of bad communication department
We have noticed for a while that the “5G race” is largely the byproduct of telecom lobbyists hoping to increase sales of smartphone and network equipment. Yes, 5G is important as it will provide faster and more resilient networks when it is finally deployed on a large scale from here. But the impacts of technology on society are extremely exaggerated, international efforts to deploy the faster wireless standard are not really a race, and even if it was, our broadband cards are so terrible (often by monopoly conception), they would be impossible to really determine who won.
Much of the silly tale of the “5G race” involves a widespread fear of China, or the idea that if China rolls out 5G faster to Chinese residents, it somehow means … what for American consumers already faced with high prices and uneven availability. The reality is that China is already way ahead of the U.S. in terms of 5G deployment, and 5G deployed here in the U.S. is notably slower than many overseas 5G deployments due a lack of mid-range spectrum (aka political failure). It is simply not a race, and the monopoly-dominated telecommunications industry in the United States is not likely to “win”.
Again another The aspect of the “5G race” story is the endless seizure of pearls and the face of the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei, and its role in building global 5G networks. The Trump administration has repeatedly tried to pretend that Huawei should be unequivocally banned from participating in global 5G versions. Many lawmakers in Germany and the UK have repeatedly backed down from this request, rightly noting that no one in the Trump administration has been able to provide all public evidence that Huawei spied on Americans or Europeans on a large scale.
Companies like Microsoft have also expressed skepticism:
“When Microsoft asked US lawmakers to explain the threat, they were too vague for Smith’s liking. Huawei is a major customer of his company: its laptops come with Microsoft’s Windows operating system.” Often what we get in response is, “Well, if you knew what we knew, you would agree with us,” “Smith told Bloomberg. “And our answer is,” All right, show us what you know so that we can decide for ourselves. This is how this country works. “”
To be clear, Huawei is engaging in unstable and unethical behavior. But AT&T too. Verizon too. The same goes for the NSA. And while there are certainly security considerations when it comes to using Huawei’s equipment, a lot This hysteria has been caused in Washington by companies like Cisco for years, simply because they don’t want to compete with cheaper Chinese hardware. It is extremely easy to bury anti-competitive motivations under national security. And it is quite easy to deceive the media, which cannot identify, let alone navigate, their own patriotic bias.
Enter Senator Tom Cotton, who equated this week with China to help build 5G global networks to allow the USSR to develop US submarines during the Cold War:
“Tom Cotton, who represents Arkansas, said he had geopolitical and technical objections to Huawei and said that, if hacked, his equipment could follow the movements of key parts of F35 fighter jets. Huawei, continued the politician, “would be as if we had counted on opposing nations during the cold war to build our submarines or to build our tanks. It’s just not something we would have ever considered. ”
Except it’s hyperbolic nonsense. Keep in mind that the United States has already banned Huawei from its networks. And all that the UK is proposing is to let Huawei participate in up to 35% of the construction of its network, which will have to undergo security checks and standards developed under the watchful eye of strong skepticism. And again, there’s also the annoying fact that no one has been able to provide public evidence that Huawei is using its equipment to spy on the Americans on behalf of the Chinese, despite fifteen vague allegations of this type, including an 18-month investigation by the United States government that found … bupkis.
If there was evidence, the administration would have found a way to publish at least one heavily redacted version. As a result, countries like the UK and Germany have argued that instead of engaging in an expensive (and probably unworkable) game of global blackball, countries can simply refuse to use equipment that is clearly proven to be unsafe via the elaborate safety and security processes that already exist. Many British leaders are also quite right to note that this is not an issue on which the United States really has much credibility given its history of surveillance, lies and leadership failures:
“SNP MP Stewart McDonald also challenged Cotton, arguing that the behavior of Donald Trump, particularly during the George Floyd crisis, has affected the ability of the United States to lead the case.” The current presidential leadership and, in particular, its leadership style is seriously undermining, “said McDonald.”
Huawei, on the other hand, is probably right to note that the source of all this effort comes from companies that do not want the Chinese giant to intrude on the markets dominated by the United States for smartphones and network equipment:
“Speaking after the hearing, Huawei Vice President Victor Zhang said the hearing demonstrated that the honorable senator’s main concern was that the company had become too prosperous in an industry dominated by the United States traditionally.” It is clear that its market position, rather than security concerns, underlies the US attack on Huawei because the committee has received no evidence to substantiate the security claims, “he added. . ”
It is true. There is a whole cottage industry of American industry lobbyists driving this train that just doesn’t want to lose revenue through more intense Chinese competition. To what extent are these real national security issues? What is the lobbyist’s share of the game? Would the ratio even be measurable?
Again, Huawei is not a saint. There is evidence that the company has helped some African governments spy on political opponents and journalists. But again, these are all things that the United States, the NSA and partners like AT&T regularly commit to, and you don’t see people calling for an AT&T blacklist (can you imagine American hyperventilation if a foreign government tried?). The United States has been a staunch supporter of uncontrolled global espionage – and bullshit so frequently about it – that it’s pretty hard to take ourselves seriously when it comes to giving advice on trust and The surveillance.
Again, this is a complicated subject, and few concerned seem to be able to separate patriotism, fanaticism and the motivations of American giants like Cisco from smart global politics.
Filed Under: 5g, China, conspiracies, infrastructure, network equipment, tom cotton