6 ms·

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]

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.
  - JTon 7y ago
    > 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 Plus an army of support engineers to help you turn-up and operate your new network.
  - likeabbas 7y ago
    Couldn’t one argue that their strength in cost efficiency was largely built on the theft of IP? Without the IP barriers western countries abide by, they were able to take the best technology from multiple companies, implement it and sell it at a fraction of the price?
    - freeflight 7y ago
      Sure one could argue that, but to do that convincingly it would probably best to bring concrete evidence of what IP was supposedly stolen to facilitate the Huawei tech.
      - trepanne 7y ago
        Huawei's theft of Cisco's IP is common knowledge, and well documented. https://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-correcting-the-record https://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-c...
        v-yadli 7y ago
        yeah, STRCMP. And I wouldn't call it "documented", unless it provides references to the official reports. The link points to a Cisco site, and what would you expect Cisco to say? here's a legacy archive of the relevant articles from a Chinese third-party site: http://tech.sina.com.cn/focus/cisco_huawei/ http://tech.sina.com.cn/focus/cisco_huawei/ I'm a bit surprised it is still kept intact after some 20 years. You could see trails of history -- mind the "Google it" header at the top.
        7y ago
- vageli 7y ago
  "Just" chips? The amount of research and development that goes into designing and fabricating chips used for wireless radio technologies is not so easily written off with a "just".
  - beaner 7y ago
    I was hoping I could get away with an honest simple question without having to qualify all the assumptions and naïvities in it.
    - vageli 7y ago
      I mean, aren't chips just electrons, protons and neutrons? :) More seriously, the 5g spec is a complicated and long document. Implementing 5g functionality in silicon is not a weekend project and implementations tend to be protected by NDAs and kept as trade secrets, etc. Ultimately the rationale is that development of these technologies is a complex, non-open-source, and costly endeavor. The nuances of _why_ this is the status quo are more human than technical in nature.
fmajid 7y ago
According to the Chief Architect of BT, Huawei's 5G technology is so far ahead of Nokia and Ericsson they are not even contenders: https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/bts-mcrae-huawei-is-the-only-true-5g-supplier-right-now/d/d-id/747734 https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/bts-mcrae-huawei-is-t... For Europeans, they have to balance the possibility of Chinese espionage against the certainty that the US and UK are already doing it: * https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/02/wikileaks-us-spied-on-angela-merkels-ministers-too-says-german-newspaper https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/02/wikileaks-us-s... * https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq-inside-story/ https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq-insid... In that light, Huawei equipment that the Chinese government tries to make as immune to the 5 Eyes as possible may actually be preferable. Granted, neither Nokia nor Ericsson are US companies or subject to direct US pressure the way, say, Lucent would have been, or Cisco is, but the US has suborned equipment makers in neutral countries before, as with Crypto AG: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33676028 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33676028
- parineum 7y ago
  >In that light, Huawei equipment that the Chinese government tries to make as immune to the 5 Eyes as possible may actually be preferable. Unless you're contributing to or benefitting from that 5 eyes intel. Our governments aren't as averse to these things as you and I are.
- User23 7y ago
  On the plus side, this means there's an opportunity for the US to commit some tit for tat industrial espionage to catch up.

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.
- JTon 7y ago
  > 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 Plus an army of support engineers to help you turn-up and operate your new network.
- likeabbas 7y ago
  Couldn’t one argue that their strength in cost efficiency was largely built on the theft of IP? Without the IP barriers western countries abide by, they were able to take the best technology from multiple companies, implement it and sell it at a fraction of the price?
  - freeflight 7y ago
    Sure one could argue that, but to do that convincingly it would probably best to bring concrete evidence of what IP was supposedly stolen to facilitate the Huawei tech.
    - trepanne 7y ago
      Huawei's theft of Cisco's IP is common knowledge, and well documented. https://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-correcting-the-record https://blogs.cisco.com/news/huawei-and-ciscos-source-code-c...
      - v-yadli 7y ago
        yeah, STRCMP. And I wouldn't call it "documented", unless it provides references to the official reports. The link points to a Cisco site, and what would you expect Cisco to say? here's a legacy archive of the relevant articles from a Chinese third-party site: http://tech.sina.com.cn/focus/cisco_huawei/ http://tech.sina.com.cn/focus/cisco_huawei/ I'm a bit surprised it is still kept intact after some 20 years. You could see trails of history -- mind the "Google it" header at the top.
        7y ago
vageli 7y ago
"Just" chips? The amount of research and development that goes into designing and fabricating chips used for wireless radio technologies is not so easily written off with a "just".
- beaner 7y ago
  I was hoping I could get away with an honest simple question without having to qualify all the assumptions and naïvities in it.
  - vageli 7y ago
    I mean, aren't chips just electrons, protons and neutrons? :) More seriously, the 5g spec is a complicated and long document. Implementing 5g functionality in silicon is not a weekend project and implementations tend to be protected by NDAs and kept as trade secrets, etc. Ultimately the rationale is that development of these technologies is a complex, non-open-source, and costly endeavor. The nuances of _why_ this is the status quo are more human than technical in nature.

fmajid 7y ago

According to the Chief Architect of BT, Huawei's 5G technology is so far ahead of Nokia and Ericsson they are not even contenders: https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/bts-mcrae-huawei-is-the-only-true-5g-supplier-right-now/d/d-id/747734 https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/bts-mcrae-huawei-is-t... For Europeans, they have to balance the possibility of Chinese espionage against the certainty that the US and UK are already doing it: * https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/02/wikileaks-us-spied-on-angela-merkels-ministers-too-says-german-newspaper https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/02/wikileaks-us-s... * https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq-inside-story/ https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq-insid... In that light, Huawei equipment that the Chinese government tries to make as immune to the 5 Eyes as possible may actually be preferable. Granted, neither Nokia nor Ericsson are US companies or subject to direct US pressure the way, say, Lucent would have been, or Cisco is, but the US has suborned equipment makers in neutral countries before, as with Crypto AG: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33676028 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33676028

parineum 7y ago
>In that light, Huawei equipment that the Chinese government tries to make as immune to the 5 Eyes as possible may actually be preferable. Unless you're contributing to or benefitting from that 5 eyes intel. Our governments aren't as averse to these things as you and I are.
User23 7y ago
On the plus side, this means there's an opportunity for the US to commit some tit for tat industrial espionage to catch up.