UK Telecommunications Act – aka 'power to strip out Huawei' – makes it to the statute book

We bet the Chinese comms giant just LOVED that description


The UK Telecommunications (Security) Act has received Royal Assent, giving the government more control over the use of "high risk" vendors in networks as well as fines that could hit £100k per day for telcos that fail to toe the line.

In case readers are in any doubt who one of those "high risk" vendors is, the statement from the department was titled "Government enshrines in law power to strip out Huawei."

The banhammer was dropped on Huawei's 5G kit last year. The Shenzhen-based company's hardware must be eradicated from UK mobile networks by 2027.

Having got the nod from Her Maj, the 2021 Telecommunications Act ramps things up somewhat. Companies that don't follow directions on those pesky high-risk vendors could be fined up to 10 per cent of their turnover or £100k per day. The rules were floated last year and getting the Act on the statute books means the government can make regulations via secondary legislation.

While the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) did not shy from naming Huawei in its release, the law itself does not specify companies by name. Instead it is concerned with bumping up the security of telecom networks rather than just leaving it to operators to set their own standards.

However, sections such as the "Designated Vendor Directions" give the Secretary of State a range of powers to slap down the use of specific vendors for a number of reasons, including "the interests of national security."

Regulator Ofcom has the task of monitoring and assessing the security of telecoms providers. It will also be able to visit operators' premises in person to conduct on-site inspections.

An Ofcom spokesperson told The Register: "We rely on the internet and our phones for so much of our lives now. So it's vital the networks that provide those services are secure and resilient. These new powers will help us hold telecoms firms to account – making sure they are doing everything they can to protect their networks and the people who use them."

As for what the law actually means, Julia Lopez, minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure, described it as a "major step forward," adding: "Risks to our telecoms networks can never be completely prevented, but we have raised security standards across the board."

DCMS, also known and loved by some as "The Ministry of Fun" (because it's the department for Culture, Media and Sport), listed some of the possible requirements for telecoms providers from government:

  • Securely design, build and maintain sensitive equipment in the core of their networks which controls how they are managed
  • Reduce the risks that equipment supplied by third parties in the telecoms supply chain is unreliable or could be used to facilitate cyber attacks
  • Carefully control who has permission to access sensitive core network equipment on site as well as the software that manages networks
  • Make sure they are able to carry out security audits and put governance in place to understand the risks facing their public networks and services
  • Keep networks running for customers and free from interference, while ensuring confidential customer data is protected when it is sent between different parts of the network

For its part, Huawei has always unsurprisingly denied it is a stooge for the Chinese Communist Party; has worked annually with the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC), an offshoot of the UK's National Cyber Security Centre, which repeatedly found some crappy coding practices but no security backdoors; and has operated in Britain for years before the UK government was strong-armed by US politicos.

The Register contacted Huawei for its thoughts and will update when the company responds. ®

Similar topics

Narrower topics


Other stories you might like

  • GPL legal battle: Vizio told by judge it will have to answer breach-of-contract claims
    Fine-print crucially deemed contractual agreement as well as copyright license in smartTV source-code case

    The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has won a significant legal victory in its ongoing effort to force Vizio to publish the source code of its SmartCast TV software, which is said to contain GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 copyleft-licensed components.

    SFC sued Vizio, claiming it was in breach of contract by failing to obey the terms of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 licenses that require source code to be made public when certain conditions are met, and sought declaratory relief on behalf of Vizio TV owners. SFC wanted its breach-of-contract arguments to be heard by the Orange County Superior Court in California, though Vizio kicked the matter up to the district court level in central California where it hoped to avoid the contract issue and defend its corner using just federal copyright law.

    On Friday, Federal District Judge Josephine Staton sided with SFC and granted its motion to send its lawsuit back to superior court. To do so, Judge Staton had to decide whether or not the federal Copyright Act preempted the SFC's breach-of-contract allegations; in the end, she decided it didn't.

    Continue reading
  • US brings first-of-its-kind criminal charges of Bitcoin-based sanctions-busting
    Citizen allegedly moved $10m-plus in BTC into banned nation

    US prosecutors have accused an American citizen of illegally funneling more than $10 million in Bitcoin into an economically sanctioned country.

    It's said the resulting criminal charges of sanctions busting through the use of cryptocurrency are the first of their kind to be brought in the US.

    Under the United States' International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEA), it is illegal for a citizen or institution within the US to transfer funds, directly or indirectly, to a sanctioned country, such as Iran, Cuba, North Korea, or Russia. If there is evidence the IEEA was willfully violated, a criminal case should follow. If an individual or financial exchange was unwittingly involved in evading sanctions, they may be subject to civil action. 

    Continue reading
  • Meta hires network chip guru from Intel: What does this mean for future silicon?
    Why be a customer when you can develop your own custom semiconductors

    Analysis Here's something that should raise eyebrows in the datacenter world: Facebook parent company Meta has hired a veteran networking chip engineer from Intel to lead silicon design efforts in the internet giant's infrastructure hardware engineering group.

    Jon Dama started as director of silicon in May for Meta's infrastructure hardware group, a role that has him "responsible for several design teams innovating the datacenter for scale," according to his LinkedIn profile. In a blurb, Dama indicated that a team is already in place at Meta, and he hopes to "scale the next several doublings of data processing" with them.

    Though we couldn't confirm it, we think it's likely that Dama is reporting to Alexis Bjorlin, Meta's vice president of infrastructure hardware who previously worked with Dama when she was general manager of Intel's Connectivity group before serving a two-year stint at Broadcom.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022