3 ms·
It's wrong I think to imply the equivalence of the use of backdoors by the US and China because they would be used for totally different purposes, with only som
by jariel 7y ago
It's wrong I think to imply the equivalence of the use of backdoors by the US and China because they would be used for totally different purposes, with only some minor overlap.
The other issue regarding 5G is China's leveraging of the IP system to protect its own agency abroad, while not allowing any meaningful competition within its own borders.
Additionally, they're using a massive financing scheme to almost bribe carriers into buying equipment on extremely good terms with super low-interest rate loans.
I think it's much better to 'worry about it'.
There either has to be some very rigorous inspection scheme or, equipment can only be made by certified players (like Eriksson) because there's too much risk otherwise.
The West should consider completely ignoring China's IP on 5G, and frankly, using their IP. When China complains about being 'ripped off' we simply use the same deferential language they use on us.
Certainly, government-backed financing should be banned within any kind of trade deal. The equivalent would be the US government using the Treasure and literally the Federal Reserve to fudge currency to, among other things, provide super-cheap financing to customers around the world. Or maybe the US should just do that? Invest $10B in a new equipment maker, and then print $100B at the Fed to provide cheap financing to said companies customers?
It seems like maybe I'm beeing 'tongue-in-cheek' by making such preposterous and radical solutions?
The thing is I'm not ... in fact, what I'm describing parallels exactly what China does as part of their national strategy.
Our policy towards China usually reflects the kind of actions modern states might take among one another, but they are playing a completely different game, and it's as if we're collectively naive to it all.
These are big, serious games that involve massive intelligence issues, massive industries, massive industrial and IP control.
All of that said, maybe there is a nifty way to obviate the problem by using some kind of networking technique to render such back doors moot - that would be cool!
- Taniwha 7y agoBut what you describe (encouraging people to buy your stuff by making it cheaper to them) is, um, "capitalism", I'm pretty sure that "capitalism" is also still available in most western countries (except of course ones that are banning competition by banning some vendors, or by setting up trade barriers and tariffs)
- jariel 7y agoNo, absolutely not. 'Dumping' isn't 'making stuff cheaper', it's illegal in most countries. [1] Second, it's not 'capitalism' when the government intervenes with massive subsidies, or worse, leverages the financial system and central bank to support an initiative. You basically can't have any reasonable kind of trade with countries that engage in these practices. This issue is fundamentally why trade deals take so long: nations go to lengths to make sure the other side doesn't 'cheat'. One area of constant contention is agricultural subsidies. Because food production is seen as a 'strategic issue', countries feel the need to subsidize, but those subsidies aren't the same in each nation, causing serious competitive issues. China plays the game to their advantage, fair enough - but the West should not simply allow China to have arbitrary leverage. It'd be better in the long run if everyone played fair, but so long as they want to play with shenanigans, those shenanigans should be returned in kind [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)