Readers of The Engineer have been fairly emphatic that Chinese telecoms giant Huawei should not play a role in the UK’s 5G infrastructure.
It’s been another dramatic week in the Huawei saga, with Google declaring it will no longer provide Android updates for the Chinese firm’s phones. That decision followed an executive order from US president Donald Trump that effectively blacklisted Huawei, forcing US chip makers such as Intel and Qualcomm from doing business with it, and Google to remove support for its operating system.
Within the last day, however, the US has rolled back its sanctions on the company, granting a 90-day grace period for Huawei to continue doing business with US firms. It remains to be seen whether the US sees the company as a genuine security threat, or if it is simply in the front lines of the wider trade war simmering between Washington and Beijing.
Closer to home, former head of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove claimed that allowing Huawei to build critical UK telecoms infrastructure was a risk “we simply do not need to take”, no matter how small the chance of Chinese state interference. It’s a sentiment that the majority of Engineer readers agree with; a whopping 57 per cent were in favour of excluding Huawei from the 5G network over security concerns. An additional eight per cent cited China’s human rights record as the main reason for barring the firm, meaning almost two-thirds of respondents support a ban for one reason or another.
Conversely, less than a quarter (24 per cent) of those surveyed believe the UK government should work with Huawei on 5G, 17 per cent pointing to the Chinese company’s position as a market leader and seven per cent backing a deeper trading relationship with China more generally. The ‘none of the above’ option was chosen by 11 per cent of respondents.
Although a large majority expressed concern over potential Huawei involvement in UK 5G, the comments section was notably more pragmatic about the scenario. Several readers pointed to the lack of UK capabilities in this area while others claimed that the US actions were primarily politically motivated.
“As with so many issues about technology infrastructure we have the know-how but not the hardware,” said Bruce Renfrew. “In Britain, as in the US, there is virtually no one left who manufactures the components needed to assemble infrastructure like this autonomously.”
Another Steve claimed: “There is no reason why we should fixate on the risks of Chinese technology over and above the well documented risks of American and Israeli technology, for example. Let’s have a level playing field independent of the machinations of protectionist politicians.”
Reader Chris Chambers expressed similar thoughts. “All single sourced electronic networking structures can form a security risk,” wrote Chris. “Use the best manufactures and take steps to ensure the operators have complete control access to all products used and block any unrecognised data. Use software defined networks in sections to strip out unwanted protocols.”
David Searle was not convinced, however. “We seem to be becoming more and more reliant on foreign companies to keep our infrastructure working,” David noted. “It doesn’t take much imagination to see that if we have some kind of disagreement with any power, including the Chinese, they could switch us off, sending us back to the dark ages. The first role of government is to defend us from aggressors. Anything that could jeopardise that should be rejected.”
The comments section will remain open so you can continue to let us know your thoughts on the issue. We encourage readers to familiarise themselves with our guidelines for comments before submitting, and bear in mind that all comments will be moderated to keep discussion on track.
The biggest security issue is unfortunately how the relationship with the US on security will be affected, even if the technical risk can genuinely be managed.
Fact: The attacks on Huawei are purely politically motivated by our ‘friends’ in the good old USA.
There is no reason why we should fixate on the risks of chinese technology over and above the well documented risks of American and Israeli technology, for example. Let’s have a level playing field independent of the machinations of protectionist politicians.
Technically, this is a non problem. If the managers and technical teams are doing their jobs correctly (which on the whole they will be) then all risks will be assessed and mitigated.
Let’s select the best technology, whatever that may be and from wherever it comes.
Is there no other supplier of this equipment? If not, why not. What has happened to American Technology superiority? Huawei has clearly not “stolen” the technology.
All single sourced electronic networking structures can form a security risk. Use the best manufactures and take steps to ensure the operators have complete control access to all products used and block any unrecognized data. Use software defined networks in sections to strip out unwanted protocols.
Our relationship with America leads us into American wars of choice. It makes us a secondary target. Measured in lives lost and saved, it may even be a minus.
Huawei seems to have the technological edge in delivering 5G. We need to have this as a matter of urgency. The added value in 5 G will be the services that can be developed to use it. If we have it second, after China, we will be in 2nd place as a service developer ahead of the US. We need installations in our chief software development centres such as central London and Manchester sooner rather than later.
The US has Cisco. They had all the cards. They managed to throw them away. In the EU, we have Nokia using quite a lot of British IP as I understand it. When Nokia is ready, we can scrap out Huawei if the US is still having a hissy fit. Nevertheless, getting started on the added value applications is the main priority.
with Australia’s recent The Telecommunications (Assistance and Access) Act, i wouldn’t be surprised if the US tried the same thing (5 eyes), and therefore would want to control the supply of devices that they can force this access on, where they couldn’t with huawei. I find it interesting that they use China having a similar law as a security issue but dont mention Australia’s, if it’s a valid argument that China could abuse such a law, then that would apply to anyone else.
As with so many issues about technology infrastructure we have the knowhow but not the hardware – In Britain, as in the US, there is virtually no one left who manufactures the components needed to assemble infrastructure like this autonomously. One day we’ll all wake up to the fact that most of the high tech industry in the UK (including the car industry of course) is foreign owned – our high value manufacturing capability and capacity is wholly dependent on the patronage of others and the vagaries of the global market. Incidentally, in no way do I support isolationism or nationalism – but we do need to start investing again in local capability.
On a different but related topic – where can you go to get things chrome plated nowadays?
If , after Brexit, we are to make trade deals with ‘the rest of the World’ then deals with China appear to be necessary, if unpalatable. Since the U.S. only want to trade on their terms, they are probably not good partners. However, China also seems to be parochial regarding balancing trade. So, where else do we go if we want to be in the vanguard of IR 4.0 as no-one else seems to be capable of designing and building 5G kit??
I just hope ‘Another Steve’ is not responsible for security on one of our networks, because he is totally clueless on maters relating to network security. If the device in question has an undisclosed backdoor, no mater how well people do their job, the network will be at risk.
Forget 5G. It should not be subsidised by Government. It has hopeless range, needs a reduculous number of transponders and is over hyped to a public who are not equipped to push back. Very very of the hyped benefits are not already available over 4G, yet they are little used already. More work is required to give bullet proof 4G everywhere, or fibre. Self driving cars are not reason enough for 5G, this pit for public funding should be closed and diverted to better return on investment areas not currently served by the private sector such as health or schooling.
Hi Bruce, it depends on what type of chrome plating you require, we are a plating company that specialise in Hard Chrome Plating, if you contact us then we can discuss if we can help you. Stuart Logan – Swinton Electro Plating Ltd.
Paul, thanks for your professional response courtesy ‘matters’ in our profession as does spelling.
I don’t believe I’m clueless regarding security, although you may be better qualified ! The salient point I made was that “risks will be assessed and mitigated”. Although, backdoor data leakage can be monitored and detected, I take your point about malicious exploits.
The other point I made was that of a level playing field. From reports in the press, we know that Microsoft has been passing unfixed vulnerabilities to the NSA, we know all Intel chips have security flaws, we know Google, Facebook, etc. pass data to the NSA, we know Google has passed personal NHS patient data to third party companies, we know the US and Israel have developed hacking toolkits and developed viruses like Stuxnet, we know the Five Eyes security arrangements are used to get around laws on national data collections by security organisations, we know the US has spied on EU politicians and we know the UK Government has funded shady companies to spread misinformation about Labour, Russia, China, etc.
You have to ask who are the enemy.
Let’s have a level playing field and stop the biased politics.
Suggest a pause might be valid. 5G requires lots of masts, due to shorter ranges. Will we get it installed before we are pushing for 6G or 7G, and we each have to walk around with our own personal transponder and mast? What are the true benefits of more and more masts blasting more and more microwaves at our brains, with no assessment of the risks to health. Whether it is Huawei or anyone else, just because it is possible, is it necessary and is it safe, and when do we stop? So far we can’t even get 3G or fibre to large parts of the country. Pause and reflect.
There has been extensive research into the effects of phome masts and phones in general on the brain, and no link between exposure and disease has been found.
But not with 5G frequencies and power and mast proximity.
Technically, I don’t know the answer, but …
Isn’t the roll out of 5g a bit of a huge experiment whose negative affects, if any, won’t be apparent for decades to come ?
With the multitude of antennas that will be needed to support 5g we will be enveloped in microwave radiation 24/7, 365 days a year for decades. Is this good for people, who knows ?
In the 50’s the standards and processes for handling nuclear materials were very different, and more lax, than they are nowadays. A lot of the engineers who worked in the nuclear industry in the 50s, particularly military, are now dead from cancer.
Things change, we learn as we go along, and then update the standards. Let’s hope 5g is not like that.
Indeed, but all those “no detectable harm” studies will mean nothing to the nutjobs who will not allow their children to be vaccinated.
On Huawei, I have yet to see much in the way of evidence that China spies on us. But by coincidence the same antivax nutjobs now seem to have sway over the White House.
Personally, I would be more worried that Israelis are spying on people who upset governments. But I can’t see the Trumpster raising a finger to chastise his best buddy Netanyahu.
America is scared of Huawei, not because it may or not be part of the Chinese ‘party’ but because Apple are scared of them, and rightly so when they can make a better and cheaper product. How better to topple Huawei’s empire than to get the US government on Apples side. If China retaliated and banned Apple products in China wonder how well Apple would do.
Remember, in the information age – ‘you’re not the customer – you’re the product’.
We seem to be becoming more and more reliant on foreign companies to keep our infrastructure working. It doesn’t take much imagination to see that if we have some kind of disagreement with any power, including the Chinese they could switch us off, sending us back to the dark ages. The first role of government is to defend us from aggressors. Anything that could jeopardise that should be rejected.
Like China any country that has aspersions of being a world leader will spy and use what ever it can to get any information that it can
China is no exception so with this premise and their new security law take off the blinkers and look into the real world what makes anyone think that if the security service ‘asked’ that the company would refuse
Once installed how easy would it be to remove
Agree, aside from disputed health issues, all of the supposed benefits of 5G are possible using existing 4G or WiFi, WiFi 6 will be even better without the ridiculous range limit of 5G. Connected factories and so on are possible now. By the way, time critical control over any wireless link has risk, probably why hardly anyone does it now, nor will they, driverless car promotion is negligent, high frequency jamming is easy.. so for security or reliability there are many potential holes.
Focusing on Chinese companies is just another way to apply trade sanctions.