I don't know whether this is technologically sound but a few things to bear in mind: * Before they took this decision, the govt consulted with the UK's Cyber S

I don't know whether this is technologically sound but a few things to bear in mind: * Before they took this decision, the govt consulted with the UK's Cyber Security Centre (these guys are not meek civil servants...GCHQ end up owning every Home Secretary, they are powerful). * The distinction they made was between allowing Huawei into the "core" part of the UK's networks. * Because Huawei won't provide "core" infrastructure, there is no risk. Tbh, I am not an expert but this sounded very wrong to me. 5G is going to require building out a dense blanket of receivers...if you let them do this, then they are in...it doesn't matter. The suggestion was that sensitive data is only carried through certain infrastructure...I don't really buy this because it doesn't really protect 5G which is obviously a component of the network anyway, and I don't really believe that there is some kind of parallel internet out there for GCHQ only...but I don't know. To me, this sounded a lot like cheapness. The issue with lack of competition was brought up in the Parliamentary debate...that is a problem that exists but the way to solve that is not to buy equipment from unsafe providers (the Foreign Secretary seemed to accept btw, that Huawei was controlled by the Chinese govt).