6 ms·

For me, the key quote: The United States and its allies were derelict in not developing a 5G supplier, former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said i

For me, the key quote: The United States and its allies were derelict in not developing a 5G supplier, former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in a speech in London in March. “With the benefit of hindsight it beggars belief that the countries which pioneered wireless technology – the United States, the UK, Germany, Japan and with wifi, Australia have got to the point where none of them are able to present to one of their own telcos a national, or a Five Eyes, champion in 5G,” he said. I would have thought Qualcomm, Cisco, Intel and the like would have been all over 5G. Why weren't they?

adventured 7y ago
I think there was substantial skepticism among those nations and those companies that anybody was going to beat them to the punch, specifically that China would present such a credible offering. China went from barely having any tech in 1999, to showing up for the race by 2009, to competing to lead in 5G by 2019. If you asked Intel, Cisco, Qualcomm, or the European suppliers, about that in 2005 or 2010, they would have never believed it. Simply put, I think they all believed they could take their time and that the market was theirs (resting on one's laurels). They underestimated China's determination. We'll see if they keep making that mistake.
- DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
  Absolutely right. Look at the profits if the incumbents over the last 20 years. Look at the huge number of vulnerabilities for Cisco alone and in many cases the ridiculousness of them (passwords, keys, backdoors). They largely became a licensing, consulting and training company.
- fmajid 7y ago
  There was no doubt. Even 20 years ago when I worked for France Telecom it was clear Huawei was going to eat Western telecom equipment manufacturers' lunch. They were outspending them 2:1.
otoburb 7y ago
The US doesn't have large domain players in the telecom space that supply the broad spectrum of equipment that runs what is known as the 4G EPC[1] or 5G Core[2] (data & packet processing) and RAN[3] (radio access network). Qualcomm and Intel focus and specialize on chips. Cisco focuses on layer 2, layer 3 and partially layer 7 equipment (think: routers & switches). Cisco has some products that compete against Huawei to a certain extent, alongside a wider product suite by Ericsson and Nokia, but all three vendors are more expensive than Huawei. From the article: "But the options are limited. Huawei is one of only three major global companies that analysts say can supply a broad range of advanced mobile network equipment at scale. The other two are Ericsson and Nokia. And Huawei has a reputation among telecom operators for supplying cost-effective equipment promptly." As per the article, Huwaei is flat out cheaper. On top of this, they provide good-enough products (sometimes better, sometimes not) across performance, feature, stability and scale dimensions. The telecom vendor game is often one of references and precedent, especially when dealing with large telecom groups operating in multiple countries (think: Orange Group, Deutsche Telekom Group, Telefonica Group, Vodafone Group, etc.). [1] https://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/100-the-evolved-packet-core https://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/100-the-... [2] https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2018/5/core-network-evolution-from-epc-to-5g-core-made-easy https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2018/5/core-network-evoluti... [3] https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-groups/ran-plenary https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-groups/ran-plenary
- beaner 7y ago
  Wonder if someone could elaborate on the hardware or what makes cell network hardware unique? Isn't it all just chips, boards, and cables?
  - otoburb 7y ago
    A modern wireless operator in its most simple terms is comprised of two very different networks: a radio access network of cell sites (aka RAN), and a data and packet processing network (aka Core). The two types of network are not heterogenous because their layer 1 characters are completely different (electromagnetic spectrum vs. wires), which has led to vendor specialization over the years as few companies are/were able to compete across the full suite of different workload characteristics demanded by data-plane and control-plane needs. Huawei's strength comes in their ability to provide an end-to-end turnkey solution for both types of networks at competitive prices with hardware & software that works.
ralph84 7y ago
This goes back to Carly Fiorina gutting Lucent (Western Electric and Bell Labs) before she gutted HP. Quite a career to set up the decline of two of the most iconic US tech companies.
- DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
  Let that animosity flow to the shareholders too.
gok 7y ago
Qualcomm, Cisco and Intel left the base station business a long time ago or were never in it. Samsung, Ericsson, Nokia all have 5G equipment, some of it semi-widely deployed already. None of the countries he mentioned had any 4G business to speak of either.
femto 7y ago
And is the Huawei ban also about giving the competition a chance to catch up?
pergadad 7y ago
Nokia

adventured 7y ago

I think there was substantial skepticism among those nations and those companies that anybody was going to beat them to the punch, specifically that China would present such a credible offering. China went from barely having any tech in 1999, to showing up for the race by 2009, to competing to lead in 5G by 2019. If you asked Intel, Cisco, Qualcomm, or the European suppliers, about that in 2005 or 2010, they would have never believed it. Simply put, I think they all believed they could take their time and that the market was theirs (resting on one's laurels). They underestimated China's determination. We'll see if they keep making that mistake.

DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
Absolutely right. Look at the profits if the incumbents over the last 20 years. Look at the huge number of vulnerabilities for Cisco alone and in many cases the ridiculousness of them (passwords, keys, backdoors). They largely became a licensing, consulting and training company.
fmajid 7y ago
There was no doubt. Even 20 years ago when I worked for France Telecom it was clear Huawei was going to eat Western telecom equipment manufacturers' lunch. They were outspending them 2:1.

otoburb 7y ago

The US doesn't have large domain players in the telecom space that supply the broad spectrum of equipment that runs what is known as the 4G EPC[1] or 5G Core[2] (data & packet processing) and RAN[3] (radio access network). Qualcomm and Intel focus and specialize on chips. Cisco focuses on layer 2, layer 3 and partially layer 7 equipment (think: routers & switches). Cisco has some products that compete against Huawei to a certain extent, alongside a wider product suite by Ericsson and Nokia, but all three vendors are more expensive than Huawei. From the article: "But the options are limited. Huawei is one of only three major global companies that analysts say can supply a broad range of advanced mobile network equipment at scale. The other two are Ericsson and Nokia. And Huawei has a reputation among telecom operators for supplying cost-effective equipment promptly." As per the article, Huwaei is flat out cheaper. On top of this, they provide good-enough products (sometimes better, sometimes not) across performance, feature, stability and scale dimensions. The telecom vendor game is often one of references and precedent, especially when dealing with large telecom groups operating in multiple countries (think: Orange Group, Deutsche Telekom Group, Telefonica Group, Vodafone Group, etc.). [1] https://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/100-the-evolved-packet-core https://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/100-the-... [2] https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2018/5/core-network-evolution-from-epc-to-5g-core-made-easy https://www.ericsson.com/en/blog/2018/5/core-network-evoluti... [3] https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-groups/ran-plenary https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-groups/ran-plenary

beaner 7y ago
Wonder if someone could elaborate on the hardware or what makes cell network hardware unique? Isn't it all just chips, boards, and cables?
- otoburb 7y ago
  A modern wireless operator in its most simple terms is comprised of two very different networks: a radio access network of cell sites (aka RAN), and a data and packet processing network (aka Core). The two types of network are not heterogenous because their layer 1 characters are completely different (electromagnetic spectrum vs. wires), which has led to vendor specialization over the years as few companies are/were able to compete across the full suite of different workload characteristics demanded by data-plane and control-plane needs. Huawei's strength comes in their ability to provide an end-to-end turnkey solution for both types of networks at competitive prices with hardware & software that works.

ralph84 7y ago

This goes back to Carly Fiorina gutting Lucent (Western Electric and Bell Labs) before she gutted HP. Quite a career to set up the decline of two of the most iconic US tech companies.

DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
Let that animosity flow to the shareholders too.

gok 7y ago

Qualcomm, Cisco and Intel left the base station business a long time ago or were never in it. Samsung, Ericsson, Nokia all have 5G equipment, some of it semi-widely deployed already. None of the countries he mentioned had any 4G business to speak of either.

femto 7y ago

And is the Huawei ban also about giving the competition a chance to catch up?

pergadad 7y ago

Nokia