Thread: Huawei and ZTE handed 5G network ban in Australia

Chinese smartphone maker Huawei says the Australian government has banned it from providing 5G technology for the country's wireless networks.


It said fellow communications firm ZTE had also been banned, both reportedly because of national security concerns.


"This is a extremely disappointing result for consumers," the company said on Twitter.


Faster data download and upload speeds are promised with 5G, which is the next stage of mobile internet connectivity.


Wider coverage and more stable connections than current 4G technology are also highlighted as benefits.


What's the issue?

Several countries are preparing for the roll-out of 5G mobile networks, although analysts say few will launch 5G services before 2020.


Mark Newman, from the consultancy ConnectivityX, said: "5G is going to be the next significant wave of mobile infrastructure deployment.


"If existing suppliers are banned, it will be quite a major blow for them."


Huawei is the world's biggest producer of telecoms equipment. It also ranks second in global smartphone sales, behind Samsung and ahead of Apple.


In July, a UK security committee warned that it had "only limited assurance" that Huawei's telecoms kit posed no threat to national security.


The UK's cyber-defence watchdog - the National Cyber Security Centre - has also warned that the use of ZTE's equipment and services could pose a national security risk.



How has China responded?

China's foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said Australia should not "use various excuses to artificially erect barriers".


It called on Australia to "abandon ideological prejudices and provide a fair competitive environment for Chinese companies".


Huawei has defended the security of its products.


"Huawei is a world leader in 5G," the company said in a statement.


It said it had "safely and securely" delivered wireless technology in Australia for close to 15 years.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45281495

Originally Posted by misskit

It called on Australia to "abandon ideological prejudices and provide a fair competitive environment for Chinese companies".

Does China lead the way in that for other countries operating in China?

Yes, let's see Australian companies operating in the Chinese telecoms market. Not to mention other infrastructure segments.

Finally someone is waking up !
Those dumb Krauts are bowing so deep that they can't see that their care keys have been stolen.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Does China lead the way in that for other countries operating in China?

Only Chinese operators allowed in China. China wants to play the protectionist game then only appropriate their companies recieve equal treatment outside China. To do otherwise would be racist.

Android phones collect 10 times more user data than iPhone: research





Android phones may be collecting 10 times as much personal data from their users as iOS devices do from Apple phone users, according to a new research.

Directed by computer science professor Douglas Schmidt, the research found that around two-thirds of the data Google collected or inferred from an Android user occurred in the background, when users were not notified that their data was being shared.

Even when an Android mobile was entirely stationary and idle over the course of 24 hours, the device still sent about 900 data samples to Google. More than a third of those samples contained location data.

On the other hand, the data sent from an idle iPhone to the Apple server was 10 times less frequent, according to the research published in trade association Digital Content Next.

Digital Content Next's CEO Jason Kint said the study provided a comprehensive baseline understanding of just how much data Google is collecting from users across the internet and how it blends the data sources to fuel its lucrative advertising business.

In the first quarter of 2018, more than 85 percent of revenue at Alphabet, Google's parent company, came from Google's programmatic advertising services, according to company filings.

Android phones collect 10 times more user data than iPhone: research - Chinadaily.com.cn


Who needs backdoors when ameristani companies make 85% of their revenue from "legal" snooping and boast about it?

Do Australian government officials realise this or are they compelled to do a Nelson?

You believe China daily? The party mouthpiece?
Apart from which what has the relative amount of user data various operating systems gather got to do with the topic of this discussion?

Originally Posted by Cujo

You believe China daily? The party mouthpiece?
Apart from which what has the relative amount of user data various operating systems gather got to do with the topic of this discussion?

Of course. He is a toadying sycophant who laps up state media.

Can't blame Australia for not trusting the chinkies. Let them loose on the nations telecoms and they'll be committing industrial espionage on a grand scale.

Originally Posted by Cujo

You believe China daily? The party mouthpiece?

You question one "news" source but believe another I presume, or none at all? Do you have a grading system utilised by all which might help the ignorant as to which "sources" to believe in. It would be useful for many here, so we can all stay on message, more often.

Any comment on the substance of the articles or facts which suggest the article's substance is fake?

Originally Posted by Cujo

Apart from which what has the relative amount of user data various operating systems gather got to do with the topic of this discussion?

The user data is the gold in managing what the user is "provided" with by many interested parties. Or are you under the illusion that your search results are not tuned and hence "managed" by your device loaded software and search engine providor?

The ownership of the operating systems could give the owner easy and "tunable" access to any data flowing through the system.

As such, whilst ever Australia neither owns or can control neither the operating system or the electronic equipment, how is the newly elected Australian PM going to protect Australian citizens from "foreign" intrusion/stealing/deleting/modifying their data or the Australian military's ability to perform in times of war? Is the "foreign" term adjustable, with rules according to "secret" or "determined by foreign powers" agreements? If so does Australia have such secret agreements and who are they with, China?

As Australia does not produce either the equipment or operating systems for this technology 100% within it's 100% Australian owned, managed and directed companies how is it to introduce the new technology to it's citizens?

Remember the government has just banned "foreign" firms from supplying the "equipment" which presumably means hardware, software, operating systems, support, upgrades, maintenance system monitoring and any required routine maintenance.

Or is the newly elected PM lying to the Australian people, one day after assuming the power and previous governments politicians secret deals?

^ Thank you for your reply.

Is the correct term, "technology" if so please substitute. If not what term should one use?

So is it just Chinese news sources that are run by "the State", in your opinion? I did request a list of your "approved" sources, which you fail to provide.

Do all your "approved" sources have a comments section? Some western "sources" are modded, some are behind fire walls. Are your "approved" sources all 100% behind the articles published, news and opinion pieces, or are dissenting voices allowed?

As you have yet to post your views on the articles one cannot accuse you, yet, of being "blinkered" on the content, only by your argument about the difference between the word, "system" and an as yet undefined more acceptable, by you, term.

So clarification and your opinions are awaited, but I'm not holding my breath.

Originally Posted by OhOh

As such, whilst ever Australia neither owns or can control neither the operating system or the electronic equipment, how is the newly elected Australian PM going to protect Australian citizens from "foreign" intrusion/stealing/deleting/modifying their data or the Australian military's ability to perform in times of war? Is the "foreign" term adjustable, with rules according to "secret" or "determined by foreign powers" agreements? If so does Australia have such secret agreements and who are they with, China?

They will do what they always do.

Purchase equipment from vetted vendors. China's not the only country selling this tech.

Originally Posted by Plan B

Purchase equipment from vetted vendors. China's not the only country selling this tech.

The use of security issues against only one named supplier is as you are aware is a difficult issue to prove. As the industry is aware, many products from western suppliers have been proven to be hackable, they are also aware that many internet solution providers scrape user data for their own use.

I look forward to seeing from the Australian government the procedures to be adopted which proves or not which suppliers meet their "vetting" requirements. It would be unfortunate if the vetting procedures were not imposed on all prospective suppliers. If the procedures are not imposed on all bidders it would indicate other reasons for the ban.

I am under no illusion that only one country is able to supply the necessary equipment.

But as you suggest they will do what they want too.

Thanks for confirming the illusion of transparency in international rules.

The only illusion is that woven by conspiracy theorists who have half the facts and half an idea that fits an agenda.

The Aus government, like many western governments, have a lot of personal data and a duty of care to protect that data. Look at the number of data breaches by private corps vs governments and you will see they do a much better job of it. If people wanna post their intimate details on social media and cry about it, they should be crying to the corporations, not the government. The average Joe/Jane's data that they willingly give out online is no business of government and nor should it be. You can do what you like with your personal details.

Originally Posted by Plan B

The only illusion is that woven by conspiracy theorists who have half the facts and half an idea that fits an agenda.

The Aus government, like many western governments, have a lot of personal data and a duty of care to protect that data. Look at the number of data breaches by private corps vs governments and you will see they do a much better job of it. If people wanna post their intimate details on social media and cry about it, they should be crying to the corporations, not the government. The average Joe/Jane's data that they willingly give out online is no business of government and nor should it be. You can do what you like with your personal details.

Never mind the personal data. What about the ability to tap into/monitor government communications on a whim?
Anyone who doesn't realize Huawei and ZTE aren't beholden to the CCP is very naive indeed.

Ohho doesn't seem to realize that the media in China is completely controlled by the government but the media in the west, well, isn't.

Originally Posted by Cujo

the media in China is completely controlled by the government but the media in the west, well, isn't.

China, completely controlled but western, just a little bit eh. One wonders what Monsanto have been doing around the world. Physically Slaughtering people for profit knowing full well the government contracts were their for them on the table for decades.

Originally Posted by Cujo

Never mind the personal data. What about the ability to tap into/monitor government communications on a whim?
Anyone who doesn't realize Huawei and ZTE aren't beholden to the CCP is very naive indeed.

You are implying that other vendors, to get on the "approved vendors list", are not "beholden" to the contract issuers and do not sign "secret" side agreements with proven lying western politicians?

As of yet no public vetting procedure has been revealed by the newly "installed" Oz PM.

Unlike the UK, as illustrated in the BBC article, whose "vetters/BBC did publish their concerns and the supplier, Huawei, was accepted as a telecoms equipment supplier. Due to actual or promised improvements/UK/western only backdoors, was not disclosed. One wonders what secrets the Oz has signed with it's lord and masters?

Possibly researching western equipment suppliers and internet service suppliers proven deceit, might enlighten your battered brain in the brown box.

Or

Originally Posted by OhOh

China, completely controlled but western, just a little bit eh.

Western governments don't have to approve copy before the publisher can publish. Let alone WRITE the copy. You know journalists who buck the party line go missing right?

One wonders what Monsanto have been doing around the world. Physically Slaughtering people for profit knowing full well the government contracts were their for them on the table for decades.

WHAT. THE. FUCK.? I know it's Saturday but isn't it a bit early to be drinking?

You are implying that other vendors, to get on the "approved vendors list", are not "beholden" to the contract issuers

What are you on about? Huawei and ZTE are beholden to the CCP. The CCP are not the contract issuers.

Originally Posted by OhOh

I look forward to the multi national group working with ALL technology providers rather than selectively banning those who have not been offered the opportunity to meet any of the requested "standards" prior to being banned.

And what of those technology providers that have had the opportunity but still supply dodgy equipment and services?

Originally Posted by Plan B

And what of those technology providers that have had the opportunity but still supply dodgy equipment and services?

Yes. the BBC report suggested "problems" had been identified by UK inspectors. Whether they were remedied or deemed insignificant I don't know. Were the problems ignored because a "backdoor" was enabled? To some suppliers the "problems" may have been identified/thought of, as a "feature", to others a "bug" to be "fixed" in the upcoming new "bug proof" release. If there is such a thing. In my experience software writers sometimes produce well documented/structured code, others don't. Similar to chip designers. How far will competing suppliers be able to pry on others kit?

Any company that can't meet the spec/published performance requirements, after a warning and time to remedy it, should be unable to bid. No qualms about it. The spec and any testing needs to be a level playing field for all. My knowledge of electronics is, "does the charger output plug fit my phone's socket?"/ I rely on others to ensure the correct wire is soldered to the right terminal.

As is illustrated by the ameristani FBI pressure to be "pliable" and the alleged reluctance by some to say no. There is is in my opinion a slippery slope between the laws of the most powerful country becoming the lowest level of acceptance as illustrated by the phrase, "which can include requirements to assist authorities to lawfully access data".

Which countries laws apply, if they differ? One's law makers might balk at handing over access, another's might be more open. An agreement has to be reached and probably a UNSC resolution passed with no abstentions. But will it happen, the Russians have been asking for it, the 5 Eyes appear to be opening up to such a global agreement and I believe the Chinese would welcome it.

Then of course you have the problem of comparing one 5G hardware, chips and operating systems, with another. Presumably they are all slightly different and have their own IP which may make decisions by the vetters difficult.

We shall see if this issue can be resolved and make all parties happy.