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

tidalwave said:

US does need China's cheap products for daily living but wont allow China own hightech products in its market.

Most US conservatives think China will blink first.

Click to expand...

The trade war truce could change that.

The question is if it is a worthy goal to attempt to force US into accepting state of the art technology exports? Yes, it would be a large extra market for companies like Huawei, but it would also reveal sensitive technology.

Would it not be better to only send low end products to US and reveal high tech products domestically and to friends only?

What US conservatives think is not so important. The most important force in the US is the oligarch class, and the 2nd most important the working people. Both of them have lost a lot already, that is why Trump is seeking a truce.

AssassinsMace said:

Let's not mistake some members as being overly-zealous pro-Chinese. They taunt China as being weak and usually demand military offensive action of some sort not because China's honor is being insulted. They want China to blindly act aggressively because that's the only way to get the world to gang-up on China. That's the conundrum of anti-China forces in the world because so far they have no good excuses to act militarily against China because they will be the ones that are seen upon the world as the bad guy. Look at them how they don't care who dies just as long it's not them. Is that someone who cares about peace and human rights which those that hate China all hide behind? Egging on the other to do your dirty work is both cowardly and evil.

Click to expand...

Absolutely true. It reminds me of the old saying used in the chaotic Culture Revolution era "打着红旗反红旗", "Sabotaging revolution in the guise of being the most revolutionary".

now I read
China builds first bridge with 5G network
Xinhua| 2019-04-03 19:02:19

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Nansha Bridge opened Tuesday in the southern province of Guangdong, becoming China's first bridge with a 5G network, the country's state-asset regulator said Wednesday.

As the latest major transport project in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, the 12.89-km bridge began to provide 4G and 5G services on the day it opened, according to the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council.

To ensure smooth network connectivity, telecommunication base stations were launched on the towers and lamp posts of the bridge, an innovative technique, said the commission.

Also known as the Humen Second Bridge, the 40.5-meter-wide Nansha Bridge is the world's widest steel box girder suspension bridge.

Linking Guangzhou and Dongguan, two major cities in the Greater Bay Area, the bridge is designed for a traffic speed of 100 kph and expected to greatly relieve traffic pressure in the area.

Click to expand...

What happened to Lucent Technologies? What happened to Motorola?

Why does the US not have a telecom equipment maker anymore? Why does the US love to shoot themselves in the foot?



How US went from telecoms leader to 5G also-ran without challenger to China’s Huawei

• Verizon and Sprint chose the CDMA mobile standard, developed by US firm Qualcomm, which operated on different frequencies than GSM, adopted by Europe
• After the initial boom in the mobile industry following deregulation, the US telecommunications industry began to decline from 2001

In summary, the US went CDMA when the rest of the world went GSM. US telecom makers cannot sell the CDMA networking equipment they made to other countries, while GSM equipment makers like Ericsson can and did. The US argues that CDMA is superior, while Europe and the rest of the world says no to that. Very likely the reason why US wanted CDMA is to lock their user base through proprietary standards instead of supporting an strong industry standard.

Why Ireland doesn't care about what the Five Eyes say. Ireland always acted like a third world emerging state even within Europe and that makes them think more independently, neutral and more focused on the practical economics.



Western governments have been made to fear China’s Huawei, but Ireland’s can’t afford to

Did The U.S. Just Concede Defeat In Its War With Huawei?

"America doesn't represent the world," Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei had told the BBC in February. Back then, it looked as though the U.S. could prevail in its campaign against the company. But since then the EU has essentially refused to go along with any outright bans, and other countries including Thailand, the UAE and the Philippines have done the same. At the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, where Huawei ran a masterful PR campaign to turn the spying tables on the U.S. themselves, the company claimed that it had signed new 5G deals with operators around the world.

Click to expand...

The previous article from the same author. What is this counter campaign Huawei hatched?



Did The U.S. Just Lose Its War With Huawei?

Tam said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Did The U.S. Just Concede Defeat In Its War With Huawei?



The previous article from the same author. What is this counter campaign Huawei hatched?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Did The U.S. Just Lose Its War With Huawei?

Click to expand...

Nobody wins the battle against technological progress. This US administration violated a cardinal rule my father always taught me when I was a kid: "Never spend your efforts trying to keep others down out of jealousy; only lift yourself up. The former is always a losing battle, in both material and in spirit."

Let's hope this initiation of a tech war and trade war ends up backfiring into a spectacular seppuku.

The US has not been able to show evidence of a espionage threat in Huawei because it's all based on the fact that the US knows it does everything it accuses of China regardless of who's equipment is being used. So it comes down to attacking the character and ethics of the Chinese. The Chinese will steal your data and they'll use it for nefarious purposes while the US will be a responsible party in this matter and will not abuse your data. Just because they don't mention Edward Snowden's name, it doesn't mean he never existed. The only way to truly protect data transfer is through encryption, the US doesn't want that happening because then they will not be able to have access and that's why they never mention that as a solution.

It's all for nothing because when you boil down all the nonsense, it really comes down to the telecom industry is major pillar of the industrialized economic world and the US doesn't want China to have a major piece of that economic pie. Like I've been saying in here money is the major component to everything important. The less you have of it, the less you have of everything else. You can't control the world without power and a major ingredient to having power is having money. They want to distract people by thinking they have power because everyone is attracted to them naturally. They hate immigrants because they're different and they want Americans' money. They never put in the context that these immigrants want the same values or they would be opening up the doors to them because they're suppose to be about uniting everyone believing in the same things.

The rules they make up are for everyone else to follow. They don't have to follow them. China is evil because it's subsidizing its high tech industries. I just posted an article in here of the US semiconductor industry calling for the US to give them money for R&D to keep the US ahead of China. Is this like Edward Snowden where if they don't mention his name, it's like he never existed so that means everything he said is not happening? Don't call it the US subsidizing its high tech industry and then it's not subsidizing. The US has always been subsidizing US private industry. Just because they call it something else, it's not the same? The US can be a hypocrite. Why? Because they have the money that everyone else wants and have to go along or they don't get any money. They don't have money then they don't have power. That's why they make rules that are only for everyone else to follow because they want to maintain the imbalance in their favor.

Don't believe that nonsense that if everyone was on a level playing field... They wouldn't survive on a level playing field.

Tam said:

What happened to Lucent Technologies? What happened to Motorola?

Why does the US not have a telecom equipment maker anymore? Why does the US love to shoot themselves in the foot?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

How US went from telecoms leader to 5G also-ran without challenger to China’s Huawei

• Verizon and Sprint chose the CDMA mobile standard, developed by US firm Qualcomm, which operated on different frequencies than GSM, adopted by Europe
• After the initial boom in the mobile industry following deregulation, the US telecommunications industry began to decline from 2001

In summary, the US went CDMA when the rest of the world went GSM. US telecom makers cannot sell the CDMA networking equipment they made to other countries, while GSM equipment makers like Ericsson can and did. The US argues that CDMA is superior, while Europe and the rest of the world says no to that. Very likely the reason why US wanted CDMA is to lock their user base through proprietary standards instead of supporting an strong industry standard.

Why Ireland doesn't care about what the Five Eyes say. Ireland always acted like a third world emerging state even within Europe and that makes them think more independently, neutral and more focused on the practical economics.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Western governments have been made to fear China’s Huawei, but Ireland’s can’t afford to

Click to expand...

I always wonders why GSM wan the war of standard. At the beginning of the competition of CDMA and GSM, both Europe and US were the same size in terms of market (population and economy). The technologies were equally advanced according to former colleagues of mine who had worked in both. The fight could only be determined in how other countries choose. China at the time was the only decisive market that can make a decisive difference, a single market with a fast growing consumer base. By the end of the 2G era, China is the second largest mobile market bigger than Europe, only slightly smaller than US. That left GSM a world standard while CDMA a regional one.

Did the American vendors or government purposefully blocked something or inserted something in CDMA that scared China away from adopting CDMA? Or China simply wanted to choose something from Europe that had less strings and tricks? Or maybe both?

A even more weird fight was Japan's sticking to PDC standard which only Japan used. What were they thinking?

Similar things happened to other standard wars, like the TV standards between German PAL and American NTSC.

However, the standard war was not the only reason for the downfall of American telecom vendors. Motorola was equally strong in GSM (in China) in RBS. Lucent could have provided the core network equipment to Motorola's RBS if they wanted to compete in GSM. There is no difference in core equipment in terms of radio standards. But that did not happen.

Back in the 2000s the US and Europe complained to China that it didn't want the country to go on it's own system that was being discussed in Beijing because then in order for them to sell cell phones in China, they would have to spend the money for their phones to work on China's system.