regulated sea of Chinese-built devices of all kinds flowing into the US, too many to be effectively controlled or destroyed, many of them used by emergency and government workers.

    Come on, people. Maybe China is a threat to us and maybe it isn't, but if there's a problem, at least attack it in a logical way.

    1. Re:Even if it is bugged... by chrb · · Score: 1

      Those two choices are not mutually exclusive, and they aren't even the right choices. You have mixed up two things: 1) building the network 2) building the devices that will use the network. The real choice is:

      1. A large wireless network supplied by Huawei, and manufactured in China, which the government can monitor or shut down with relative ease.

      2. A large wireless network supplied by companyX, and manufactured in China, which the government can monitor or shut down with relative ease.

      The devices that will use the network being a "vast semi-regulated sea of Chinese-built devices of all kinds flowing into the US" is already a given, because every wireless manufacturer uses Chinese factories.

    2. Re:Even if it is bugged... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could describe in more detail of, "devices of all kinds flowing into the U.S.?"

    3. Re:Even if it is bugged... by CMcQueeny · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to imply that they were mutually exclusive.

      The story in this article is that the US government is trying to exercise some more control over the new network's infrastructure, for reasons of national security. My point is that even if we assume the national security threat is real, the logical attack vector for the Chinese would be the devices (which are almost impossible for the government to control without draconian measures) rather than the infrastructure (which is already subject to significant government regulation).

      If there is a credible threat (which again I think is somewhat dubious), the only real solution is to end the reliance on foreign-manufactured devices.

    4. Re:Even if it is bugged... by CMcQueeny · · Score: 1

      I work in an emergency room, so I come in contact with a lot of emergency workers -- medical, police, fire dept., even FBI and other federal depts in some cases. Their radios, computers, cellphones, etc., are almost always just generic equipment like everyone else, and for most of the brands I know they're manufactured in China.

      I'm sure at a very high level there is custom-made American equipment, but by and large the electronics which make modern emergency response practical are made in China.

    5. Re:Even if it is bugged... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Even if we assume they're both tainted with devious Chinese spyware (and I'm not sure that China would want to harm such a huge and valuable debtor, by the way) which of these sounds like a bigger threat:

      I don't think you should ever try to predict what can happen with alliances and defense pacts, surprise attacks and whatnot. It's not like the US pre-WWII would predict they'd be at war with Italy and Japan, possibly Germany but even that is doubtful. If say India and Pakistan or the Middle East start a war it can easily escalate into WWIII with US and China on opposing sides. I don't for one second buy that we're "beyond" war. Besides, there's a small causality loop there, when people are sure the opposition won't declare war that is when they're likely to act in such an arrogant and aggressive manner that it does lead to war.

      1. A large Chinese-built wireless network which the government can monitor or shut down with relative ease.

      Except that if you're in a state of war shutting down so you can't mobilize is a rather bad thing. But that's much less of a worry than the possibility of backdoors to tap into communications or inject mis-communication. It's easy to say we'll have alternatives but if they're not used they'll go away. For example less and less people have landlines, cables buried into the ground you can run from bunkers. In a war cell phone towers are like homing beacons for missiles, they're likely to be the first to go and all the people that rely on cell phones for communication will be out of reach. Sure, there's VoIP but is the Internet operational? Does everybody have headsets? Can you find all the numbers you need to call there? Even if the phones are compromised, people will quickly start using those that work. If the whole system is down, then you're screwed big time.

       

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Even if it is bugged... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      It is at that high level that this thread is about.

    7. Re:Even if it is bugged... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I usually see Taiwan and Japan

    8. Re:Even if it is bugged... by CMcQueeny · · Score: 1

      Is it? I was under the impression that this would be a general-use emergency system, not a higher-level thing; after all, most of the federal departments, the military, etc., already have fairly extensive private networks where high-level secret communication is concerned. Maybe I'm completely off-base. If it isn't a general-use network with lots of people on the ground having access, then using custom American equipment is more practical, and is definitely the option to pursue I'd say.

    9. Re:Even if it is bugged... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      It seems to have escaped the notice of most people in this thread that even consumer-level "devices" eventually get checked, down to the chip level. It would be pretty hard to conceal a credible threat. Further, as someone else already pointed out, beyond a certain "security" level, government and military devices have to be built with U.S. parts, which only makes sense.

      So no, the devices are not really much of a threat. But a network would be.

    10. Re:Even if it is bugged... by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      Maybe we could ask some Blackberry users? I think they could debate this issue on point.

    11. Re:Even if it is bugged... by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      "It would be pretty hard to conceal a credible threat. "

      When you have the resources of a national intelligence agency, you can do hard things.

      "Further, as someone else already pointed out, beyond a certain "security" level, government and military devices have to be built with U.S. parts, which only makes sense."

      This would not be done if the threat were only hypothetical. This gets into some very sensitive national security matters, but you can see the effects even in open source, just by looking at where the funding is going and what conferences are being organized.

      The US government went into a huge panic a few years ago about hardware hacking---this doesn't happen unless something Very Bad happened.

      The technology to do hardware bugging is quite advanced and exceptionally difficult to counter.

    12. Re:Even if it is bugged... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "This would not be done if the threat were only hypothetical. "

      I did not state that the threat is hypothetical, I stated that it would be hard to do.

      Relatively speaking, we would have vastly more reason to have security concerns about a network that about individual devices.

      "The US government went into a huge panic a few years ago about hardware hacking---this doesn't happen unless something Very Bad happened"

      Utter nonsense. The US government and military have panicked over complete bullshit quite frequently.

    13. Re:Even if it is bugged... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, people. Maybe China is a threat to us and maybe it isn't, but if there's a problem, at least attack it in a logical way.

      This is diplomacy; logic doesn't enter into it. This is about sending a message to the Chinese government (= Huawei) - and a pretty blunt one.

    14. Re:Even if it is bugged... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      3. Roll back all the taxes and regulations that prevent them from being manufactured in the US in the first place.

      bwahahhaah, no, let's wave our huge penises at China and taunt, "losers!"

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  9. Blame (insert blank here) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think part of the blame has to be on how Chinese companies steal IP and then sell substandard versions (eg "counterfeit") without taking any responsibility for it.

    Yes companies like those in the RIAA and MPAA have done their fair share of IP theft, but ultimately later IP came by and pinched them back and they eventually started delivering things in the formats and quality people want.

    Chinese companies on the other hand seem to walk in the wrong direction so frequently that "security reasons" is just the governments way of saying "I don't think you can deliver a quality product at all."

    I'd like to see clothing, food and toy companies start to take the government's cue and demand higher quality goods or start taking their business back to America. I mean goddamitsomuch I bought a few hundred dollars in clothes, and not a single item was made in America, with most of it being made in China, Vietnam or Bangladesh. Some of these things had such low thread count and pulled threads in their stitching I was like, this stuff's quality is terrible. But I have no choice, nobody sells domestically made clothing anymore that that isn't branded in hideous ways.

    Electronics unlike clothing, food and toys, have an additional safety issue since they have RF power, batteries and chargers that have to be made properly (remember laptop fires from sony batteries? Nokia cell phones exploding from counterfeit batteries? Wondering why you can't replace the battery in your iPhone? This is why.) I get the impression, frequently, that any Chinese made networking parts would be more expensive to operate from having to be repaired 5 times as often, and may result in a lot more deaths from malfuctioning.

    1. Re:Blame (insert blank here) by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Your argument has a double edge to it. In order to undercut your competitor you buy cheaper. If the government "adjusts" Trade Balances to shift in one direction or another, that affects the cost of the product. As a purchasing community, the U.S. is tapped. It is getting to the point that business models that rely on outside usage of goods and services are beginning to optimize to the point of extinction. A review of the H.P. business model clearly shows that when a corporation optimizes profit and ignores the 60 month and 120 month business plan, that business model pays a heavy price. What I'm not convinced about is when the government ignores the phrase, "Default/Foreclosure/Auction." Businesses go out of business, that is not necessarily the fault of the people. And the short sightedness of business is definitely not the fault of the people.

  10. It might not be built in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cisco and other companies DO have manufacturing for the DOD. It is possible that we will add this to that manufacturing. We should do the same for using smart phones by our troops.

  11. it's ok for the U.S. govt... by lkcl · · Score: 0

    wait... hang on... it's ok for the U.S. govt to *actually* have warrantless wiretapping, but it's not ok to have china *maybe* doing warrantless wiretapping? huh. how about Huawei provide the full schematics and full source code of the LTE Cell-Towers under license, and the parts be manufactured in... oh wait, the cheapest place to have the parts manufactured is: China.

    1. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's ok for the U.S. govt to *actually* have warrantless wiretapping, but it's not ok to have china *maybe* doing warrantless wiretapping?

      Under US laws? Yes.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Informative

      How did you get modded up? If we do wiretapping of telecom networks ESP. SECURED networks, in another nation, that would be called .... SPYING. And NO nation sees that as being legal.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lawful Interception aka wiretapping is a requirement from most governments to be provided with telecom systems.

      What the US government is worried about are backdoors.

    4. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I realize you're trying for irony or critical whatever, but...this is an important distinction.

      When the US gov't does it. It [IMO] is a constitutional violation. But, being a government--and the most powerful one on the planet... it is de jure legal.

      When a nation does it to another nation it's espionage. That's illegal everywhere.

      Last but not least--when a nation does it the government of a nation it does not officially recognize... well, you've probably got government contractors involved and it's free enterprise.

      To be candid, the more interesting part to me here is that rather than addressing the problem, they've merely multiplied the cost to play.

      Effectively--they've shut out Tukey / Iran, but not China, and probably not India or Pakistan.

      Really, it's nearly a non-issue anyway... people worry about hardware bugs... But my understanding is that LTE is an all IP protocol which will have a session border controller (LI effectively built into protocol) in the deployment at various points.

      Have you talked to someone at a telco helpdesk lately? They don't need bugs--they just need one of their expats/foreign nationals willing to share access.

    5. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by Desler · · Score: 1

      Yes, pretty much every country considers being spied on by other countries to not be okay. Are you an idiot?

    6. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a fucking moron. Think before you type.

    7. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I believe that the parent comment believes that the bad guys are just a couple goofs. That would be a grave decision. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around the "Patriot Act;" Its short sited nature concerns me, go figure.

    8. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Patriot act is a NIGHTMARE. Parts of it were needed, but it was obviously designed to allow the feds far more abilities than was needed. And the lack of oversight on it is just amazing. Personally, I was shocked and disgusted that Obama did not at least put more leashes on it. OTH, I expected such behavior out of W, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. In fact, for that group, I expected far worse. My guess is that they KNEW that they could not get by with worse than what they had.

      HOWEVER, the fact that my gov. spies on me, does not mean that I want a nation whose gov. sees itself as being in a cold war with the west, spying on any nation in the west, let alone ours.
      Sadly, there are plenty of idiots, like lkcl, whom do not recognize the difference, nor understand the implications.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Be careful what you call "law". Unconstitutional legislation or action by the government is technically not "law", even though it looks and smells like one. Although it sometimes operates under the color of law until it eventually gets shut down.

    10. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Even the idea that "parts of it were needed" is highly questionable.

    11. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I guess the first thing that I wince at, is just its name; that short sightedness mocks the historic record.

    12. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Parts of it really were needed. The fact is that AQ shifts all over the net and phones. Heck, they have even quit encrypting since it points directly at them and allows us the ability to know where to look. Our earlier laws were made for a much slower time.

      The real issue with Patriot act is that it has been applied far more liberally than it was intended. In fact, it has been mostly used to go after drug dealers, gangs, etc more so then it has been against true terrorists such as AQ. Worse is that we say that we give them the ability to look everywhere, but they are not suppose to use that data for anything EXCEPT for catching terrorists. But that has not been the case. That is why we need REAL limits, scope, and governance on this.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    13. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "The fact is that AQ shifts all over the net and phones."

      That may be so, but even if it is, it does not mean that

      "Parts of it really were needed."

      ... is a conclusion that logically follows.

      Please give me specific instances of those "necessary" parts of the Patriot Act having had some real, tangible benefit... like, say, catching terrorists.

      If you can give me some, I might be convinced. Otherwise, I will stick with my original position.

    14. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Be careful what you call "law". Unconstitutional legislation or action by the government is technically not "law", even though it looks and smells like one. Although it sometimes operates under the color of law until it eventually gets shut down.

      Tell that to the guards while you cool your heels in the brig at Quantico.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    15. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That has nothing to do with my point. I already stated that "sometimes it operates under the color of law".

      But that still does not make it legal, and that does not prevent you from trying to get compensation if it's ever done to you.

    16. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Well, it's all good and well to pontificate. We'll see if Bradley Manning has the opportunity to get "compensation".

      I am not a lawyer, and probably neither are you. I think it's a bit silly to be quoting popular isolated out of context bits and pieces of complex constitutional nuggets. The *reality* is that in the end, the government *will* prevail and if not, no one in particular will be punished, and folks like Manning will still spend many many years in prison for which there realliy is no adequate financial compensation.

      Seriously, would YOU trade a few million (after the lawyers are done with it) for 20 or 30 years in prison? Even 10? If you think you would accept tha deal, you're no a sane person.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    17. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Well, it's all good and well to pontificate."

      Yes, apparently it is, since you're doing plenty of it.

      I didn't say it was right. I didn't say it was fair. I didn't say you would win *IF* you tried to get compensation. But somehow you seem to assume I stated all those things anyway, even though they don't appear anywhere here in print.

      I am as sympathetic with Bradley Manning as you are, perhaps even more so. But that still has nothing to do with the point I did make, and I still never stated any of those other things.

      So why don't you shut off your own pontificating?

    18. Re:it's ok for the U.S. govt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jane Q. Public is yet anouther typical Slshdot jackass with their head firmly planted up their ass... And a transexual, no less.

  12. seriously? by cycle · · Score: 1

    So the US is basically just trusting that whoever puts the network in won't take advantage of the situation? That's frightening.

    1. Re:seriously? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No, the government prevented them from establishing a network because it did not trust them.

  13. Hah, the Gov't doesn't have straight A's on this by BMOC · · Score: 2

    We're worried about the Chinese (perhaps understandably), but we can't prevent our own companies from interfering with the military?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightSquared#Interference_issues

    --
    I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
  14. Hahah, it's already bugged by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    All of this equipment is already manufactured in China, so what's the difference who installs it?

    1. Re:Hahah, it's already bugged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference. The hardware may be made in China, but most other vendors don't have software made in China. Some SW is now done in India, but surprisingly much of it is still made in Europe and the US. The products are also integration tested in the US before deployment. Not saying Chinese spyware is totally impossible in non-huawei products, but it would be substantially more difficult.
         

  15. Won't stop our gov from bugging us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It won't stop the guberment from bugging us and listening in on our conversations/texts/banking sessions, etc.. They just don't want China to have a free look at it...

    1. Re:Won't stop our gov from bugging us... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I guess it comes down to who do you wan ta trust? The man you lected? Or the man who caps ya if you both disagree?

  16. Government doesn't like competition... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    The government doesn't like to have competition in bugging the populace.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Government doesn't like competition... by Desler · · Score: 2

      Duh? You believe the Chinese government would voluntarily allow the us government to spy on its country?

    2. Re:Government doesn't like competition... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the joke! :)

      The US is spying on us (wiretapping, etc)- they don't want China doing it too- they don't want competition spying on us.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  17. Happens in India as well by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

    India had blocked Huawei and basically all chinese telecom players for a while over the same/similar reason, but has now reallowed them (dont know the exact reason why)

    1. Re:Happens in India as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could it be a bribe?

    2. Re:Happens in India as well by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Probably because the Chinese were the ones handing out the fattest brown envelopes.

  18. They don't have to be built in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Foxconn for instance still has factories in Taiwan and even the Czech Republic. Malaysia has been getting into the game and Singapore's Dollar has been going down to the point where they are starting to look competitive again too. Heck, if the tower components are really bulky Mexico might also be in the running. There's no reason why these things HAVE to be made in China. There are other contract manufacturing options.

  19. made in - doesnt matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not about where the HW is made but about who controls what gets inside SW & who are really people behind vendors technical support. End of story.

  20. USA ought to ask USSR about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IIRC the USSR were done one over by some government interference in some infrastructure, can't remember who that was...

  21. Occupy America! by bryan1945 · · Score: 0

    Obama sucks! Corporations suck! Taxes suck! Tax the rich more! Tax the rich less! Apple is evil! Microsoft is evil! Linux is the bestest of all bestestness! Unions are Awesome! Unions suck! More free trade! Less free trade! Global warming! No global warming! Muslims suck! Muslims are people, too! French people.. well, they're French. Australia has drop bears! It's all Bush's fault! It's all Tea Baggers fault! Is all Socialists fault! It's the government's fault! Wiretapping! MPAA! Copyright! Patents! There is no God! There is a God! There is FSM! There is not FSM! Creationism! Evolution! RIAA! Steve Jobs sucks! Steve Jobs rules! Bill Gates is the devil! Bill Gates is.. still the devil! Android rules! iOS sucks! Capitalism! Socialism! Ron Paul! Constitution good! Constitution living document!

    There. Copy and paste into any article from now on and you have the general sense of what the "discussion" on any given article will be like.

    Back to the article- every company in China has close ties to the government. TFA is low on real info, so I can't give a qualified opinion. I could see a Chinese-tied company tried to pull a few fast ones on the US, but there is no shown proof yet.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    1. Re:Occupy America! by Quila · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The intelligence services of a few countries have found ties between Huawei and the Chinese military and intelligence services. Currently, the Chinese are the biggest spy threat to the US. Not allowing this company to build our communications infrastructure sounds like a reasonable, safe decision.

    2. Re:Occupy America! by geekoid · · Score: 1
      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  22. US would prefer Huawei as subcontractor by Pokermike · · Score: 1

    Meh, they'd prefer to overpay Northrop or Lockheed (or similar) to build it. In turn, they will end up subcontracting it out to Huawei. All the expense of doing it ourselves with the value add of the complete insecurity of having had China do it.

  23. Meanwhile, by ledow · · Score: 2

    In England, we're actually encouraging them into our 4G networks:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/10/cornish_lte/

    1. Re:Meanwhile, by Nadaka · · Score: 2

      England is a little farther along in its emulation of the Chinese surveillance state than the US is.

    2. Re:Meanwhile, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the landline phone network too
      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/30/huawei_threat/

  24. Fu King Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First we outsource manufacturing to China

    Then the Chinese start making their own stuff to sell back to us

    Then we're fucked.

  25. Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To buy anything Chinese is to fully with all your heart endorse Communism.

  26. Made in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why don't we build our own damn LTE network?

  27. Have you considered? by Taty'sEyes · · Score: 1

    Have you considered they may have been blocked "because" they would not allow the US Government to install bugged devices? It may not be "China is a threat". It may be "Huawei won't let us spy".

    --
    We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
  28. That is false. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Cisco actually has equipment here that is manufactured here for sale to various groups of the USA. I would guess that they also sell to EU gov. as well. The feds SHOULD put a requirement that all of the equipment for backbones and TLAs be required to have all equipment manufactured in friendly nations that have decent oversight. It does not have to be in America, but, it needs to occur in NATO nations, Australia, Japan, etc. And even Japan and Australia have some lacks security issues that will need to be solved first.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  29. Buying American? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it possible that the government will actually use a local electronics/communications company to build a domestic communications network? Thereby fueling the local economy with tax dollars as opposed to further increasing the trade deficit or avoid the creation of all those jobs? Amazing times we live in that the government is considering investing in real growth at home rather than abroad.

  30. Chinese official: "We must not allow bugging gap!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The technique of bugging equipment or writing software in such a way as to allow undetected access has also been used by U.S. intelligence agencies in the past to gain a window into the communications of other foreign governments."

    I mean, who can fault the Chinese government for trying to join the fun? You know, besides the American government...

  31. That's rich -- Clipper chip? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now the US is worried about bugged communications equipment. The same US that wanted China to build and secretly install clipper chips in cellphones?

    My how things change. And my, what a short memory the editors have.

  32. Public safety network based on Huawei? by TuringCheck · · Score: 1

    Their equipment is barely able to communicate with other components from the same company...

  33. WHich is why by geekoid · · Score: 1

    it should be built by the government, with government engineers and workers.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  34. Clancy's Law by paiute · · Score: 1

    The US intelligence community is simply applying Tom Clancy's Law to this situation: If it sounds like the prologue to one of his novels, then it is a bad idea.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  35. Really, where do stop (or start) with this? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    There is a Russian company named Netcracker doing telecom network provisioning for a number of telephone companies around the world including Sprint, Telus and Shaw (in Canada), and others in other places (at least their development shop was in Russia the last project where I dealt with them). Considering Comrade Putin is back in charge (after forcing changes to the constitution there), shouldn't we now be getting paranoid over that? Or how about with the current trend in pro-Palestinian anti-Semitic feelings, shouldn't we be paranoid about Israel, since Amdocs is pretty much the biggest software vendor in the world for telco related companies?

    The point is, if America is going to allow all its companies to outsource its technology overseas, why are they closing the barn door after the horses are gone. Like someone else pointed out, most the electronics that will be used for this are likely made in China. And who says the software is the only place that security holes can be placed. They could put it in the firmware or maybe built right into the hardware. Thinking that anyone can prevent the Chinese government from doing this if they really wanted to is pretty naive considering their direct accessibility .

    If they are going to make any case against this company that makes sense to me, it would be that it isn't fair to allow a state run/sponsored/funded company to compete in bids against companies that have to financially stand on their own two feet.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  36. Quote by psnINsplPL · · Score: 0

    "And evil will always triumph... Because Good. Is. Dumb."

  37. Huawei isn't owned by the government... by qwerty765 · · Score: 1

    Huawei was founded by a former Chinese military engineer, who was LAID OFF by the Chinese military. Since then, it is a PRIVATE company. Otherwise, how do you explain capitalism in China (or high economic growth)?

    1. Re:Huawei isn't owned by the government... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      You mean this former Chinese military engineer that RETIRED and is a prominent member of the chinese communist party? Chinese gov. CONTROLS Huawei

      Capitalism != form of gov.
      And high economic growth is trivial when you manipulate money, move from 90 trade barriers to over 400, put up trade barriers to EXPORTS of resources, put up tarrifs on other resources, heavily subsidize, control 3/4 of your economy via communism and set the wages MUCH lower than what even the partially western owned companies must pay, and then dump on foreign markets.

      The real trick is how is Chinese communist gov. going to deal with the multiple bubbles that are popping now.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Huawei isn't owned by the government... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Take this a step further Basically, it is NOT private owned. It is uncertain who owns it. So, not only is the CEO a top person of the communist party, but it turns out so are the other executives. This IS Air America.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  38. Fortunately your ideas will never be implemented. by TheEmperorOfSlashdot · · Score: 1

    Move some bases down there and do boot camp on the border.

    No, it isn't feasible to move thousands of military bases. There are way too many cities that depend on those bases for their economies, and way too many politicians who depend on the votes from those communities.

    Tunnels can be detected (to a point where they'd have to dig too deep to be practical)

    You're making this up; you don't actually have any special knowledge about tunnel detection. The rude way of describing this is "talking out of your ass."

    if anyone bothers to put the devices and manpower in and flights over the border would make for cheap gunnery practice.

    You want the military to shoot down any plane they see crossing the border that they can't identify. You have no idea how insane, impractical, and dangerous this proposal is. You are utterly indifferent to the possibility of innocent people being killed. You are completely unfamiliar with existing FAA rules and you probably couldn't give a coherent definition of what a "flight plan" is. And for some reason you believe this would be "cheap."

    You have also never heard of a "narco-sub," and for some reason you think drug smugglers don't already use small aircraft. In other words, it is immediately obvious that you are ignorant of the topic at hand.

    We won't ask you to stop posting on Slashdot, but please, from now on, try to follow these simple rules:
    * Do not make unsupportable assertions of fact. Do not present your personal opinions as though they were facts. Do not try to speak authoritatively about subjects you have obviously never researched.
    * When you violate the above rule, and do accidentally post something asinine, do not dig in your heels and defend your position. Admit that you have not done your research, and let the matter go. You can discuss the topic again, but only after you have done adequate research.
    * Do not abuse the word "probably." The word is supposed to mean "statistically likely," not "I am making shit up now."

  39. Show me evidence of caught red-handed in india by qwerty765 · · Score: 2

    Also show me evidence of governmental espionage through Huawei's products. I kept hearing accusations against Huawei for years due to prejudice.

    2000: I accuse you for stealing!
    2001: I accuse you because of the earlier accusations in 2000!
    2002: I accuse you because of what the other guys say in 2001!
    2003: I accuse you because you are ... um a thief!
    There is no stealing at all. Just a total paranoa.

  40. Good -- now move production back home by blackanvil · · Score: 1

    Well, if you want a secure system, don't outsource. It's true at all levels, from your home wireless network to the millitary networks. There's a dearth of jobs in this country as well. One piece of legislation that would solve some of that is simple: the US Millitary may no longer use foreign-sourced materials, equipment, or contractors for any of its goods. Everything, from the rare earths mined to make the chips and components, the labor, and the corporate profits have to be in the US to even be considered. No exceptions. If the US Millitary wants it, it has to be local, or they do without. Yes, it means no more cheap laptops or hard drives, nor any COTS equipment or software, unless they come from the US. It will mean that, at minimum, the US will have a top to bottom supply chain that it can actually monitor, and ensure that those laptops and software aren't spying on us, nor are they capable of being shut off remotely by any enemy. Right now, do you really think that the components that go into our missles, our tanks, our communications gear doesn't have hidden hooks to allow the Chinese, or whatever entity that created the components, to control, destroy, or turn it against us? The US would have to start up a working rare-earths mining and refining industry, set up fab lines and clean rooms, actually hire Americans and train them and keep the working knowledge here, and not send it to who-knows-where. I'd imagine that would impact the job market a bit, in a positive way. It would also help ensure that the equipment we have will keep working if we decide to, say, defend Taiwan against a mainland China attack. But, this won't happen. It might cut into the military contractor's profits, and would certainly cause the politicians the Chinese and others have bought outright to squeal. So long as someone can make a few more bucks by outsourcing, so long as someone can keep the loopholes and exemptions in place, we'll still have this vulnerability, and the jobs (and experience, and knowledge, and capability) will continue to drain out.

  41. Untrue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Infinera is manufactured in Sunnyvale. The only chinese stamped products they have are their metro product....... Check your facts thanks!

  42. Re:Fortunately your ideas will never be implemente by Duradin · · Score: 1

    Shortly after walls became a defensive technique, tunneling was developed as a counter, then counter-tunneling was developed, able to detect and locate enemy tunnels, without using electronics, which we now have.

    I have heard of nacro-subs. They "work" because we aren't looking for them. WW2 radar could pick up reflections from a sub's periscope. A semisubmersible does not magically render all our technology useless by having a catchy name.

    Where did I assume they don't already use low flying small aircraft? A low flying Cessna would be a skeet shoot for AAA (and make for some good youtube, I'd pay to see Cessna vs. Phalanx (yes, not actual AAA but one can dream)). Low and slow may avoid radar but with an actual military presence you'd be very vulnerable to plain old vision.

    Nice threads you've got by the way. *snicker*

  43. So typical by pighead77 · · Score: 1

    I can buy your companies, invest in your infrastructure; but you can't -- let's play by the rules, my rules!
    I can denounce your currency manipulations, passing laws to force you to appreciate Yuan, but I myself can print $$, dishing out QE1/QE2 -- let's play by the rules, my FUCKING rules!

    1. Re:So typical by pighead77 · · Score: 1

      For anyone who's not an ultra nationalist and does have fully developed brain, take a look at this interview of Michael Hudson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P1fihT5B7o. It explains why our nation and our national policies against China will never work as we wish -- because if we switched roles, we wouldn't give a damn about what the idiotic US says neither.

  44. Oh, child. by TheEmperorOfSlashdot · · Score: 1

    At least this time you managed to obey the third rule.

  45. Interesting retirement. by qwerty765 · · Score: 1

    I thought Ren Zhengfei was laid off as I have heard of military force reduction in the earlier years. I didn't know that "retired" is the official word for Ren Zhengfei who looked very younger than I thought. I later checked the wikipedia article and, yeah, you were right about his retirement. Didn't know that he joined the communist party. I'm happy that he joined it as the party was used to "not allowing capitalists to join."

    When it comes to capitalism, I can vouch for it. When I was a toddler, each family can have only one blanket, but the winter was brutally cold in Northern China and the blanket was thin. Even my early family friend borrowed our blanket and never returned it. Nowadays, you can buy as many blankets as you want. That's capitalism.

    I'd rather not to see rare earth being exported so much to other countries because of environmental pollution. I wouldn't want environmental pollution in my hometown. Communism was already dead over three decades ago. Communism requires iron-bowl system -- a cradle-to-grave support system. Now, it is harsh job survival environment, either you keep working or you will be fired for not doing a job -- not even vacation days can be used up (don't try to use up vacation days in China on job).

    The wages vary geographically. In villages, the wages are low, but people are still happy cause they have low-cost living expenses too (they don't pay taxes too). In major cities, food and living costs are expensive. For example, beef in Shanghai is expensive as beef in the United States. I don't worry about bubbles in China as the Chinese people and the Chinese government are handling bubbles.

    economy wasn't subsized in some ways. The government did not tax people, just tax rich people and corporations (low budget compared to US's budget). The United States did not give China Market Economy Status. Without that status, the United States continue to measure goods in China by looking at prices in other countries instead of China. That's how they declared goods as dumping.

  46. Private Company by qwerty765 · · Score: 1

    At least the company is in the hands of Chinese employees and executives. Having read the itnews.com.au article, I believe that the company is as private as the company I left a few years ago. My former company was not listed in the stock market because it was wholly-owned by one or two Japanese executives.

    I did not know much about Air America and I later checked the wikipedia article. Wow, it was owned by CIA. I am pretty sure that Huawei is different as it is now #2 company (I forget in which field) and its future is as bright as Apple's future or Google's future. Although some of its employees are foreign, Huawei lift 100,000 employees out of poverty by giving them jobs with perks and benefits. Plus even its CEO admired the American capitalism and have read books on it.