Huawei Report

I am not a lawyer. It appears to be very weak evidence that would prove little in an unbiased courtroom. It was ridiculous to make an international incident out of it.

On the other hand, U.S. law allows prosecutions for “conspiracy” and other “crimes” on very little evidence. It was designed to prosecute the Mafia but now is used in many other areas. 

The DC discussion about ZTE was profoundly uninformed. So I wrote this note.

Thank you for your article, “China’s long march for the soul of the nation’s digital future” (May 26). It offers important information about China’s effort in processor chips.

In my field, telecommunications, China has already become a leader. Recently, both Huawei and Qualcomm released chips for mobile phones supporting a download speed of two gigabits per second. They demonstrated the same quality of engineering. Massive MIMO, a key part of 5G, was invented in New Jersey but ZTE and Huawei were the first to market it. They were more than a year ahead of the West.

This should surprise no one. For a decade, whenever I have visited electronic engineers at places like Stanford University, many of those I have met are from China. I recently reported on research at China’s Tsinghua and Southeast universities.

Some in Washington have the false belief that other countries cannot advance without American technology. That leads them to make very bad decisions. I learn from China and I know my Chinese friends learn from the best in America. Dave Burstein, New York

“It has been known that some telecom vendors are sitting in the network security advisory board of certain national security agencies to exclude competing vendors, citing national security concerns to benefit themselves.

They spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to politicians and these agencies without any supporting evidence. Operators (and countries) should do an independent technical evaluation and decide for themselves.”
Anonymous because of the source.  This comment was inspired by a government security agency advisor employed by a Huawei competitor.

Alcatel and Nokia have been prominent in the U.S. campaign against Huawei.

I don’t necessarily agree.

The U.S. boycott is growing far faster than anyone expected and now looks to cut Huawei sales by US$2-3 billion per year. This is significant even to a company doing US$100 billion in sales this year. There is pressure on India, Italy, and Canada; In all cases, the telcos are unhappy because Huawei is important to them, but resistance may be futile. 

Deutsche Telekom and Softbank want the government to approve the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, a very bad deal for consumers. They are particularly subject to pressure.

DT and Softbank backing away from Huawei is consistent with a behind the scenes deal with the U.S. security interests.  Depending on the assumptions, approval of the deal is worth $10 billion to US$20 billion to the companies. I have absolutely no direct data.

I’ve been close enough to U.S. policy to know that “national security” overrides everything else. If that’s the deal, the Justice Department and the FCC would go along.  I first thought this could be a special case.

When NTT DOCOMO and KDDI  joined, I had to revise my thinking. The Japanese government made the decision, presumably with behind the scenes conversations with the Americans. Relations with China are crucial to Japan, but the U.S. nuclear umbrella is even more important. 

Softbank, NTT DOCOMO, and KDDI spend about US$10 billion on capex each year. Only some of that is equipment and only some of the equipment comes from Huawei. The total Huawei will lose is probably over US$1 billion.

The Canadian Justice Minister can refuse extradition if the claim has a political motive. This sounds like it does:

“If I think it’s good for the country, if I think it’s good for what will be certainly the largest trade deal ever made — which is a very important thing — what’s good for national security — I would certainly intervene if I thought it was necessary.”

I’ve lived through what Americans call the Vietnam War, the Cold War, and the Iraq War. The Huawei War is only about commerce, but like all wars will extract a high price from both sides. I’m finding so much news I created this site.

I’ve reported about Huawei since 2004, when they were still unknown in the West. Paul Reynolds of British Telecom told me they were doing exceptional things. They now are twice the size of any other telecom vendor.

They are extremely competitive, remarkably hardworking, and very, very good at what they do. “No one is perfect,” the butler said, and neither are any companies this size. On balance, they have been at least as honourable as peers in the West.  

I have a major conflict of interest. Huawei has paid my expenses to events and contracted with the research company I do some work with. I will do my best to do accurate reporting.