Just let us have Huawei and get on with 5G, UK mobe networks tell MPs

Another Parliamentary enquiry? Huawei, the Brexit of network policy decisions


British telcos and academics have told a Parliamentary enquiry the UK needs to get on with allowing Huawei equipment into the heart of its future 5G networks.

In submissions to an ongoing consultation entitled Ensuring access to "safe" technology: the UK's 5G infrastructure and national security inquiry, business and academia alike have largely rubbished US-led concerns over the security of the Chinese firm's 5G network hardware.

Industry was also clear: despite Brexit, Britain ought to get on board with the EU's plans for regulating 5G – on the grounds that this "provides a good initial opportunity for international cooperation", in Huawei's own words to the enquiry.

On top of that, Britain should hold its nose on the thorny Huawei security issue and instead concentrate on the large number of varying (but invariably positive) economic growth predictions for countries with mature 5G deployments.

As think tank RUSI said in its submission, "For certain functions like the radio access network, only Huawei, Ericsson, and Nokia, or the 'Big 3', produce equipment with the necessary capabilities at sufficient scale." That rather typified the tone of the telcos' submissions.

Infosec biz NCC Group said in its submission to the enquiry that the "small" size of the British 5G market meant the UK would have limited ability to "counter adversarial dominance in global standard setting bodies and fora". This, it claimed, would see British telcos being left "unable, or unwilling, to refuse deployment in UK markets and infrastructure" of equipment that doesn’t meet British security standards.

While plenty of Huawei equipment currently serves 3G and 4G networks in Blighty, the theory behind prior inspection by organisations such as HCSEC is that their vulns are at least known quantities before live deployment.

Drink deep, customers

Huawei itself knows full well where it sits on the issue of UK 5G security; it is one of the three firms capable of selling and supporting 5G mobile network gear at scale. Telling the committee that "all three of the UK's main suppliers are international companies, in their ownership," the Chinese firm said: "There is currently no domestic alternative that could meet the UK's deployment targets."

Translation: you can't beat us, you've already joined us, why change that?

Huawei 5G customer Three agreed, saying it is "important for any decision about the future of 5G supply and in particular a decision in relation to the role of Huawei in the UK is taken as soon as is practical."

"Any unnecessary delay," Three thundered, "in reaching this decision risks the UK 5G leadership ambitions as well as significant cost to Mobile Networks who [have] already started to deploy 5G technology and offer 5G services."

Nothing to do with having to re-rip-and-replace its network kit, having swapped Samsung kit out in favour of Chinese gear over the past few years.

BT, meanwhile, the country's largest telco, echoed NCC's point about how the UK "remains a relatively small market for global vendors" but differed on our ability to punch above our weight, saying "the commercial and regulatory decisions taken here do and will resonate strongly across Europe and around the world."

EE by gum, didn't know that

"For example," it said, "EE is a global reference network for the industry's biggest companies, including Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm and Nokia."

The one-time state monopoly is also in favour of keeping Huawei, telling the Parliamentary enquiry that it must prioritise "ensuring national security assessments of the role of foreign actors in UK companies" while making sure they "do not unduly limit the UK’s access to innovation and investment."

Just to make it clear, BT also said: "We do not view a ban on using Huawei in access networks as a proportionate response, given the range of protections in place."

Meanwhile Huawei 5G competitor Nokia said "it is important that regulation is kept as light as possible so that innovation is not stifled," before adding: "However, the development of security regulation, as a part of national security, is an important area, and although government has made progress in the involvement of vendors in policy development, a deeper engagement would be welcomed."

The Finnish firm suggested a dedicated cyber security ministerial post be created, working "across Cabinet Office and DCMS to coordinate policy and reflect the importance of the sector." ®

Broader topics

Narrower topics


Other stories you might like

  • Stolen university credentials up for sale by Russian crooks, FBI warns
    Forget dark-web souks, thousands of these are already being traded on public bazaars

    Russian crooks are selling network credentials and virtual private network access for a "multitude" of US universities and colleges on criminal marketplaces, according to the FBI.

    According to a warning issued on Thursday, these stolen credentials sell for thousands of dollars on both dark web and public internet forums, and could lead to subsequent cyberattacks against individual employees or the schools themselves.

    "The exposure of usernames and passwords can lead to brute force credential stuffing computer network attacks, whereby attackers attempt logins across various internet sites or exploit them for subsequent cyber attacks as criminal actors take advantage of users recycling the same credentials across multiple accounts, internet sites, and services," the Feds' alert [PDF] said.

    Continue reading
  • Big Tech loves talking up privacy – while trying to kill privacy legislation
    Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail data rules

    Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft often support privacy in public statements, but behind the scenes they've been working through some common organizations to weaken or kill privacy legislation in US states.

    That's according to a report this week from news non-profit The Markup, which said the corporations hire lobbyists from the same few groups and law firms to defang or drown state privacy bills.

    The report examined 31 states when state legislatures were considering privacy legislation and identified 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms working on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, along with industry groups like TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition.

    Continue reading
  • SEC probes Musk for not properly disclosing Twitter stake
    Meanwhile, social network's board rejects resignation of one its directors

    America's financial watchdog is investigating whether Elon Musk adequately disclosed his purchase of Twitter shares last month, just as his bid to take over the social media company hangs in the balance. 

    A letter [PDF] from the SEC addressed to the tech billionaire said he "[did] not appear" to have filed the proper form detailing his 9.2 percent stake in Twitter "required 10 days from the date of acquisition," and asked him to provide more information. Musk's shares made him one of Twitter's largest shareholders. The letter is dated April 4, and was shared this week by the regulator.

    Musk quickly moved to try and buy the whole company outright in a deal initially worth over $44 billion. Musk sold a chunk of his shares in Tesla worth $8.4 billion and bagged another $7.14 billion from investors to help finance the $21 billion he promised to put forward for the deal. The remaining $25.5 billion bill was secured via debt financing by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, and others. But the takeover is not going smoothly.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022