14 ms·
Bell, Telus to use Nokia and Ericsson, not Huawei, in building their 5G networks
- abledon 6y agohas anyone had to hear their crazy relatives go on about the dangers of 5G? Is there some penultimate youtube video or resource to point people to to assuage their fears?
- spaceisballer 6y agoPeople talk about it on social media. I have yet to encounter anyone in the wild mentioning it. It’s just one of those things that a small minority latch on to and the internet gives them a loudspeaker.
- yabones 6y agoElectroBoom has a great video that goes in depth about the electromagnetic spectrum, what 'Ionizing Radiation' is, and how EM interacts with humans, and is entertaining enough to keep you watching. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4pxw4tYeCU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4pxw4tYeCU
- MattGaiser 6y agoA friend has some great stories of some relatives purchasing these lined coats for when it is rolled out.
- bzb3 6y agoLined coats? More info about this, please? Sounds funny.
- MattGaiser 6y agoThese people see 5G as this set of radioactive beams which is between the tower and the phone. Radiation causes cancer and vomiting as far as their information (HBO’s Chernobyl) is concerned. They see the solution in the clothing of the liquidators from that rooftop scene, i.e. those thick black gowns of lead lining. They want coats instead though as the gowns look too poor for them. They are looking to purchase such a thing for themselves to walk around in. I take it they missed the part about it being 70 lbs.
- supernova87a 6y agoI would imagine the lead in the clothing poses more of a threat to their health than the radio waves.
- jotm 6y agoYeah, copper or aluminum would work just as well, if not better :D
- Lammy 6y agoYou probably shouldn't call people "crazy" if you hope to ever bring them around to your viewpoint.
- MattGaiser 6y agoDoes anyone hope that at this point?
- Cyph0n 6y agoIt’s not a viewpoint, it’s a fact. Important difference.
- Lammy 6y agoThe 'crazies' seem to do an okay job sharing the reality they perceive. Don't limit yourself with a belief that only one viewpoint on a given topic is The One Truth™. A person's sincere belief in something is what that makes that thing true.
- Cyph0n 6y agoI’m not “limiting” myself at all. I simply don’t care enough to waste my time. Arguing with flat earthers gets tiring very quickly.
- mthoms 6y agoI agreed when you said you shouldn't call people crazy. But this... >A person's sincere belief in something is what that makes that thing true. ...is dangerous B.S. As they saying goes — People are entitled to their own opinions, they aren't entitled to their own facts.
- Lammy 6y agoYeah, I get it. But then you have to define 'fact', and as far as I can tell the only thing that makes something factual is when enough people share the same opinion about it.
- mycall 6y agoI thought it was going to affect weather satellites or something.
- adventured 6y agoI spent many hours arguing with a smart friend about this. I was unable to find any argument to get her to stop believing 5G is boiling/damaging/altering people's blood with "high powered energy waves" or similar (the blood clot revelations have only amplified that conspiracy angle). I find a commonality among most conspiracy theory people is vast ignorance of the topic in question and any underlying science. This isn't always true, however I've found it to be frequently true. They watch YouTube or Facebook videos on a conspiracy, someone states an incorrect thing that is held up as being scientifically correct; the conspiracy minded person has no idea it's wrong because of their ignorance of science, and their eagerness to consume conspiracies prevents them from being willing to do proper research. They buy in with no skepticism. Often the conversation would end on a variation of: when the pandemic is gone, and 5G is still here, then what happens to your conspiracy? They had no reply, the future risk of being wrong didn't matter, only the mental juice of the conspiracy here and now. Or: what about locations where there is no 5G and people are still widely getting the virus? No answer. Or: why is this event so interesting as to warrant outlandish conspiracy theories, versus the pandemics of 1957 or 1968 or 1918, which were not caused by 5G? Or: why didn't 4G kill everyone, despite the absurd conspiracy theories about that as well? It usually does no good, they ignore the premise because that's in the past, they're all about the conspiracy now (it's the only place they can mentally hide, because the conspiracy going on now is usually still open-ended, yet to be crushed fully). The conspiracy they're latched on to in the present is interesting because all big events are interesting to the conspiracy brain. Particularly big active events. Once an event is disproven, they usually instantly forget it ever existed or that they were ever wrong, and move on to the latest thing occupying the news or culture that is worthy of conspiracy theories (it typically has to be a major event or their brains won't latch onto it). I'm convinced at this point in my life, after decades of arguing with conspiracy-minded types, that it's a mis-wiring or imbalance in the brain that tilts people aggressively toward being prone to falling for conspiracy theories. They also seem to need the rush of it (which again makes me wonder about an imbalance in their brains). The way they behave intellectually is incredibly similar; when you get inside their way of thinking via long discussions, you start to see weirdly repeating patterns of thinking, traps, failures of logic, and so on. I find that people prone to it, can't seem to help themselves, they swallow conspiracy theories widely about numerous topics and rarely are capable of intellectual skepticism. It almost strikes me as an illness in how they seem hostage to it, and sort of reminds me of drug addicts I've known. Like arguing with a helpless zombie that can't alter their behavior under any circumstances, no matter what evidence they're presented with.
- aembleton 6y agoNo, but I have had a discussion with someone on the next door social network (for discussing with neighbours). I was trying to understand their objections to 5G, and it boiled down to them conflating frequency and power. So, when they heard 26GHz, that meant 26 times more power than 1GHz. The higher frequencies are what scare them, even though they are less than visible light.
- bagacrap 6y agoI don't know what you meant by "penultimate", perhaps indisputable? But if you don't know of such a resource, how are you so convinced they're wrong? Margarine (with its trans fats) was declared healthy and safe for a long time, until it wasn't.
- O_H_E 6y agoFor the unfamiliar, these are the bigger 2 of the big 3 ISPs in Canada. The basically own most of the actual telecommunication infrastructure, Rogers got some but not much.
- jbay808 6y agoAs the article mentions, Rogers already had a long-standing partnership with Ericsson and was already going ahead with them.
- parthdesai 6y agoAlso known as Robellus :)
- mthoms 6y ago>Rogers got some but not much. The Rogers network is massive. Bell (which is larger in the east) and Telus (western based) share infrastructure. Rogers is their nation-wide competitor. Rogers' LTE network covers 95% of the population (according to wiki). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Wireless#LTE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Wireless#LTE
- jbay808 6y agoFor a long period of time, these companies would not publicly commit to going ahead without Huawei for 5G, and despite pressure from the US (and warnings from CSIS), the Canadian government still has not made an announcement about whether Huawei would be restricted as a supplier. Many Canadians were frustrated by this, feeling like they didn't want Huawei networks but that they weren't being heard. It occurs to me now that had any of those steps been taken before reaching a deal with Ericsson, it would have given Ericsson a much stronger bargaining position and they probably could have charged a lot more. This isn't the first time where I've felt frustrated, unheard, and kept in the dark, only to later realize that there may have been important considerations that I just wasn't aware of.
- Scoundreller 6y agoJust goes to show that Canadian telecom policy is controlled by telecoms, not by the government. It's very cozy and regularly functions to discourage competition. Canadian telecom policy still revolves around "facilities-based competition", where it's believed that new entrants should build out a new network. It's designed to fail. Even the incumbents, Bell and Telus, share a 3G/4G mobile network to avoid redundant infrastructure. Ironically, the two contracted Huawei and Nokia to build out this network: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/bell-teams-up-with-rival-telus-on-3g/article1200256/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/bell-teams-up-wit... Huawei was marketing 5G directly to Canadian consumers for a while, but was careful to never mention/imply that 5G could lower pricing. That would be a thermonuclear threat to telecoms with dire consequences.
- jbay808 6y agoI agree with all your points, but does this go to show that? I'm not aware of what was going on behind the scenes. It could easily have been that the Canadian government told the telecoms a long time ago that they wouldn't be allowed to use Huawei, but kept this secret for the sake of contract negotiations. Do you know this not to be the case?
- Scoundreller 6y ago
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y agoI'm as much a proponent of free trade as the next guy, but I do think there's a strong argument for trying to build and maintaining one's own infrastructure whenever possible, even if it's a bit more expensive. Not just for national security concerns, but because they're big domestic projects and it's nice to have to the talent and knowledge at home.
- markus_zhang 6y agoJust to note that purchasing equipment from Nokia and Ericsson doesn't mean that you are "building and maintaining one's own infrastructure". As a bonus the network is also actively listened by all state players who have the ability to do so, regardless of supplier.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y agoRight, I was making an argument for domestic solutions, which wouldn't include Nokia or Ericsson - I could've been more clear.
- TorKlingberg 6y agoMobile network equipment is complicated enough that you can't expect every country to make their own from scratch. It's a bit like trying to make a domestic mobile OS or web browser.
- adventured 6y ago> equipment from Nokia and Ericsson doesn't mean that you are "building and maintaining one's own infrastructure". More than that, it's buying from allies, both political and ideological. I regard most of Europe as a liberalism ally, I'm entirely ok with my nation's telecom gear coming from eg Germany, France, Britain, Sweden, Finland and so on. They use software from Microsoft or Adobe, and hardware from nVidia, Cisco, Intel or AMD. I'm more than happy to use their telecom gear, including paying a higher price.
- 6y ago
- zinckiwi 6y agoAh, but will conspiracy theorists use Bic or Zippo to burn them down?
- pselbert 6y agoPossibly a bit of a stretch, but to my mind more business for Ericsson means more guaranteed support for Erlang. That's something to celebrate about in my book.
- artsyca 6y agoI like how you think
- arcticbull 6y agoI never put it together that for the the telecom-originating language Erlang, the "Er" stood for Ericsson. The more you know. 'The name Erlang, attributed to Bjarne Däcker, has been presumed by those working on the telephony switches (for whom the language was designed) to be a reference to Danish mathematician and engineer Agner Krarup Erlang and a syllabic abbreviation of "Ericsson Language".' [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlang_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlang_(programming_language)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Tiktaalik 6y agoHuge relief to the government, who can now "approve" Huawei, and can go to the Chinese government and say, "see look we play fair in Canada", and still be sure that this will mean nothing and that no Huawei equipment will be used. Wouldn't be surprised if the government asked the establishment telcos to do this favour for them. Huawei and the notion of them building Canadian 5G polls insanely badly in Canada and the government was in a tough place here.
- arcticbull 6y agoThe relationship between Canada and China isn't exactly cuddly warm right now, what with Meng Wanzhou detained in Vancouver at the request of the Americans, and China's execution of a few unrelated Canadians in retribution [1]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/china-sentences-another-canadian-man-to-death-amid-huawei-feud https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-30/china-sen...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jariel 6y agoThis was absolutely a strategic consideration planned in concert with the government. There are no surprises for anyone here. Literally not making the public announcement was probably the decision arrived at by Trudeau et. al. I'm not sure if it was the right move, though it's almost assuredly a planned thing.
- alwaysanon 6y agoMy mobile carrier in Australia (Vodafone) was 100% Huawei for 4G and, similarly, has had to pivot away for 5G at great expense (it seems that the Huawei 5G was a cheaper upgrade to the existing kit they had). It has delayed them doing 5G for at least a year trying to make both the tech and commercials work to pivot. https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/vodafone-signs-nokia-for-5g-huawei-sites-to-be-scaled-back-20191230-p53ni6.html https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/vodafone-signs-nok...
- supernova87a 6y agoI would love to know whether the fundamental objection over security vulnerabilities in the hardware and software of Huawei is resolved with this decision. Or if Nokia and Ericsson are just as susceptible and it was just political posturing.
- mthoms 6y agoIt's not vulnerabilities they're worried about. The Chinese Communist Party effectively controls Huawei. For obvious reasons this is much more risky than sourcing equipment from ideological/political allies in Europe.
- mthoms 6y agoHmm, this the first time I've been downvoted so hard and coincidentally, also the first time I've ever mentioned the CCP. What a wild coincidence. /s
- rubatuga 6y agoBell is already using Huawei components in other parts of their network. When I opened my Bell fiber modem last year, I noticed Bell was using a 1.25 Gbit Huawei SFP+ transceiver. Is there any possibility of a backdoor?
- kevin_nisbet 6y ago> Is there any possibility of a backdoor? In a transceiver, I find it quite unlikely. Usually the main question is to ask, what would the benefit and cost of that backdoor be (and the risk of discovery). So if Huawei managed to backdoor that transceiver, what could they accomplish with it? Chain it to exploit some vulnerability in the router the component is plugged into. Include a bunch of extra hardware and a capacitor, to allow it to surge the port on command to try and burn out your router? Try and sniff intelligence on that 1.25gbps connection, using some tiny low power embedded processor? If your worth investing in an attack against, their are probably far cheaper ways to attack you specifically, instead of backdooring every transceiver and hoping you end up getting one. Now, if you're the government your threat model might look a bit different, although, a transceiver is still a hard component to do something useful with a backdoor.
- justicezyx 6y agoAFAIK there has not been serious technical evidence for backdoors in Huawei products. I totally agree with the argument that national state should own and control their own infrastructure. But I don't think it actually serves them to use exaggerated claims.
- Synaesthesia 6y agoYou should ask the same for other/western manufacturers especially after PRISM was revealed.
- severino 6y agoYes, there is. However, you should not be worried. I mean, as a western citizen, I prefer my data to be in the hands of a government which has nothing to do with me, instead of my own government. That's what this is all about. Trump wasn't banning Huawei so the Chinese couldn't spy on you. He did it so HE could spy on you.
- lihan 6y agoAnyone who lives in Canada should comment on this. Their mobile data cost is over the roof expensive! This is in comparison already expensive cost in Australia. They need to manage to give everyone affordable 5G monthly data plan first!
- jbay808 6y agoCanadian here. I don't especially care about having a 5G plan, but I support this decision.
- snowwindwaves 6y agoRogers used Ericsson before and they were no cheaper than Telus that was heavy huawei. Geography and population density and lack of competition are what make Canadian wireless more expensive than other countries. Either way I would rather pay more and not rely on China. Also I'm holding a grudge against huawei due to Nortel being hacked.
- chvid 6y agoIn other news; here in Denmark the government has barred Huawei by decree. Also covering Greenland and Faroe Islands. The situation is a bit different here since as there are multiple competing network operators (at least in mainland DK). Germany's main network operators are also decling Huawei; not by direct government decree though. So Huawei seems to be loosing 5G contracts all over the western world.
- chvid 6y agoActually in which western countries will Huawei implement 5G networks? I know they are technically allowed some places but no operators dare to hire them.
- Synaesthesia 6y agoSouth Africa, well I don’t know if it counts as western but we’re rolling out 5G and using Huawei, as we did for our previous gen towers.
- tibbydudeza 6y agoWell you can't beat their pricing ... we don't have the luxury of spending $$$ on an ideological decision.
- jotm 6y agoAre they really cheaper? Anyone have the prices? I think even if they're cheaper now, they'll raise their prices later. And then you'd just be lining up the CCPs pockets at the expense of EU companies (does not apply to SA, I'm just saying for EU citizens). I was really disappointed in their newest high end phones. On par with Samsung in quality and price, but instead of making them more open (for custom mods and ROMs) they just went down the lockdown route. "Bootloader is locked for the user's safety"... Yeah, right. Shame, that's one thing they could've kept doing to distinguish themselves and their products.
- 6y ago
- augustt 6y agoThat's great. Picking Scandinavia over China (CCP really) should be a no-brainer, if you care about who you're doing business with.
- mrweasel 6y agoI love seeing Nokia and Ericsson do well, but in all this I feel like there's something most people, and governments fail to realize: Sure, Huawei could add backdoors to their equipment, but why bother? Telcos often have Huawei run their networks anyway, they have access to the network via the Chinese employees. That's also the only way they would be able to exfiltrate large amounts of data without anyone noticing. I don't know about Nokia, but Ericsson manages networks from low wage eastern European countries. I'm sure that China could easily pay off a few Romanians with they really cared enough. The mandate on the phone companies should be to manage their own networks, or require staff local to the country in which the network is deployed.
- quietthrow 6y agoCan somebody articulate why using huawei a bad idea beside it’s a Chinese company and using those equipments gives China backdoor access into critical systems and everything it connects to. Or is that basically it? I am trying to understand this objectively as if sitting on mars why this is a good or bad idea.
- sangnoir 6y agoUsing Huawei will pump money into Huawei pockets - allowing them to spend more on R&D for the next-gen tech (6G), resulting in China cementing technological primacy in telecoms - which just won't do as such proficiencies tend to spill-over into related fields (chip design & fabrication, RF engineering & software chops for civilian and military applications). All this is bad (from the perspective of the US)
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- xondono 6y agoAFAIK, most companies weren’t even planning on using Huawei equipment, they used the threat to lower prices from other suppliers, and then those suppliers countered that by getting Huawei banned through lobbying.
- bagacrap 6y agoI think we're learning the value of being self sufficient and the downsides of globalizing everything all the time. When the next [cold, hot, trade] war starts, it will pay to have the expertise to run your own infrastructure.
- LatteLazy 6y agoDespite zero actual evidence, everyone seems sure that Huawei are a security issue. Despite enormous evidence, everyone seems sure that Western countries are NOT a security issue. Last time I checked, Huawei actually offered a better product (speed, price, reliability). Am I missing something or are people cheering for the opportunity to pay more for a worse product with more security issues?!
- bb123 6y agoThe issue isn't the product itself - the issue is that the company that produces is controlled by an outwardly hostile foreign nation that has a history of carrying out state sponsored cyber attacks against critical infrastructure in the west.
- LatteLazy 6y agoHelp me out here: link me to an actual Chinese state sponsored cyber attack. There are a few that might of possibly could have been something or maybe not according to someone. I don't doubt china are capable, but they don't seem to be doing it. And that's exactly the same as the US. Plus the US are actively spying including using their power to support US companies and undermine democracies. I wanna be clear here, neither "side" is to be trusted or safe or fine. But China is no more of a threat to third party nations' network security that the US as far as I can tell. And I am normally the one being Hawkish on China.
- TecoAndJix 6y agoCheck out Mandiant's summary on APT1 [0]. Two brief excerpts from that report: -APT1 is believed to be the 2nd Bureau of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) General Staff Department’s (GSD) 3rd Department (总参三部二局), which is most commonly known by its Military Unit Cover Designator (MUCD) as Unit 61398 (61398部队). -APT1 has systematically stolen hundreds of terabytes of data from at least 141 organizations, and has demonstrated the capability and intent to steal from dozens of organizations simultaneously. [0] https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/services/pdfs/mandiant-apt1-report.pdf https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/services/pdf...
- arrty88 6y agoDoes it really matter? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19449824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19449824
- sorenjan 6y agoNokia phones are made by HMD Global, a different company that licenses the Nokia brand.
- gdsdfe 6y agoCanadians don't realize how high their telco bills are because that's their reality they don't know prices elsewhere and the closest neighbour have also high prices
- majormjr 6y agoOh we realize they are extremely expensive, unfortunately there isn't much we can do to increase telco competition with the current regulatory boards such as CRTC.
- giarc 6y agoThe only trick I have heard of to get lower rates is to rent a PO box in SK, sign up for Sasktel and get a SK number (Sasktel being government owned has lower rates I guess). Seems pretty complicated though.
- gdsdfe 6y agoIf enough people call their representative and ask for change, change will happen!
- m23khan 6y agoAs a Canadian, I would say that if Huawei was not selected due to issues relating to national security -- then why not take some time to setup a crown corporation / Government-owned company and have them develop indigenous hardware/software for 5G networks? I am sure if Canadians can develop their own smartphones, space mission components (Canada arm) and airplanes, they can develop 5G network equipment.
- dade_ 6y agoThe carriers had every plan to use Huawei, the cost savings would drive far better profit margins and faster rollout for the same capital investment. However, with the extradition situation with Meng and the threats from the CCP, it is clear that it isn't possible to do business with the company. The risk of a future need to tear out and replace Huawei product due to geo-political/ cyber-warfare in the future outweighs the savings from dealing with Ericsson or Nokia.
- v77 6y agoIf would have been best from a Canadian perspective if the provider was Nortel but Huawei and its predecessors stole all of that IP a couple of decades ago.
- marc3842h 6y agoHere in Switzerland, all carriers which build their own cellular networks have chosen different partners for their 5G infrastructure: * Swisscom: Ericsson * Sunrise: Huawei * Salt: Nokia The whole Huawei scandal wasn't too big news here in Switzerland (as far as I know?) which is the reason that Swisscom and Sunrise were able to cover 90% of Swiss population with 5G at the same time (end of 2019).