UK Telco Review Could Be Published Without Huawei Decision
BT said its initial assessment of the government's decision showed the firm could "absorb" the cost of having to rip out Huawei equipment from its 5G network within an initial 500 million it had set aside to comply with the original guidance in January.
UK telco review could be published without Huawei decision
"Clearly this decision has logistical and cost implications for communications providers in the UK market," BT CEO Philip Jansen told the stock market late Tuesday. "However, we believe the timescales outlined will allow us to make these changes without impacting on the coverage or resilience of our existing networks."
To date, there has been little in the way of hard evidence that Huawei poses a security threat, but nevertheless, countries considering adopting its 5G infrastructure have been riven by debate on the matter. For example, although the German IT watchdog could not find any proof that the company was spying, the country has postponed a decision on the firm. But chancellor Merkel has acknowledged that a diversity of choice in the 5G market is critical for a successful rollout.
Between December 2018 and January 2019, German and British intelligence agencies initially pushed back against the US' allegations, stating that after examining Huawei's 5G hardware and accompanying source code, they have found no evidence of malevolence and that a ban would therefore be unwarranted. Additionally, the head of Britain's National Cyber Security Centre (the information security arm of GCHQ) stated that the US has not managed to provide the UK with any proof of its allegations against Huawei and also their agency had concluded that any risks involving Huawei in UK's telecom networks are "manageable". The Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC), set up in 2010 to assuage security fears as it examined Huawei hardware and software for the UK market, was staffed largely by employees from Huawei but with regular oversight from GCHQ, which led to questions of operating independence from Huawei. On 1 October 2020, an official report released by National Cyber Security Centre noted that "Huawei has failed to adequately tackle security flaws in equipment used in the UK's telecoms networks despite previous complaints", and flagged one vulnerability of "national significance" related to broadband in 2019. The report concluded that Huawei was not confident of implementing the five-year plan of improving its software engineering processes, so there was "limited assurance that all risks to UK national security" could be mitigated in the long-term. On 14 July 2020, the United Kingdom Government announced a ban on the use of company's 5G network equipment, citing security concerns. In October 2020, the British Defence Select Committee announced that it had found evidence of Huawei's collusion with the Chinese state and that it supported accelerated purging of Huawei equipment from Britain's telecom infrastructure by 2025, since they concluded that Huawei had "engaged in a variety of intelligence, security, and intellectual property activities" despite its repeated denials. In November 2020, Huawei challenged the UK government's decision, citing an Oxford Economics report that it had contributed 3.3 billion to the UK's GDP.
The CEO of telecoms company BT has warned it may take a decade to remove Huawei equipment from Britain's wireless infrastructure if the U.K. government follows the U.S. in dumping the telecom provider from its networks. googletag.cmd.push(function() googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1453799284784-2'); ); Philip Jansen told the BBC that the Chinese tech giant has been in the telecoms infrastructure for two decades and has been a big supplier to the industry.That legacy will complicate things for British officials, who are reportedly reconsidering their decision to give Huawei a limited role supplying new high-speed network equipment to wireless carriers."It is all about timing and balance,'' Jansen told the BBC. "So if you want to have no Huawei in the whole of the telecoms infrastructure across the whole of the U.K., I think that's impossible to do in under 10 years."Dumping Huawei from the 5G network could take as long as five to seven years. But the details are critical."If we get in a situation where things need to go very fast, then we go into a situation where service for 24 million BT Group mobile customers is put into question - outages would be possible,'' he said. "Secondly the security and safety in the short-term could be put at risk - this is really critical here. If you are not able to buy or transact with Huawei that would mean you wouldn't be able to get software upgrades if you take it to its specificity."''Britain had decided in January to let Chinese tech giant Huawei have a limited role supplying new high-speed network equipment to wireless carriers, ignoring the U.S. government's warnings that it would sever intelligence sharing if the company was not banned.But the move set up a diplomatic clash with the Americans, who claim that British sovereignty was at risk because the company could give the Chinese government access to data - an allegation Huawei denies.Amid continued pressure to remove Huawei from communication networks entirely, the U.S. imposed new sanctions aimed at the firm's supply chain, sparking the U.K. government review. 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
"I fear London has freed itself from Brussels only to cede sovereignty to Beijing," tweeted Republican Senator Tom Cotton. Senator Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, suggested the decision could "complicate a US-UK free trade agreement".
Commons criticismExplaining the decision in the House of Commons, Dowden said Britain was now on an "irreversible path" to removing Huawei technology by the next general election because US sanctions meant security officials could "no longer be confident" the technology would be safe.
We wouldn't be surprised if Huawei contests this decision--it's sued the U.S. government (opens in new tab) multiple times over the last few years. A District Court judge recently said the company couldn't sue over the federal government's equipment ban, however, because the rule merely affects how the government spends its money.
The top-level decision-making body of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC, or ITC) just gave notice of its decision to review all parts of a preliminary ruling by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that held Samsung to infringe four Apple patents and found no violation of two other patents. Apple and Samsung had each filed petitions for a review of the parts of Judge Pender's initial determination that are unfavorable to the respective party. An investigative attorney from the Office of Unfair Import Investigations ("ITC staff") had supported Judge Pender's findings with only one minor exception that he thought could be addressed without conducting a review.
Within 30 days Judge Pender will now have to set a target date for his remand ruling. Given the narrow scope of the issues, such a ruling is likely going to come down within a very few months, and presumably without the need for an evidentiary hearing. If the Commission agrees with the modifications, those parts of the decision will become the final decision 60 days after issuance, but there could also be a review, in which case the final decision on these issues comes down four months after the initial ruling. Other parts of the initial determination are certainly going to be reviewed, but it's unclear which ones the Commission is most likely to modify. The whole review process, concerning the parts that have been remanded as well as those that have not been, will begin at a later stage. For now, the ball is back in Judge Pender's court. Since the Commission decided to review the decision in its entirety (even though only some smaller parts of the decision have been remanded), the final outcome could still be anything, but a finding of no violation at all is unlikely. 350c69d7ab