SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the paranoia-or-shrewd-planning? dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
[...] But in the US and UK the rollout of 5G networks has been hampered by an international row over one of the most important suppliers of 5G equipment, China's Huawei.
Industry analysts like Edison Lee, an analyst from financial services group Jefferies, see the US pressure on Huawei as an attempt to break China's potential dominance of the global 5G market.
"The tech war is based on America's argument that China's technological advances have been built upon stolen intellectual property rights, and heavy government subsidies, and their belief that Chinese telecom equipment is not safe, and is a national security threat to the US and its allies," he says.
"As Huawei and [fellow Chinese firm] ZTE increasingly dominate the global telecom equipment market, the western world will be more vulnerable to Chinese spying," Lee adds.
Huawei has always strongly denied that its technology can be used for spying. While western nations worry about one of the key suppliers of 5G technology, China is racing ahead with its 5G rollout. On 31 October Chinese telecom companies launched 5G services in more than 50 Chinese cities, creating one of the world's largest 5G networks. Huawei has built an estimated 50% of the network.
[...] Industry analysts are not confident that the row between China and the US will be sorted out anytime soon.
"We see the current tensions as a technological Cold War, as tech nationalism intensifies," says Ben Wood, chief of research, at CCS Insight.
"With the Chinese government firmly committed to establishing China as a world-leading 5G nation, the opportunity for Huawei in its home market is immense.
"However, the rest of the world can't afford to get left behind, and without access to Huawei infrastructure US mobile network operators in particular will need to rely on alternative suppliers who may be more expensive and less advanced with 5G."
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 26 2019, @11:03PM (3 children)
How hard would it be to turn this domestic "OMG it might interfere with satellite communication, GPS, etc." tech from a sketchy border case into a first strike, not only take out their telephone networks (who uses those anymore, anyway?) but also kill GPS and any other number of domestic services with RF interference to sow chaos during the threat response?
For that matter, while 5G - as deployed - might not kill GPS or other services, China might also use a domestic 5G network as a kind of cruise missile shield that they can switch on if GPS dependent munitions of any sort are sent their way.
https://www2.l3t.com/iec/news/r_%20pr/070099.htm [l3t.com]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday November 26 2019, @11:32PM (2 children)
Simple fix, just make it a dumb bomb on the final approach. Probably, in no one's best interest as it would likely increase civilian casualties.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday November 27 2019, @02:59AM
Certainly not in the Chinese people's best interests, but who controls the countermeasures? Certainly not a democratic vote. If you're a Chinese general with one missile launch silo and over a billion civilian citizens, what are you going to protect first?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @10:03AM
What an ignorant and stupid statement....
Every fucking city, larger than ass-crack-kentucky, would be vaporized and glassified in the scenario of a nuclear war. Do you understand that?? If you say yes, then think again and do you really understand that??
And then you are talking about "civilian casualties"? Might as well start talking about best way of saving your garden when a 100km wide asteroid hits Earth. For all intents and purposes, unless you are living in a 3rd world nation that no one will be interested in destroying, you are fucked in case of a nuclear war.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @11:09PM
It is a telecom grab for spectrum
FSCK 'EM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26 2019, @11:11PM
Nothing, according to the FCC.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Wednesday November 27 2019, @12:18AM (6 children)
5g does for me again?
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 27 2019, @01:03AM (2 children)
More bandwidth I think. I mean, that sounds fine I suppose but I have no interest in paying more than I already do because 4G works fine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @01:27AM (1 child)
Nobody needs 4G.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @04:02PM
people who want to drill another hole in your wallet and connect a endlessly leaky coin faucet totally need it ... same hole, different name.
(Score: 2) by corey on Wednesday November 27 2019, @07:52AM (1 child)
According to a Telstra ad I saw today, you can download all of Hendrix's albums in seconds.
So amazing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @09:25AM
But do they throttle BitTorrent downloads of Hendrix's discography?
(Score: 3, Informative) by ilsa on Wednesday November 27 2019, @09:33PM
If you are living in a dense urban centre and it's been deployed properly, you get ludicrously fast wireless data performance.
If it hasn't hasn't been deployed properly, which is about all the scenarios currently in major US centres, you get great performance for about 10 feet and then you lose connectivity until you make it to the next cell.
If you don't live in an urban centre, you will never ever see 5G in the first place because the economics of it make it completely impractical. The range and signal penetration is so poor that you need to set up a veritable forest of wireless towers to blanket the area, which is unjustifiable for any city smaller than 100 of thousands of people.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Mojibake Tengu on Wednesday November 27 2019, @01:01AM (8 children)
Frankly, I do not care if some foreign government throws heavy subsidies into some paradigm changing research, if that helps to progress all humanity, but...
If it is true China's 5G technological advances have been built upon stolen intellectual property rights, where on the market are some America's far ahead technological advances in this sector, based on those said intellectual property rights?
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 27 2019, @01:07AM
I wondered about that very thing.
That whole paragraph is nonsense really:
As you noted, where are the great American advances then?
You know what? My government is pissed off about the way all you lot heavily subsidise your agricultural sectors, instead of forcing them to compete Stop doing that and we could talk.
Except the US' allies don't agree, and are either already using Huawei, or are planning to. Even 5-eyes countries.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by driverless on Wednesday November 27 2019, @02:21AM (2 children)
Interesting conspiracy theory: Following Aleksandr Dugin's weak US/strong Russia philosophy, Russian insiders convince Trump to cripple the US' 5G prospects by banning Chinese vendors that provide the tech, and the US public to cripple the US' 5G prospects with scaremongering about 5G radiation. Result: Other countries surge ahead, the US is so busy shooting itself in the foot over 5G it falls behind, and Putin rubs his hands. Будем здоровы!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @02:46AM
You have a future in Hollyweird or MSM.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @01:53PM
I think we lack a phrase for distinguishing between conspiracy theories.
For instance it is literally a conspiracy theory that Epstein was killed. But when you look at the evidence (guards somehow stop checking in at exact time he offs himself, cellmate inexplicably removed, camera in front of cell inexplicably malfunctioning, removed from suicide watch after being evaluated by shrink, other prisoners report hearing screaming the morning of his death, broken neck bones more consistent with homicidal strangulation, motive, etc, etc) then there's an extremely strong case for the view that he was murdered. In my opinion the weight of evidence makes it more probable, but that's not necessarily required. The point is that there's a lot of concrete evidence strongly supporting it.
Your conspiracy theory here, by contrast, is seemingly based on nothing but speculation and fantasy. I actually think the real deal here is Merkel has a sextape between her and Trump. She's constantly been threatening to release it which would have no less effect than a nuclear strike as millions of people would drop dead at such a sight. In an effort to undermine the United States and strengthen the EU, she's demanded Trump get into an unwinnable economic war with China of which this ban is a component. America weakens, EU strengthens, checkmate and Heil Führer Merkel! Prost!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @04:59AM (3 children)
Ok... So 5G is stolen intellectual property rights.
Did we ever pay China for the intellectual property of making explosive powder?
Or is it "research" if we benefit, and "theft" if someone else benefits.
Personally, I am getting so sick and tired of all this patent and copyright crap that keeps us from having interoperable commodities designed around public standards. All this secret stuff is just creating monopolies and enforced obsolescence in a world already overflowing with trash. And we can't trust anything with software in it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @09:28AM (1 child)
The night is always darkest before the end.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 27 2019, @03:22PM
I think you mean . . . before you realize it is an oncoming train.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday November 27 2019, @03:43PM
My god i never thought of it that way! We should hurry up and remove all barriers to trade so they can erode our standard living to nothing and round us up as organ cattle, after all its only right, they did tell us about gunpowder.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @03:05AM
They aren't doing anything a lot of us aren't doing as well.
They need something they can trust, and not be denied because someone else decides to impose sanctions.
If there is anything you need, and are dependent on it, you are vulnerable, leaving others to take your stuff away. It's how the rich get filthy rich. When you are rich, you can choose. When you are poor, you have to take what is offered.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @04:26AM
5g. now with 25% more g, dawg!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 27 2019, @03:21PM
China, we the people of the USA would like to present you a free telecom gift which I'm sure you will appreciate.
Our gift to you is . . . AT&T!
Please take it. All of it.
Also be aware that AT&T representatives can sometimes be difficult to spot. You must look closely. They are disguised to appear as human beings.
AT&T already has demonstrated working fake 5G!
No need to thank us.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27 2019, @03:24PM
> Huawei has always strongly denied that its technology can be used for spying.
Did they actually say that or did they deny that it is being used for spying? Because, it is communications equipment, of course it CAN be used for spying. So can the gear from Cisco and all the other suppliers. You don't even need to do anything intentional. Just wait for a smart spy figure out how to use and abuse it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @12:07AM (1 child)
I think China has made some advancements partly because they have focused their attention on innovation while the U.S. innovation has slowed down partly because they have been focused more on litigation. Money spent on litigation is money that could otherwise be spent on innovation. Innovation =! litigation (I know this is a hard concept for lawyers to understand since litigation = money for lawyers).
Tech has made many advancements partly because tech has a history of not enforcing patents but, instead, collecting them and cross licensing (though you have some cases of patent trolls slowing down innovation which is bad).
This is despite the fact that China has been stifling their innovation through trade restrictions and tariffs (look up export promotion vs import substation). One can argue that the U.S. using patents to restrict foreign products is a trade restriction.
Part of the reason the U.S. has historically been innovative is due to the fact that the founding fathers were skeptical of IP. While they did allow congress to create such monopolies for a limited time to promote the progress if you read much of what they had to say they were very aware of the fact that heavy abuse of such things (as we are starting to get more of) stifles innovation. IE: Benjamin Franklin never sought a patent of copyright and Thomas Jefferson initially opposed them but later very cautiously supported them with the understanding of how destructive they can be if abused.
The U.S. has also had a history of not having many trade restrictions.
Of course much of this is changing now. Instead of innovating we are simply setting up all these legal firms that get all these patents and when other countries actually innovate we complain about how they are 'stealing' our ideas. It's all this complaining that's holding us back. Instead of complaining about everyone else innovating we need to start innovating and stop pointing fingers about how every time someone implements an idea they stole it from us. They sound like little children arguing about who thought of it first. I don't care who thought of it first, it's irrelevant, it's who can bring it to market first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 28 2019, @12:09AM
never sought a patent or copyright