Huaweis Ban and the reprocustions

[Ziggy2]

The video opened a NEW point, which I brought up. I have been following this from post 1 but may have missed the point you say was already made, can you give me a post # to find it?
Did you just admit to deleting a video that had info relevant to this thread without even watching it? That is how I read it. Please restore my post.

I didn't watch the video but it appears to me that you were baiting Spinit.

I was hoping that we could actually have a reasonable discussion without ending up in a monkey house feces fight but I guess that is too much to hope for.

 

[Rob F.]

I didn't watch the video but it appears to me that you were baiting Spinit.

I was hoping that we could actually have a reasonable discussion without ending up in a monkey house feces fight but I guess that is too much to hope for.

NO, I was not baiting Spinit or anyone else. The video is a guy discussing a reporters interview of pres. Trump. He said that Us is a capitalist country and US gov was browbeating other countries that have potentially better and cheaper products, huawai being mentioned by name. From 5 min to 7 min.

Spinit- I deleted once again your attempt to repost this video. Just stop Rob.- Spinit

 

[guest]

...The video is a guy discussing a reporters interview of pres. Trump. He said that Us is a capitalist country and US gov was browbeating other countries that have potentially better and cheaper products, huawai being mentioned by name. From 5 min to 7 min.

Your Bernie Bro fails to make his argument- or at least the one you are claiming, which is that the reason the US is putting pressure on Huawei is so US companies can get an unfair advantage in that market.

Wiki lists 5 companies that make 5G network devices. None of them are US companies. Companies that do not buy Huawei or ZTE devices will buy from Samsung, Nokia, or Ericsson- Korean or European manufacturers.

His example of the S-300 was even weaker. S-300/400 is a Russian surface-to-air missile system, and can't be integrated into a NATO IADS without all kinds of security implications. The fact that Turkey has purchased S-400 will require cancellation of their participation in the F-35 program and denial of the jets to Turkey. Delivery of parts and manuals to Turkey has already halted, and their jets are being held at Fort Worth.

 

[guest]

...Can you show me where US government has stopped bullying other countries for the benefit of US companies? Nothing new here. Huawai seems to be the latest.

Rather than expecting ifixcnc to prove a negative, why don't you give us a real example of what you are claiming?

What specific bullying of other countries for the benefit of US companies are you referring to? The Huawei example falls flat- I can find no US companies competing in that market space.

 

[bucktruck]

.
.

Spinit- I deleted once again your attempt to repost this video. Just stop Rob.- Spinit

Seriously? If the intention is to get people to stop posting in the Manufacturing in America and Europe section then just shut the whole section down.

Otherwise, your censorship is getting out of hand.

 

[guest]

Oh come on. The entire video was about Iran.

Had nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Spinit]

Seriously? If the intention is to get people to stop posting in the Manufacturing in America and Europe section then just shut the whole section down.

Otherwise, your censorship is getting out of hand.

Not your concern. Neither of you have been prevented from your views.

 

[Mark Rand]

Rather than expecting ifixcnc to prove a negative, why don't you give us a real example of what you are claiming?

What specific bullying of other countries for the benefit of US companies are you referring to? The Huawei example falls flat- I can find no US companies competing in that market space.

You mean companies like Qualcom, Verizon, AT&T, and Cisco on the 5G front and Apple on the mobile phone front aren't US companies competing with Huawei in those market spaces?

Bearing in mind that that there are still no proven harmful activity from Huawei towards the US or its friends, It's very hard to characterize this as anything else than bullying a foreign company for the benefit of domestic companies and/or as an action in an unjustified trade war.

 

[guest]

You mean companies like Qualcom, Verizon, AT&T, and Cisco on the 5G front and Apple on the mobile phone front aren't US companies competing with Huawei in those market spaces?

Bearing in mind that that there are still no proven harmful activity from Huawei towards the US or its friends, It's very hard to characterize this as anything else than bullying a foreign company for the benefit of domestic companies and/or as an action in an unjustified trade war.

You'll have to be more specific. Qualcom, Verizon and ATT are network operators- they don't build the hardware. Neither Cisco or Apple are making 5G radio equipment that I can find. Cisco offers some edge devices like routers and network-to-cloud connectivity. Apple make iphones. I don't think the sanctions against Huawei have anything to do with Apple iphones or Cisco routers.

It's like I said on the first page of this thread. The question is whether or not you are comfortable with Huawei building out your 5G infrastructure.

I'm kind of surprised you would prefer a Chinese company over a European one for your next generation critical infrastructure, but hey- what do I know?

 

[Rob F.]

Oh come on. The entire video was about Iran.

Had nothing to do with this thread.

If you had actually watched it you would have heard Trump himself reply to the question of who he would want to invade. His answer: I want to invade, if I have to, economically.
Granted the theme of the interview was Iran but the commenter brought up Huawai as an example.

 

[guest]

It wasn't very long ago Trump was hammered in the media for trying to lift sanctions on ZTE- the left accused him of making back-door deals with Xi.

Now he wants to put sanctions on Huawei, and he is attacked for NOT doing what he wanted to do with ZTE.

TDS.

I've watched several congressional hearings on Huawei, and this is what always transpires- someone will ask about a specific Huawei transgression, and the response is this- "We can't give the details in an open hearing, but we will be happy to show you the specifics in a closed session".

I don't agree with that response, but I know where it comes from- that is the intel community does not want to reveal how much they know, because that also reveals how much they don't know.

And yet if you ask a congresscritter from either party if they would use a Huawei phone, they all say "not a chance".

 

[CarbideBob]

....

I would not mind finding out what you mention.Sorry it was a negative experience.

It was not a negative experience just disappointing
We got a phone call to stop all work, destroy all engineering documents, scrap all equipment built and send an invoice for all work that had been done.
Bill paid on time to the tune of 11 million dollars.

The entire personal computer world was built on what would now be called IP theft, or the silicon valley wars.
If you could not steal the info outright you simply paid a few key people 2, 3 or 5 times as much to come work for you.
Under nondisclosure agreements you built the above mentioned clean rooms for development that was all smoke and mirrors.
Everyone did it, it was SOP.

Before Japan had the cnc industry they do now they sent teams of people to places like IMTS to photograph everything.
I saw them doing such with tape measures strung out on USA built machine tools.
Not really theft as a open to the public showing but did bring about charges for a while in the IMTS rules.

This steal from competitors in any way possible has been going on in auto since the days of the model T and in personal computers since way before IBM built a PC.

Now it seems the pot wants to call the kettle black.
The population of China is just as intelligent as any are here.
A totally screwed up system kept them out of the industrial revolution.
Once that system changed they had all sorts of things already invented to capitalize on so progress at a rate never seen before.
Anyone who thinks US companies don't do this is to the point of questionable practices is rather naive of how the game actually is played.

In the USA there is accessing and using internet/cell traffic that simply can't be used in a court of law. Yet it can help your task.
Herein lays the tricks, If hawuie has a so called back door. Are we not watching it also or maybe using it?
Once the code is place it is there for all to scan.

5G is not a new world but simply more speed which if you had the 300 baud tops you would appreciate. That speedup opens up more things you can do.
The bad thing for all is that this will become laws and regulations done by people who can't write a "Hello World" in C or machine code and think a open port is something you dock your boat in.
Bob

 

[guest]

If you had actually watched it you would have heard Trump himself reply to the question of who he would want to invade. His answer: I want to invade, if I have to, economically.

I watched the video.

If I have to explain what Trump meant by that comment I can't help you. It seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Pariel]

You'll have to be more specific. Qualcom, Verizon and ATT are network operators- they don't build the hardware. Neither Cisco or Apple are making 5G radio equipment that I can find. Cisco offers some edge devices like routers and network-to-cloud connectivity. Apple make iphones. I don't think the sanctions against Huawei have anything to do with Apple iphones or Cisco routers.

It's like I said on the first page of this thread. The question is whether or not you are comfortable with Huawei building out your 5G infrastructure.

I'm kind of surprised you would prefer a Chinese company over a European one for your next generation critical infrastructure, but hey- what do I know?

Qualcomm makes chips and devices based on those chips. I'm not sure if that affects mobile phones as well as all the backbone infrastructure, but I suspect we'll be seeing Huawei branching out into chip manufacturing sooner rather than later (if they don't already, I don't know to be honest). It certainly does affect their competition with Cisco.

The question about whether it matters which heavily government supported organization provides our 5G network infrastructure is a good one (at least I think it is), but there's a whole lot of grey in any answer. Which government do you care more about spying on you? What are the downstream effects to consumers based on shutting Huawei out of the market? I'm not enough of an expert to answer any of those questions, and frankly don't think that I care enough to answer them -- you can't control everything.

 

[Mark Rand]

You'll have to be more specific. Qualcom, Verizon and ATT are network operators- they don't build the hardware. Neither Cisco or Apple are making 5G radio equipment that I can find. Cisco offers some edge devices like routers and network-to-cloud connectivity. Apple make iphones. I don't think the sanctions against Huawei have anything to do with Apple iphones or Cisco routers.

It's like I said on the first page of this thread. The question is whether or not you are comfortable with Huawei building out your 5G infrastructure.

I'm kind of surprised you would prefer a Chinese company over a European one for your next generation critical infrastructure, but hey- what do I know?

Sorry, I screwed up with Verizon and AT&T. Lack of due diligence in checking the website that I got the list from. .

Qualcom are definitely manufacturing in the 5G field as are Cisco, The link with apple is that the latest sanctions against Huawei affect their access many of the components of their mobile phones, even components not manufactured in the US or by US companies, but made or designed by companies that have facilities in the US. This is the sort of behaviour that some of us find so repugnant.

As for the Chinese or European company argument, I prefer the best price/performance. I think it's called the free market or capitalism or something like that. I don't see them as monsters under the bed, possibly because every single argument I've seen against them in the last few months has been hedged around with 'might' and 'could' rather than 'have' or 'did'. I don't like it when people try to manipulate the facts...

I need to cool off and go do some CAD practice, so SWMBO stops complaining about the money I spent on the software.

 

[guest]

Qualcomm makes chips and devices based on those chips. I'm not sure if that affects mobile phones as well as all the backbone infrastructure, but I suspect we'll be seeing Huawei branching out into chip manufacturing sooner rather than later (if they don't already, I don't know to be honest). It certainly does affect their competition with Cisco.

Yes, Qualcomm has a hardware component, I might characterize them as kind of a combination Verizon+Apple in the market space, but a relatively small player in comparison.

The question about whether it matters which heavily government supported organization provides our 5G network infrastructure is a good one (at least I think it is), but there's a whole lot of grey in any answer. Which government do you care more about spying on you? What are the downstream effects to consumers based on shutting Huawei out of the market? I'm not enough of an expert to answer any of those questions, and frankly don't think that I care enough to answer them -- you can't control everything.

I agree with all of this. If it's the US Gov't doing the spying, at least there is some level of accountability (in theory), the authorities and safeguards are set by the Congress who are (also in theory) accountable to the voters.

The US isn't telling other countries what to do. We are saying what we are going to do, and we are telling the 5 eyes partners what they will have to do- as it regards that network- if they want to preserve the 5 eyes structure. They can make their case why we are wrong, and we can make our case why we are right, and whatever happens is what will happen.

It's not a commercial decision, it's a national security decision. Nothing to do with Trump trying to reward Cisco, or that sort of reasoning.

edit to add: I should modify that last to say that commercial considerations are not the primary reason. Certainly Trump prefers US companies build the hardware, and do it in the US to the greatest extent possible.

 

[PDW]

5G is not a new world but simply more speed which if you had the 300 baud tops you would appreciate. That speedup opens up more things you can do.
The bad thing for all is that this will become laws and regulations done by people who can't write a "Hello World" in C or machine code and think a open port is something you dock your boat in.
Bob

Soooo - you had one of those modems where you inserted the telephone handset into the rubber cups, too?

That brings back some memories. Running FORTRAN programs on a CYBER computer using a line editor to write/modify the source code and the command code.

Agree 100% about the IT industry back then. But as I've said, few on this forum have lived through it from the sharp end. Me? I was working for the Australian Government chief research organisation, CSIRO Division of Computing Research, for a while back in the day. Fun times where stuff changed really fast.

PDW

 

[CarbideBob]

Soooo - you had one of those modems where you inserted the telephone handset into the rubber cups, too?

PDW

Oh yes and the CDC 6500 was my love and focus of life at one time. At the time so fast, now a 10 dollar cell phone will run circles around it.

Unsure and questioning why so many get all wrapped up in 5G and who leads in sales, there will be a 10G.
Nothing new here. It's all market hype.
Seeing how that market hype is eaten by the public is the more interesting section of the equation.
The consumer can in no way know how this stuff works so strange followings will occur around soundbites and fear.
Bob

 

[EmGo]

I find this entire duiscussion entertaining.

First, we are talking about telephones. Anyone doing national security over a cell phone is an idjut.

Second, the big deal about "back doors". Maybe think for two seconds ... if Huawei equipment starts sending enough data back to the motherland to mean anything, then someone at the telcom companies should notice, n'est-ce pas ? Has anyone documented evidence of these so-called back doors ?

Or, assuming the worst, maybe the evil minions of the devilish inscrutables back to beijing could turn off our phone service in a nukular war ! Yeah, well, maybe avoiding nukular wars might be a good plan.

Sure, I can understand wanting to have your own guys doing your own comms infrastructure. That makes sense.

But all this foofoo about them slant-eyes spying on the white hat 'murricans is STUPID ! Google does more spying in one day than Beijing could manage in ten years.

And 5 eyes can “deleted”. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..."


“Deleted” off, US gumming.

“Deletions vile language” -Spinit

 

[Trboatworks]

Second, the big deal about "back doors". Maybe think for two seconds ... if Huawei equipment starts sending enough data back to the motherland to mean anything, then someone at the telcom companies should notice, n'est-ce pas ? Has anyone documented evidence of these so-called back doors ?

.

Well there’s this:

African Union Bugged by China: Cyber Espionage as Evidence of Strategic Shifts | Council on Foreign Relations

Tech supplied and installed by China actively used for espionage.