Is the US shooting itself in the foot by banning Huawei?

For discussion

If Huawei is the world's only 5G supplier in the world, is the US shooting itself in the foot by trying to ban Huawei?

BT's McRae: Huawei Is 'the Only True 5G Supplier Right Now'

LONDON -- Global Mobile Broadband Forum -- Ericsson, Nokia, Samsung and ZTE got a kick in the pants Wednesday morning from BT's Chief Architect Neil McRae when he proclaimed "there is only one true 5G supplier right now and that is Huawei -- the others need to catch up."

Read more

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The Canadian telecom companies also estimate that the presence of Huawei has reduced equipment prices by 15%. Otherwise they'd be stuck only with Ericsson, Nokia, Cisco.

1. So the USA will face higher costs for its 5G network when compared to China.
2. The deployment of that 5G network and 5G devices will also be delayed.

Previously the USA could rely on the sheer scale of its domestic market, in order to create companies that could buy or bankrupt their smaller foreign competitors, even if they were more advanced.

But the Chinese market is now bigger than the USA in most respects eg. telecoms, autos, online, etc

In fact, the overall market for Chinese consumer retail goods is projected to be worth $5.8 Trillion in 2018, which is would be larger than the US figure. Note that Chinese retail growth is a lot higher as well.

1. So domestic Chinese companies should have a cost and time advantage in terms of 5G availability.
2. At the same time, Chinese companies will have a larger domestic market for the next generation of businesses based around 5G connectivity. Think self-driving cars, VR, AR, telemedicine, internet of things, retail, etc

That sets the stage for Chinese companies to be first to build new 5G businesses to scale, and then to expand globally. And the value of these businesses should be much greater than Huawei being shut out of the 5G infrastructure rollout in the USA.

Comments?

Depends on the purpose. If the purpose is to build a new iron curtain to make a "two world globe", then higher price 5G in US is the necessary cost. Therefor US is not shooting its own foot. US is willingly and knowingly doing what it want, "its own world without China".

taxiya said:

Depends on the purpose. If the purpose is to build a new iron curtain to make a "two world globe", then higher price 5G in US is the necessary cost. Therefor US is not shooting its own foot. US is willingly and knowingly doing what it want, "its own world without China".

Click to expand...

But is having a potentially "secure" internal network worth the long-term costs? It's not just higher priced 5G in the USA.

It's the creation of downstream customer-facing tech companies which will first exist in China, because they have better access to 5G.

And these Chinese companies would have first-mover advantage to expand globally.

So it's potentially the US isolating its companies from the latest and best technology, whilst the rest of the world moves on.

And the rest of the world is bigger than either the US or China alone

AndrewS said:

But is having a potentially "secure" internal network worth the long-term costs? It's not just higher priced 5G in the USA.

It's the creation of downstream customer-facing tech companies which will first exist in China, because they have better access to 5G.

And these Chinese companies would have first-mover advantage to expand globally.

So it's potentially the US isolating its companies from the latest and best technology, whilst the rest of the world moves on.

And the rest of the world is bigger than either the US or China alone

Click to expand...

The "security" aspect is just a cover word. Huawei was never in the US market, what is different today? What is the concern to begin with? The situation of 5G is not fundamentally different from 4G, only that Huawei is more pronounced (stronger) in 5G relatively speaking.

What US want is not self isolation but attempting to isolate China from a US led western world. The assumption of that move are that 1) the rest of the world including Europe and Japan, SK etc. are following US's lead, 2) that segregated world where US is in is much bigger than the China centred world. The two assumptions are all pretty shaky. So your thinking may be very right, but US leadership does not think that way. And most importantly, an aging emperor will try everything to maintain his legacy even though the reality is against him, he just can't stop trying.

Therefor, in the end, this kind of discussion always run to a dead end, because it is not about rationality and calculation, it is about "wish, want and desire" which is not really rational.

Banning Huawei entirely, instead of on a case by case base, from the "Five Eyes" country and Japan is just thinly disguised protectionism. However, China's domestic market, the market in developing countries, and the market in the rest of the Western countries will be more than enough for Huawei.

LOL nonsensical premise of yours:

AndrewS said:

For discussion

If Huawei is the world's only 5G supplier in the world, ...

Click to expand...

of the ludicrous
Is the US shooting itself in the foot by banning Huawei?
thread you've established

as inside
Huawei warns bans will increase prices and put US behind in 5G race

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

November 30, 2018
:
"Both Ericsson and Nokia have signed 5G deals with T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint."

The only way the US can stay on top is by destroying the competition literally eliminating them from existence. They control US allies so they can allow them to survive just as long as they obey the US. They fear for their "lives" when it comes to China because the US has no mechanism that can punish China without China doing it right back at them. The US will not be able to compete simply because they have do deal with more expensive labor. That's at least half their costs. Lower margins and higher costs. So the only way the US can win is if there were no competition so the world would have no alternative but to buy expensive American products. In a true level playing field, the US would lose.

USSR was the best protectionist state. Good Luck USA

AndrewS said:

But is having a potentially "secure" internal network worth the long-term costs? It's not just higher priced 5G in the USA.

Click to expand...

We live in the internet of things these days. 4G, 4GLTE Perminate all of our lives deeply. More and more land cable is being cut and more and more we live in the cloud as does military and agency security.
Having a more secure network is critical for infrastructure.
5G is that next big step, however security is just as critical as speed and quality.
On both sides of the Pacific there is deep worry about the Security of there telecoms.
Already the PRC showed that degree of worry about the Security of American products remember the uproar about when Xi' s wide was shown with an IPhone ( still the most popular phone in China).
Is allowing a foreign maker with a questionable status already in regards to PRC intrest to have a virtual monopoly over key industry infrastructure in the PRC best interest?
Is allowing a foreign maker with a questionable status already in regards to American intrest to have a virtual monopoly over key industry infrastructure in the American best interest?
I phrase the question. Twice because if yes to one version then Yes should be to the other.

Networks are the heart of national security these days. They touch every aspect of a nation, civil, financial, governmental, security, transportation, law enforcement all of it. Including National intelligence and defence networks.

Even basic services like heating, electrical, food, water and sewage it all has some attachment to the tendrils to the cloud and network.
If the network is not "Secure" than it's all a house of cards.

Huawei may have the 5G advantage but is the juice worth the squeeze?
Is installing a high speed telecom system worth it if there is the potential that that network can become the very harbinger of its own collapse? If the data on it can be compromised or if the network can be used as a weapon?

No. Should be the answer.

Even if that is just paranoia on my part.
There is another side of this story. Huawei' s CFO and the Daughter of its founder has been in a Canadian jail awaiting the decision on whether she gets a trip South of the boarder to US custity. Why? Because Huawei allegedly was circumventing Iranian sanctions. By using the Huawei name and brand to shuffle loans and money's from banks to an Iranian branding. If true than already Huawei has shown it's doesn't care about the American interest or security or sanction. And as such would be sanctioned it's self.
Now yes American companies have been caught with there hand in the Iranian cookie jar from time to time. But does letting this case slide help anything? No.
If she goes to extradition. One can imagine Huawei will be less inclined to offer services.

China should catch a few US CEOs linked with weapon sales to Taiwan and stage a similiar kangaroo trial with them. Even remotely related supplier companies will suffice.

Because it would be a fitting and symmetric response to the US actions of late.