4 ms·

For mobile telecom equipment: 1 Huawei 2 Ericsson 3 Nokia How helping out 2 of the largest actually competitive companies in EU to gain more market share in US

by qaq 7y ago

For mobile telecom equipment: 1 Huawei 2 Ericsson 3 Nokia How helping out 2 of the largest actually competitive companies in EU to gain more market share in US threatens EU security is beyond me

ahje 7y ago
The fact that the US has such a large impact on EU markets is a threat in itself. Sure, Europe and the United States are on decent terms now, but nobody knows how things will look in 5, 20 or even 100 years, and being that dependent on external parties is definitely a risk.
- geggam 7y ago
  Currently the US has an impact on the world markets. Not just the EU. While everyone agrees Trump is a buffoon the fact he is leveraging that in an attempt to benefit the US is waking people up to that fact.
  - ahje 7y ago
    > Currently the US has an impact on the world markets. Not just the EU. Absolutely! As a European I'm only looking at this from an EU-perspective, though. People from other parts of the World should do the same.
    - CharlesColeman 7y ago
      > Absolutely! As a European I'm only looking at this from an EU-perspective, though. People from other parts of the World should do the same. Isn't "only looking at this from a [MY NATION]-perspective" exactly what Trump is doing and is being criticized for?
emn13 7y ago
It may help those two firms, but the point isn't to make these two private entities rich it's national (and union) security: Huawei's existing customers - which exist in the US, but particularly in the EU - must now rely on a partner that through government fiat suddenly cannot be a reliable partner anymore. Also remarkable is how little power has to do anything about it. If they wanted to ensure continued reliability of existing infrastructure and infrastructure investments they can... try to nationlize huwawei's relevant IP? Nationalize Google's relevant IP? Both are extremely far-fetched, not to mention the fact that it's not just a matter of IP - replicating those companies respective skillsets probably isn't even feasible. The executive order could probably be subverted by passing along whatever info/IP huwawei needs since that info is likely also present in places outside of US reach, but that threatens escalation (and it's possible EU leaders don't trust huawei either, so they might not even want to do that, even if they could). Additionally, the implied suggestion that the EU is somehow better off because there is less competition for EU-headquartered (but not necessarily EU-owned) firms is pretty absurd. Less competition is almost certainly bad for the EU (and the US), regardless of who gets rich, simply becuase there are vastly more and more important users of this network tech than there are sellers. A nepotistic short-term win won't even budge the GDP needle, but reduced innovation in tech might. However little empathy you might have for Huawei's shareholders, the consequences for their clients at the very least bear pause.
- duxup 7y ago
  >the implied suggestion that the EU is somehow better off because there is less competition for EU-headquartered (but not necessarily EU-owned) firms is pretty absurd Distantly that has been part of the argument that somehow that allows for the EU to legislate the internet as it has .... but considering the legislation I'm not sure it has proven to be a positive.
  - emn13 7y ago
    Where did anybody argue that "regulating the internet" is a good idea because it reduces competition for EU-headquartered international companies? Oh well, people say crazy things sometimes. It's definitely a bad motivation - I don't think it's even remotely relevant as a practical motivation however, not least because there's just not a lot of upside to be had.
    - duxup 7y ago
      The idea has been put forth here and other places quite a few times that a lot of the recent EU regulation exists because of a lack of influence of those companies. Granted, you also would want to belive those regulations and laws are good things to enjoy that argument. I agree it is a strange POV. If anything I'm pointing out how kinda terrible that is as an argument.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by qaq 7y ago

For mobile telecom equipment: 1 Huawei 2 Ericsson 3 Nokia How helping out 2 of the largest actually competitive companies in EU to gain more market share in US threatens EU security is beyond me

ahje 7y ago

The fact that the US has such a large impact on EU markets is a threat in itself. Sure, Europe and the United States are on decent terms now, but nobody knows how things will look in 5, 20 or even 100 years, and being that dependent on external parties is definitely a risk.

geggam 7y ago
Currently the US has an impact on the world markets. Not just the EU. While everyone agrees Trump is a buffoon the fact he is leveraging that in an attempt to benefit the US is waking people up to that fact.
- ahje 7y ago
  > Currently the US has an impact on the world markets. Not just the EU. Absolutely! As a European I'm only looking at this from an EU-perspective, though. People from other parts of the World should do the same.
  - CharlesColeman 7y ago
    > Absolutely! As a European I'm only looking at this from an EU-perspective, though. People from other parts of the World should do the same. Isn't "only looking at this from a [MY NATION]-perspective" exactly what Trump is doing and is being criticized for?

emn13 7y ago

It may help those two firms, but the point isn't to make these two private entities rich it's national (and union) security: Huawei's existing customers - which exist in the US, but particularly in the EU - must now rely on a partner that through government fiat suddenly cannot be a reliable partner anymore. Also remarkable is how little power has to do anything about it. If they wanted to ensure continued reliability of existing infrastructure and infrastructure investments they can... try to nationlize huwawei's relevant IP? Nationalize Google's relevant IP? Both are extremely far-fetched, not to mention the fact that it's not just a matter of IP - replicating those companies respective skillsets probably isn't even feasible. The executive order could probably be subverted by passing along whatever info/IP huwawei needs since that info is likely also present in places outside of US reach, but that threatens escalation (and it's possible EU leaders don't trust huawei either, so they might not even want to do that, even if they could). Additionally, the implied suggestion that the EU is somehow better off because there is less competition for EU-headquartered (but not necessarily EU-owned) firms is pretty absurd. Less competition is almost certainly bad for the EU (and the US), regardless of who gets rich, simply becuase there are vastly more and more important users of this network tech than there are sellers. A nepotistic short-term win won't even budge the GDP needle, but reduced innovation in tech might. However little empathy you might have for Huawei's shareholders, the consequences for their clients at the very least bear pause.

duxup 7y ago
>the implied suggestion that the EU is somehow better off because there is less competition for EU-headquartered (but not necessarily EU-owned) firms is pretty absurd Distantly that has been part of the argument that somehow that allows for the EU to legislate the internet as it has .... but considering the legislation I'm not sure it has proven to be a positive.
- emn13 7y ago
  Where did anybody argue that "regulating the internet" is a good idea because it reduces competition for EU-headquartered international companies? Oh well, people say crazy things sometimes. It's definitely a bad motivation - I don't think it's even remotely relevant as a practical motivation however, not least because there's just not a lot of upside to be had.
  - duxup 7y ago
    The idea has been put forth here and other places quite a few times that a lot of the recent EU regulation exists because of a lack of influence of those companies. Granted, you also would want to belive those regulations and laws are good things to enjoy that argument. I agree it is a strange POV. If anything I'm pointing out how kinda terrible that is as an argument.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]