Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (152802)	1/29/2020 4:59:52 AM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217619

elsewhere a breaching ... bbc.com Huawei: How the UK's decision affects the rest of the world By Joe Tidy Cyber-security reporter The UK has decided to let Huawei continue to be used in its growing 5G networks - but with restrictions.The long-awaited decision goes against advice and pressure from the US to block the firm for security reasons. But some industry-watchers believe it will benefit the wider rollout of next-generation mobile data services. "I think it's a pragmatic decision that brings stability and continuity in the 5G ecosystem," commented Stephane Teral from IHS Markit. "Huawei has been investing in the UK and in other countries in Europe including France, Germany, Italy, and Poland since the beginning of this century. A ban would have been disastrous." How will this affect UK-US-China relations?Firstly, the decision is seen as a blow to US-UK relations. After months of lobbying by Washington, Westminster has gone against one of its closest allies. A Trump administration official has said the US "is disappointed" with the decision. And both Democrats and Republicans have tweeted their disgust. Conversely, the decision to allow one of China's most important and valuable companies to operate in the UK is an endorsement that will please Beijing. Chinese diplomats had warned the UK there could be "substantial" repercussions to other trade and investment plans had the company been banned outright. Will other countries now follow the UK?Sources close to Huawei suggest that the UK's decision is likely to have a favourable impact on other markets, where Huawei is being considered as part of the 5G rollout. The US, Australia and Japan decided some time ago to ban Huawei kit from being used in 5G telecommunications networks, but many other countries are still deciding what to do. It is expected to have an almost instant impact on the nations that make up the Five Eyes security partnership: Whilst the US and Australia has already banned the brand, New Zealand and Canada are now expected to follow the UK's lead. The debate is raging across the European Union, where Europe's leading telecoms operators - all Huawei customers - have lobbied against an outright ban. The EU will soon publish a bloc-wide framework to address risks in networks but is not expected to place any bans on individual companies. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel is reported to be at odds with many in her party who want to remove Huawei from the existing German networks. Britain's decision could bolster her case. EPAAngela Merkel says eliminating individual 5G equipment providers might not make Germany any saferHuawei has had a strong footprint in many African countries for years, and 5G is already being built and tested with the company's kit. South Africa is the first and only country on the continent to have commercially launched a 5G service. And the company responsible for doing this, Rain, uses the Chinese firm's products. Other countries, including India, are currently trialling Huawei technology but are yet to decide on full rollout. They will no doubt look to the UK's analysis, not least the documents that the National Cyber Security Centre has published, to back up their decision. Elsewhere, Huawei is making a major push in South America and facing little-to-no restrictions in many large markets including Brazil. Britain's semi-endorsement of the company will no doubt aid Huawei as it continues to build out networks there.

To: Snowshoe who wrote (152802)	1/29/2020 5:04:43 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217619

perhaps a surge soon, and should it become so, shock & awe can follow ... bloomberg.com U.K. Huawei Decision Needs ‘Careful Examination,’ Canada Says Theophilos Argitis29 January 2020, 02:32 GMT+8 Canada is the only member of the Five Eyes intelligence network that has yet to decide whether to allow Huawei access to its 5G mobile network. Photographer: Justin Tallis/AFP via Getty Images Justin Trudeau’s government will look closely at Britain’s decision to let Huawei Technologies Co. build parts of the country’s fifth-generation mobile networks as it makes its own assessments of potential security risks. Public Safety Minister Bill Blair, speaking Tuesday in Ottawa, said his primary responsibility is the “safety and security of Canadians” along with the “integrity” of Canada’s digital environment. Industry Minister Navdeep Bains said separately the Canadian government has yet to make a decision on the issue. “The British decision today is one that requires careful examination and we’ll be looking at that decision and what they have put in place to protect their digital environment,” Blair told reporters after a cabinet meeting. “But our first consideration, frankly our most important consideration, is to take care of the Canadian environment.” Earlier Tuesday, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the U.K. will keep high-risk vendors out of the most sensitive core parts of the networks but will allow the company to supply other gear that’s critical to the roll-out of 5G, such as antennas and base stations. Technology Gets Political Position on including equipment from China’s Huawei in 5G mobile networks, as of Jan. 28, 2020 Source: Bloomberg Johnson’s decision is a blow to the Trump administration, which wanted the U.K. to impose an outright ban on the Shenzhen-based tech giant, citing concerns that its gear could be vulnerable to infiltration by Chinese spies. American officials had warned the U.S. may be forced to hold back secret intelligence from the U.K. in the future, if Britain pressed ahead with giving Huawei a role. The company has always denied it poses any security risk. The U.K., U.S., Australia, Canada and New Zealand are part of the so-called Five Eyes security alliance. Australia and New Zealand have banned the company, making Canada the only one not to make a decision on Huawei’s participation in 5G. In a statement Tuesday, Huawei Canada said it welcomed the U.K. decision but is “taking nothing for granted” as Trudeau’s government weighs its options. “Canadians should expect that any decision taken on this important issue is based on technology and security considerations, not politics,” the company said. Trudeau’s decision is complicated by a bitter feud with China stemming from Canada’s arrest of Huawei’s chief financial officer on an American extradition request in an Iran sanctions case at the end of 2018. Beijing locked up two Canadians on national security charges in the days that followed, and later halted nearly C$5 billion ($3.8 billion) worth of agricultural imports. While the prime minister once hoped of striking a free-trade deal with the Asian powerhouse, Canada’s relations with China have been plunged into their darkest period in half a century.

To: Snowshoe who wrote (152802)	1/29/2020 5:08:48 AM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217619

some mopping-up operation would be entailed when the time is ripe ... stuff.co.nz Spark and 2degrees expected to test waters with GCSB after UK clears Huawei for 5G AP British 5G decision paves the way for Spark and 2degrees to test the waters with the GCSB in New Zealand. China's Huawei could be back in the 5G business in New Zealand after the British government approved the limited use of its equipment to build 5G networks in the UK. Huawei NZ deputy managing director Andrew Bowater has meanwhile revealed the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) continued to approve 4G and fixed network upgrades using the company's technology, after blocking it from 5G in 2018, describing that as ironic. Phone companies need the GCSB's approval for major network changes, under Telecommunications Interception Capability and Security Act (Ticsa). But the GCSB blocked a proposal by Spark to use Huawei equipment in its 5G network in 2018, citing security concerns. Britain's decision means telecommunications companies there can use Huawei 5G radio-access network (Ran) equipment on their cellphone towers, but can't use the company to supply the more 'intelligent' parts of their core 5G networks. READ MORE: * Huawei won't get more than a slice of Spark's 5G pie * Huawei sends mixed messages over quitting NZ as its smartphone sales tank in Europe * UK to allow Huawei in 5G networks but not in 'core' parts Britain's Prime Minister says Chinese tech giant Huawei will have a limited role in building the UK's 5G mobile network, despite US objections. The GCSB and its British equivalent, GCHQ, have strong ties within the "five eyes" alliance. The British compromise is expected to clear the way for Spark to submit a revised plan to use Hauwei equipment in its 5G network and for 2degrees to also submit a proposal to use Huawei equipment to upgrade to 5G, although 2degrees said it would not comment on that at this stage. Bowater said in 2018 that the New Zealand government managed the perceived issues associated with Huawei in part by drawing on the expertise of Britain's security service. DAVID WHITE/STUFF Huawei NZ deputy managing director Andrew Bowater says it's ironic the GCSB never stopped approving the use of its equipment in fixed-line and 4G upgrades. All network upgrades Huawei carried out in New Zealand were evaluated by a cyber-security centre in Britain overseen by the GCHQ which fed its results through to the GCSB, he said. Commenting on the British ruling, GCSB director-general Andrew Hampton said it followed "international developments and discussions on network security issues with interest", but indicated it would make its own decision. "All Ticsa notifications are considered on a case-by-case basis, with decisions made in accordance with New Zealand legislation and policy." Getty Images Decision on whether to approve an NZ landing station for a proposed China-Chile internet cable may be a future curve ball for the Government Spark announced last year that it hoped to use Ran equipment from Nokia, Samsung and Huawei in its 5G network and spokeswoman Ellie Cross said it was interested in the approach that had been taken in Britain. "We have already gained government approval for our initial 5G roll-out last year using Nokia equipment," Cross said. "For our upcoming 5G roll-outs, we will work through the approval process in due course with Nokia and our other vendors Samsung and Huawei, prior to any deployment of their equipment." AP British decision means Huawei gear can be used for 5G radio access in Britain, but not in the "core" network. 2degrees spokesman Mathew Bolland said it "always maintained that it's better for competition and customers if Huawei is an option as a technology vendor". "They've been a great partner and helped us bring the benefits of competition to the market". Vodafone NZ has selected Nokia as its 5G technology partner. Bowater indicated that Huawei NZ could work within the framework of the restrictions that remained in Britain, if the same approach was adopted here, describing the British decision as "quite pragmatic". "We are really encouraged by what has happened over there. "We firmly believe that if we sit down and discuss these things with governments as they have done in the UK, you can find a pathway forward that mitigates the risks and also recognises some of the specific concerns held in the 'five eyes' countries." Huawei NZ had already suggested "separating off the core" of 5G networks and not playing in that space, he said. The company – which remains the main sponsor of the Wellington Phoenix A-League football team – employed about 120 staff in New Zealand, he said. "We have maintained quite reasonable growth and the irony is other projects are still being approved and going through in the 4G space and fixed networks." A GCSB spokesman responded that it had considered and approved "several hundred notifications" from network operators since 2014 involving a range of vendors. "There are significant differences between the roles equipment plays within 4G and 5G networks which may affect the risk assessment." Bowater said Huawei had been "pleasantly surprised at the strength of the relationships we have had and the continued willingness of companies to work with us". "Nobody has really flinched so far or run for the hills." Britain's decision on Huawei is widely reported to have angered the Trump administration, which had been lobbying for a complete ban. The New Zealand government may have another decision ahead on the extent to which it is prepared to embrace Chinese technology links. In September, the Chilean government appointed two US firms to investigate the viability of a US$500 million (NZ$768m) subsea fibre-optic cable linking Chile and China, that may receive Chinese funding. The cable would need to come ashore about halfway between the countries to power its subsea repeaters, and the most favoured option is understood to be a landing station near Auckland. It is understood the results of the feasibility study will be complete by June, by which time the Government may have to decide whether it would approve a New Zealand landing station and promote the project.

To: Snowshoe who wrote (152802)	1/29/2020 5:38:11 AM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217619

now the kibitzers go to work ... washingtonpost.com Britain just chose China over the U.S. Clearly, our alliance system needs a reboot. Henry Olsen Britain’s decision to permit China’s Huawei to build “non-core” elements of its 5G network is a serious setback for U.S. diplomacy. It’s tempting to blame this decision on the Trump administration’s often chaotic and bullying relationship toward our allies. We should rather see it for what it is: a clear sign our European friends don’t see China the same way we do. Americans tend to see our allies as part of a global team to spread democracy and freedom. Most of our allies do share those values for themselves and often spread them through their own foreign policies. But that does not mean they see themselves as junior players just waiting for the coach to send them into the game. European nations, in particular, feel less threatened — and more tempted — by China. China’s naval and missile buildup in the eastern Pacific and its seizure and fortification of islands in the South China Sea threaten neither its citizens nor its commercial interests. China’s huge economy, on the other hand, offers massive economic opportunities. That is especially attractive as it both lessens European reliance on U.S. markets and provides a booster shot to the continent’s many sagging economies. European leaders also tend to cast a jaundiced eye toward U.S. claims that China represents an authoritarian threat to democracy worldwide. I speak to many diplomats and often hear the simmering U.S.-Chinese conflict referred to as a “great power conflict” — diplomatic-speak for two big guys battling over who runs the playground. One NATO diplomat even told me about a European Union envoy who believed the United States was doomed to lose the conflict, but that China would defer to Europe’s superior culture much as one ancient Chinese kingdom supposedly did in that country’s distant past. Many European leaders do agree with U.S. assessments, but that belief is far from uniform. This divergence makes sense if one thinks about the reality underlying all alliances. They are formed for specific reasons to combat specific foreign threats. Allies never see perfectly eye to eye. Even during World War II, Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union regularly bickered over what missions to undertake and which battles should take priority. Alliances are strongest when the allies feel a mutual impending threat that causes them to sublimate or resolve their differences. The Cold War gave the U.S.-European alliance that threat. Soviet troops and missiles were stationed near the borders of many NATO countries, and prior Soviet activity made clear that the Kremlin wanted a communist Western Europe. That, combined with Western Europe’s economic weakness following World War II, produced an unusually strong and deferential relationship between the Europeans and the United States. Those conditions no longer exist. Russia is rising, but its troops are close only to the new Eastern European members of NATO that used to be held in thrall by Soviet troops. They feel threatened by that rise and seek to lure U.S. support. Other NATO members, however, see Russia more as a rival than a threat, and thus have smaller militaries and more commercial ties with Russia’s government than do eastern NATO members. The result is that, even in their backyard, the European allies of the United States are divided over how to respond to the nearest authoritarian power. It is no surprise, then, that they are even more ambivalent and less united over how to address the rise of an authoritarian power a continent away. Europe is also culturally distinct from the United States and is increasingly not shy about asserting that. Simply put, many Europeans, even many Britons, believe their political and economic models are superior to ours. They think their reliance on soft power is more civilized, their larger social safety nets more just, and their concern for the environment more altruistic than our allegedly harsher approaches. If backing the United States means moving away from these core values, they are perfectly happy to distance themselves. And their economies are now strong enough to give them some ability to do so without fearing what would happen under U.S. pressure. Perhaps the United States would get more cooperation from European allies on China if it gave those allies more of what they want on other items, such as climate change and Iran. That seems to be the Democratic Party establishment’s theory. But that still means the future of the alliance will be more transactional and less “one for all, and all for one” than Americans are used to. If our closest ally can choose China over us, then any of our allies can. Britain’s decision is a clear signal that America’s Cold War-era alliance system needs a serious reboot.

To: Snowshoe who wrote (152802)	1/29/2020 5:41:52 AM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217619

... and the fear- / war-mongers also go to work ... a guess, that nothing will work much against Team Huawei, and Team America shall likely be endowed w/ the world's most expensive 5G systems ... and Alphabet / Google / Android shall be hard-forked or otherwise supplanted, or otherwise put to waste, by attrition, ala using the countryside to lay siege to the centres, that which works often enough Trade wars are easy ... to start, but difficult to conclude washingtonexaminer.com How the US should respond to Britain's Huawei 5G decision by Tom Rogan \| January 28, 2020 11:30 AM Britain made a bad decision on Tuesday to allow Huawei to build out its 5G network, but the United States can mitigate the damage. The central concern: Huawei is not actually a communications provider in the vein of Verizon or AT&T. It is actually a Chinese intelligence cutout. Correspondingly, Huawei's ultimate authority does not begin and end with its CEO Ren Zhengfei and its executive board but rather with Xi Jinping. And Huawei's strategic objective is not maximized profit and service delivery, but the provision of that service as a cover for Chinese intelligence service interception and disruption of communications. These points are not debatable. As the United Kingdom's own intelligence services have shown, Huawei's software is designed with specific flaws to enable Chinese intelligence operations under a pretense of deniability. In short, China uses Huawei's systems to spy. If caught, Huawei will claim that the espionage was a consequence of design mistakes rather than shared intent. The Trump administration and senators from both parties are concerned about this. They recognize that China's access to the 5G networks of America's closest ally is a significant problem. They also rightly reject Prime Minister Boris Johnson's claim that British security and U.S. intelligence material will be protected by ensuring that Huawei does not operate any "core" 5G network capabilities. Johnson is being disingenuous here. 5G networks are specifically designed to push data and data access closer to users. The advent of cloud-based systems means that Huawei's towers will gain ever-increasing access to data streams in the years to come. China will use this access to monitor devices near intelligence facilities, steal compromising information for blackmail, and otherwise disrupt British and allied security. It is for that reason that the U.S. is warning it will reduce operations at certain joint intelligence centers, such as the National Security Agency station at RAF Menwith Hill. To be sure, Xi has scored a big win today. Expect him to reward Johnson with near-term multibillion-dollar Chinese investments in the U.K. economy. After all, Huawei's access to Western networks is a very high priority for Xi. He intends to use that access to serve his long-term global strategy of replacing the U.S.-led international order with one centered on Chinese hegemony and feudal mercantilism. It is reflected both in China's state propaganda and by Huawei's public relations campaigns. But as I say, the U.S. can mitigate the damage here. First, the NSA can transfer operations away from areas served by Huawei towers. More importantly, when (as it will) China uses Huawei to spy on Britons, the U.S. can make public the evidence of that intrusion. Let's see how Johnson, who has been briefed on Huawei's threat, handles the political fallout. And right now, the U.S. can make public more evidence of Huawei's connection to the Chinese state. This will increase domestic pressure on Johnson to reconsider his plans. The U.S. can also keep up the heat on Huawei's access to U.S. hardware and software. Thus far, that tactic has allowed the U.S. to turn Huawei's cellphones into junk that few want to buy. Applying the same approach to 5G, as the Senate has taken steps to do, Britain will be forced to use alternate providers. President Trump or his successor will be critical here: That person must resist China's pressure to include intellectual property transfer to Huawei in any stage two trade deal. So yes, Britain's decision is bad news. But this isn't the end of the road. The U.S. can still defeat this insidious enemy.

To: Snowshoe who wrote (152802)	1/29/2020 9:53:53 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217619

Another breaching ... bloomberg.com EU Spares Huawei From Blanket 5G Ban, Defying Trump’s Demands Nikos Chrysoloras The European Union stopped short of an outright ban on Huawei Technologies Co. and other Chinese 5G suppliers, seeking to navigate a path between warnings from Donald Trump and provoking Beijing. In a set of commonly agreed guidelines on how to mitigate risks stemming from the roll-out of next generation telecoms networks, the EU said companies based in non-democratic countries could be excluded from the procurement of certain core components, following assessments by security agencies. But despite intense U.S. lobbying, the so-called toolbox of measures released Wednesday doesn’t recommend a preemptive blanket ban of Chinese equipment, a decision that follows the U.K. on Tuesday allowing Huawei components into non-core networks. EU member states have until April 30 to implement the mitigating measures included in the toolbox. “We know that the decisions the EU and its Member States will take on these matters will have an impact in the way we relate with our partners,” Margrethe Vestager, Executive Vice President in charge of digital affairs, said at a press conference. “What we are defining today is a European approach to 5G security.” The EU’s position reflects a balancing act between concerns about the risk of Chinese espionage and the bloc’s reluctance to pick a fight with its second-biggest trading partner, which over the past decade has been expanding its presence in the continent with large-scale investment projects. The fudge is an effort to navigate Beijing’s warnings of repercussions if companies like Huawei were banned, and U.S. threats of sanctions, such as cuts in intelligence sharing, if Chinese equipment is used. In a press briefing ahead of the announcement, EU Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton said he met with U.S. President Trump in Davos last week to discuss the bloc’s 5G plans. “I don’t have a fear,” he said of the potential U.S. reaction, adding “we explained very clearly our strategy and I think he understands, but now we will see what will happen.” Calling it a “non-biased and fact-based approach,” Huawei welcomed the EU’s announcement, which it said “enables Huawei to continue participating in Europe’s 5G roll-out.” Representatives of the U.S. State Department said it would publish a statement later Wednesday. The Chinese Mission to the EU didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Read More: How Huawei Landed at the Center of Global Tech Tussle The new policy document urges EU member states to apply ad hoc restrictions on merit for certain suppliers of key 5G components, including core, network management, access network, and orchestration functions. The assessment criteria, already published in December, include “a strong link between the supplier and a government,” and the lack of “legislative or democratic checks and balances” in the home-country of the company. Mitigating MeasuresWhile these guidelines may encourage some governments to restrict the participation of Huawei and other Chinese companies in parts of their next-generation broadband, they also leave room for interpretation and don’t call for a de facto ban. Decisions are left to individual member states, as the EU doesn’t have the competence to regulate centrally in this area. The proposals also include bolstering the role of national authorities, audits of telecom operators and measures to ensure diversity of suppliers for any single telecommunications operator. In addition, the EU proposes stricter screening of foreign direct investment in the area of 5G and possible anti-dumping duties and other penalties for companies benefiting from state subsidies. An EU diplomat said the bloc’s countries can also use other legislation, such as rules for procurement in the areas of defense and security, to further limit the use of Huawei’s equipment. The EU is also preparing beefed up rules that would raise the price of bids placed in Europe by companies based in countries with protectionist procurement legislation, such as China. Telecom operators welcomed the EU’s announcement but urged national governments “to avoid disproportionate actions that negatively impact the investment climate” as they implement the guidelines, ETNO, the association of some of Europe’s largest telecom operators, said in a statement. The operators added they would continue to pursue a “multi-vendor strategy.” Read More: Can a 70-Year-Old Spy Alliance Endure in Era of 5G? Still, the overall stance, first reported by Bloomberg News on Jan. 22, may come as another blow to the U.S. a day after the U.K. risked a rift with President Trump by giving Huawei the green light to help develop Britain’s 5G networks. U.S. officials expressed regret at the decision even though the U.K. announced it would keep high-risk vendors out of the most sensitive core parts of its networks. Breton said the U.K., which leaves the bloc Friday, was involved in designing the toolbox and played an active role in the definitions around what is considered “high risk.” U.S. officials have long urged European governments to exclude Huawei from all sections –- core and non-core -- of their networks, arguing it threatens their national security. The EU partly shares these concerns, as 5G will connect everything to networks, making societies more susceptible to sabotage and espionage. In a review published in October, the bloc warned against a nightmare scenario whereby hackers or hostile states assume control of everything from electricity grids to police communications and even home appliances. Huawei and Chinese officials have repeatedly denied the company poses a spying risk. — With assistance by Aoife White (Updates with Huawei reaction in 7th paragraph, new detail throughout)