3 ms·

This is not new. I worked for a Comcast subsidiary who owned and operated a multi-state "cable" company who owned all of their end to end transport and had a cu

This is not new. I worked for a Comcast subsidiary who owned and operated a multi-state "cable" company who owned all of their end to end transport and had a customer base of around 250k at the time. They installed all fiber and HFC networks in the ground, thus they also owned all the fiber transport gear. We had been in a bake off between Infinera (US based) and Huawei for long-haul transport until a three letter agency paid a visit and made the decision for us. So... Either one of two things was true: the three letter agency was protecting US consumers or the three letter agency already had Infinera backdoored. My personal opinion in the matter was the former. Why? Because later that same year the data center was shut down one night and off limits for all changes and users. The next day a large, locked and tamper taped mobile rack was in the DC with 100Gb link into core routing. That led me to believe gaining access to siphoning traffic was not really the issue. But I could also be wrong because I wasn't in the know. This was in 2010-2011, pre-Snowden.

contingencies 9y ago
The same thing happened to Vodafone (the major cellular carrier and therefore nation's largest ISP) in Australia circa 2013. Next-gen gear bids were under consideration, Huawei came in by far cheapest, but an Australian government agency visited and essentially suggested they were free to buy Huawei however they may not have their licenses renewed.
tgsovlerkhgsel 9y ago
A third possibility is that they're using this influence to give an economic advantage to US-based companies, and a disadvantage to foreign (or specifically Chinese) ones. Could also be all three of course.
- anyeverynothing 9y ago
  You're right it could be anything and everything. But knowing what I know about intelligence agencies and China it was most likely a fair warning to the US citizen.
- psergeant 9y ago
  The economic argument is difficult to make, because it raises costs on American companies who are consumers.
  - aaronblohowiak 9y ago
    you don't want the only source of essential infrastructure to be an adversary so the "economic" argument may also be strategic but in a different way.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Unless of course those consumers have less influence on politicians that huge telcos (and the costs are negligible anyway)
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    I don't think that's true. You just need one party to be on good terms.

contingencies 9y ago

The same thing happened to Vodafone (the major cellular carrier and therefore nation's largest ISP) in Australia circa 2013. Next-gen gear bids were under consideration, Huawei came in by far cheapest, but an Australian government agency visited and essentially suggested they were free to buy Huawei however they may not have their licenses renewed.

tgsovlerkhgsel 9y ago

A third possibility is that they're using this influence to give an economic advantage to US-based companies, and a disadvantage to foreign (or specifically Chinese) ones. Could also be all three of course.

anyeverynothing 9y ago
You're right it could be anything and everything. But knowing what I know about intelligence agencies and China it was most likely a fair warning to the US citizen.
psergeant 9y ago
The economic argument is difficult to make, because it raises costs on American companies who are consumers.
- aaronblohowiak 9y ago
  you don't want the only source of essential infrastructure to be an adversary so the "economic" argument may also be strategic but in a different way.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Unless of course those consumers have less influence on politicians that huge telcos (and the costs are negligible anyway)
- emodendroket 9y ago
  I don't think that's true. You just need one party to be on good terms.