6 ms·

Could anybody explain why would a Chinese dominance in the 6G standard-setting process would be to the detriment of US national security? Economic strategy, I g

Could anybody explain why would a Chinese dominance in the 6G standard-setting process would be to the detriment of US national security? Economic strategy, I get, but national security? It's not like only Chinese companies would be able to manufacture 6G chips once they'd set the standard... is it?

mtgx 9y ago
I don't think it's about the standard. It's about Qualcomm making most modems and about who owns Qualcomm. The US government worries that 90% of the modems will be produced by China (Broadcom/Qualcomm + Huawei + ZTE). I think this should absolutely be a concern for US national security. But I also think there's something they're not telling us here. A lot of this sounds like the US government may already have its own backdoors in Qualcomm modems, and they don't want to give that up. Whether that's real or not, the #1 concern is still that China would be able to backdoor any wireless equipment in the US from factory. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be taken seriously, especially when China requires by law backdoors in Chinese products and services.
- test001only 9y ago
  > The US government worries that 90% of the modems will be produced by China (Broadcom/Qualcomm + Huawei + ZTE). How is modems produced by Broadcom/Qualcomm categorized as being produced by China? Broadcom is currently headquartered in Singapore and apparently already in the process of moving it to US.
  - someguydave 9y ago
    I suspect USG’s real concern is that the Broadcom CEO will tell them to bring lots of money or screw off when USG comes a-knockin’ for special favors.
  - zebrafish 9y ago
    Broadcom wants to kill this part of QCOM's business allowing for Chinese companies to fill the void.
  - pertymcpert 9y ago
    The article makes it clear that the problem is not what Broadcom will do, but what they won't do.
RobertRoberts 9y ago
My economics teacher in high school (not a great source, I know) said that no country has ever been permanently conquered through military might alone. But countries have been by economics. If you believe this (or a variation of this idea) then it's reasonable to consider the possibility that China is using, or could possibly use, economics as a weapon.
- YCode 9y ago
  China is definitely doing this already, more effectively than any other country they view economics and other alternative forms of warfare as the bread and butter of diplomatic policy and they are very good at mixing it with realpolitik when for example building islands or offering foreign aid.
  - adventured 9y ago
    I agree, they're very clearly doing that already. Fortunately there's not much new about it however. Japan was supposed to conquer the world with its economy in the 1980s. Every headline breathlessly touted that fact. It was seemingly universally believed. They had a vast trade surplus, their market was hyper restricted to outsiders, they were rapidly generating wealth and had a higher GDP per capita than the US. The Japanese were conquering one industry after another, whether traditional industrial or electronics, and frequently accused of dumping as they went. Sound familiar? Today: US GDP per capita: $60,000 Japan: $38,000 If China does everything right, somehow avoids any recessions or depressions, sees no major consequences from dictator Xi, magically stops accumulating debt at a torrid pace - in about 20 years they'll finally catch up to the US economy in size. Given their population base, maybe it is inevitable; it won't be easy however. The US has been a comparatively very well oiled economic juggernaut for 150 years, and it's still rolling, commonly outpacing far smaller economies in growth. No country in world history has put together an economic stretch like the US has since the Civil War. China has a lot to prove about being able to manage something like that, especially under a power hungry dictatorship and utilizing a command & control tilted model. Filling in economic slack is the easiest part of growing an economy, that's where all the talking heads got Japan so wrong. Today all the talking heads are extrapolating China's easy fill-in-the-slack growth forward perpetually. They're going to be wrong again, the question is to what degree.
jancsika 9y ago
Because as the stories derived from the Snowden leaks show, nation-states hold vast troves of exploits and tricks up their sleeves to break and bypass security. Imagine a card game with the object of getting the best hand. Three communal cards are placed on a table face up. China and U.S. each hold their own cards which they don't show each other. Now imagine that China, the U.S., and a set of international researchers acting in good faith all interact to decide which communal cards are placed on the table face up. The researchers can give whatever constraints they want-- maybe they want all face cards, or all the same number or suit. The U.S. and China can "play along" while at the same time making choices within that set of the researcher's constraints to maximize the chance that they have the winning hand. U.S. and China can even guide the researchers away from one set of constraints to a different set if it improves their odds of winning. So if U.S. gets to guide the constraints exclusively they greatly increase their chances of winning.

mtgx 9y ago

I don't think it's about the standard. It's about Qualcomm making most modems and about who owns Qualcomm. The US government worries that 90% of the modems will be produced by China (Broadcom/Qualcomm + Huawei + ZTE). I think this should absolutely be a concern for US national security. But I also think there's something they're not telling us here. A lot of this sounds like the US government may already have its own backdoors in Qualcomm modems, and they don't want to give that up. Whether that's real or not, the #1 concern is still that China would be able to backdoor any wireless equipment in the US from factory. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be taken seriously, especially when China requires by law backdoors in Chinese products and services.

test001only 9y ago
> The US government worries that 90% of the modems will be produced by China (Broadcom/Qualcomm + Huawei + ZTE). How is modems produced by Broadcom/Qualcomm categorized as being produced by China? Broadcom is currently headquartered in Singapore and apparently already in the process of moving it to US.
- someguydave 9y ago
  I suspect USG’s real concern is that the Broadcom CEO will tell them to bring lots of money or screw off when USG comes a-knockin’ for special favors.
- zebrafish 9y ago
  Broadcom wants to kill this part of QCOM's business allowing for Chinese companies to fill the void.
- pertymcpert 9y ago
  The article makes it clear that the problem is not what Broadcom will do, but what they won't do.

RobertRoberts 9y ago

My economics teacher in high school (not a great source, I know) said that no country has ever been permanently conquered through military might alone. But countries have been by economics. If you believe this (or a variation of this idea) then it's reasonable to consider the possibility that China is using, or could possibly use, economics as a weapon.

YCode 9y ago
China is definitely doing this already, more effectively than any other country they view economics and other alternative forms of warfare as the bread and butter of diplomatic policy and they are very good at mixing it with realpolitik when for example building islands or offering foreign aid.
- adventured 9y ago
  I agree, they're very clearly doing that already. Fortunately there's not much new about it however. Japan was supposed to conquer the world with its economy in the 1980s. Every headline breathlessly touted that fact. It was seemingly universally believed. They had a vast trade surplus, their market was hyper restricted to outsiders, they were rapidly generating wealth and had a higher GDP per capita than the US. The Japanese were conquering one industry after another, whether traditional industrial or electronics, and frequently accused of dumping as they went. Sound familiar? Today: US GDP per capita: $60,000 Japan: $38,000 If China does everything right, somehow avoids any recessions or depressions, sees no major consequences from dictator Xi, magically stops accumulating debt at a torrid pace - in about 20 years they'll finally catch up to the US economy in size. Given their population base, maybe it is inevitable; it won't be easy however. The US has been a comparatively very well oiled economic juggernaut for 150 years, and it's still rolling, commonly outpacing far smaller economies in growth. No country in world history has put together an economic stretch like the US has since the Civil War. China has a lot to prove about being able to manage something like that, especially under a power hungry dictatorship and utilizing a command & control tilted model. Filling in economic slack is the easiest part of growing an economy, that's where all the talking heads got Japan so wrong. Today all the talking heads are extrapolating China's easy fill-in-the-slack growth forward perpetually. They're going to be wrong again, the question is to what degree.

jancsika 9y ago

Because as the stories derived from the Snowden leaks show, nation-states hold vast troves of exploits and tricks up their sleeves to break and bypass security. Imagine a card game with the object of getting the best hand. Three communal cards are placed on a table face up. China and U.S. each hold their own cards which they don't show each other. Now imagine that China, the U.S., and a set of international researchers acting in good faith all interact to decide which communal cards are placed on the table face up. The researchers can give whatever constraints they want-- maybe they want all face cards, or all the same number or suit. The U.S. and China can "play along" while at the same time making choices within that set of the researcher's constraints to maximize the chance that they have the winning hand. U.S. and China can even guide the researchers away from one set of constraints to a different set if it improves their odds of winning. So if U.S. gets to guide the constraints exclusively they greatly increase their chances of winning.