Previously blacklisted telecom Huawei and fellow Chinese vendor ZTE are two of five companies bidding for Telstra’s core 5G network, Crikey has learned.
These include Finland’s Nokia, Sweden’s Ericsson and Korea’s Samsung. Ericsson won the test-of-concept network rolled out for the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games. Since then, Telstra has been testing the other companies out of the same exchange.
Andy Penn stated clearly two weeks ago that fast tracking 5G, so it beats Optus to market, is key priority for his Telstra revamp.
But the amendments to telecommunications sector security reforms coming into effect in September allow the government “to provide risk advice to mobile network operators or the relevant minister to issue a direction”. The government will be able to effectively remove any company that could pose a security risk from a telecoms network tender. The competitive 5G fixed wireless spectrum auction, is expected to commence in October.
Huawei was originally banned, by Labor Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, from supplying technology used in the creation of the NBN. This was a result, vendor sources strongly suspected, of acting on ASIO advice echoing intelligence given to the US government. The question, then, is why it is only the US and Australia that have ever banned Huawei from networks?
There are long standing rumours — with no evidence on either side — that the People’s Liberation Army owns shares in Huawei, or even outright controls it, stemming from the fact that company founder Ren Zhengfei is an ex-PLA officer.
Sure, if the Chinese government wanted some feature or weakness installed in a network by one its companies, they would play ball. As long as that company didn’t want to go broke. But this is not unique to China. Huawei’s late competitor, Lucent Technologies, used to do such jobs for the US military (and many still probably do). NEC/Fujistu do so for Japan, Alcatel for the French, and so on and so forth. Cyber warfare is game on. It is cyber security technology, not telecommunication network vendors, where the focus should be.
There is also an unsolvable problem in declaring Huawei a security risk and banning them from providing 5G, because the radio access network (RAN) that enables close to half the current mobile networks in Australia is operated by Huawei.
The RAN is a core part of each network; it won’t, and can’t, change for 5G. Once 5G gets to widespread mobile use, existing RANs will be doing most of the heavy lifting, with the help of new software to speed things up. To ban the company providing one of the largest RANs, the message is apparently that security on fixed wireless is more important than Australia’s 20 million or so mobile users. Unless, of course, Malcolm Turnbull, wants to pay Vodafone and Optus to replace their networks.
ZTE’s breaching of Iran and North Korean sanctions may see it banned for reasons other than national security, so there’s an easy win here for Turnbull in his fractious relationship with Beijing: let Huawei at least stay in the race.
Either way, the company has already banked a win with all the free publicity the story has so far generated. The old wisdom that there’s no such thing as bad publicity is amplified here by the political debate surrounding the issue — Huawei’s brand recognition must be going through the roof. Huawei has already won the network wars and is settled nicely at the top of the international market. Its new push now is to significantly improve its handset market share; it already has about about an 8% share in Australia and it just got a serious leg up.
Ah, remember the old days when the PMG could run a telephone network and develop cutting edge technologies like the first electric PABX in the 50s while experimenting with non copper cabling and …?
Run our own country, build our own ships, trains, trams or any other damned thing, fat chance!
What develop a self sufficient country?
This is treasonous talk AR.
Our beloved corporate multi national gods must always be protected from such anarchy.
So true AR. All communications, security, financial and essential services should remain in, or come under, public hands instead of being gifted at fire sale prices to cronies of the government (either ‘side’). And that also means building our own defense ‘assets’. I hear people say we don’t have enough knowhow to do it here, if that is true I say bring in the knowhow. Employ those best skilled for the job to skill up Australian workers and keep the jobs and the money here and the work done under the public hand, after all the money is coming from the public purse. Instead we are handing over control of our essential services to global behemoths who don’t care a fig for us and our wellbeing, especially in times of trouble.
Because we live in the Adelaide Hills, if it wasn’t for Huawei’s little 4G Cube connected 2-3 years ago, we would still be waiting to experience a reliable broadband internet service with speeds up to 40Mbs. And, if want to connect to Mr Turnbull’s definition of a NBN, we will have to wait another 3 years!
‘Mr Turnbull’s definition of a NBN…’
His definition of an NBN & the version he’s delivered are two different entities. Don’t wish to get his version, you’ll be sorry.
Please read Clive Hamilton’s book “Silent Invasion” and ask yourself the question whether it is wise to place our telecommunications network in the hands of a company that according to our intelligence agencies is linked to the Chinese government and its intelligence agencies ( military ). It is time we woke up and it is NOT about hating or disrespecting the Chinese, its about being realistic and seeing the ambitions of Xi Jinping for what they are.
George Friedman has some useful insights and ideas too. ‘The next hundred years. A forecast for the 21st century.”
And watch Chris Uhlmann’s Press Club question to the Chairman of Huawei Australia to understand why there are doubts about what information, from any source and any country, the PRC can compel Huawaei to provide to it.
So you distrust only the Chinese?
Heed this warning … if we do not take measures to take back our telecommincations from any outside ownership we will never shake off the mind and economic control that will come with it.
Telecommunications is technology .. a bunch of cables, towers and clever technology … but it is now the single most important tool that we use in our lives and very open to misuse.
Turnbull should know this .. this is what he did before Politics.
The Chinese Government still controls their people .. e.g. they are prohibited to chew gum for example (nobody I know in China knows why) … but this just demonstrates a country that is not yet liberated.
We are turning a blind eye to the calculated advances into the Pacific. They are getting away with it because they are advancing behind a small sector of prominent Australians and Europeans, who are now billions of dollars in debt (Al Capone knew the advantages of owning people) who are widening their pillage to satisfy their debts.
Those of us who entrusted our manufacturing to Asia quickly learned that their long term plan was to learn … then take the innovations for themselves.
Most products we now buy are copied (usually not as well) from innovators that they eventually competed and crushed. The next step was to cut out the middlemen.
So getting back to our Telecommunications … owning the lot should be paramount … we need to invest in our own technology .. buy back our resources, create superior technology and we sell that back to the world.
Huawei’s network switches installed in the UK were found to be generating suspicious extra traffic. The reason ASIO does not want them to be bid is because there is evidence that they have already been using their network equipment for spying for the Chinese government
Related info at
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-16/huawei-britain-history-helps-explain-australia-anxiety/9875582
(UPDATED SAT 16 JUN 2018).