Huawei's 2019 is a turbulent year. After Huawei was included in the entity list in the United States on May 16, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on November 22 recognized Huawei as a national security risk enterprise with five votes in favor and zero against, and prohibited rural telecom operators from using government funds to purchase the company's equipment or services.Huawei will have 30 days to defend the ban, and the final order to force the removal of devices will not come until next year at the earliest.
Huawei said in a statement on November 23 that the FCC voted against the decision to ban operators from using federal subsidies to buy Huawei equipment. "The FCC's decision is based on one-sided information and misinterpretation of Chinese laws. Without evidence, Huawei is deemed to constitute a national security threat, which not only violates the due process principle of legislation, but also is suspected of violating the law."
Then Huawei fought back again. On December 5, Huawei's Shenzhen headquarters held a press conference, announcing that it formally filed an indictment in the U.S. court, requesting the court to determine that the decision of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prohibit Huawei from participating in the federal subsidy fund project violates the U.S. Constitution and the administrative procedure law.
Song Liuping, Huawei's chief legal officer, said at the conference: "just because Huawei is a Chinese company, we are forbidden to solve any network security problems." In his view, Ajit Pai, chairman of the FCC, and other members did not provide any evidence to support their allegations that Huawei posed a security threat.
Not only that, the FCC completely ignores the factual basis and objections submitted by Huawei. It can be seen that the FCC's action is to suppress Huawei again under the guise of security and driven by political factors.
There's no evidence of forced repression
In fact, the FCC's move was not without warning, but was premeditated.
The FCC has made this proposal since March 2018, but Ajit Pai, chairman of the FCC, and other members have not provided any evidence to support their allegations that Huawei poses a security threat.
In addition, Huawei and rural operators in the United States submitted multiple rounds of factual basis and objections, but the FCC completely ignored these factual basis and opinions.
Huawei said the FCC's general service funds are mainly used to improve telecommunications and broadband Internet services in rural and remote areas. Without the support of this fund, many American operators in remote areas will not be able to continue to obtain competitive Huawei products and services, and will not be able to continue to provide reliable and high-speed communication services for schools, hospitals, libraries and other public facilities. The competition in the American Telecommunication Equipment Market (especially 5g network) will be weakened, and ordinary consumers will have to pay more for network services High cost.
The FCC is very clear that banning operators from buying Huawei equipment does not really improve the network security situation in the United States.
"Network security and user privacy protection are Huawei's highest business program. Since its establishment 30 years ago, Huawei has established an end-to-end network security practice from strategy, supply chain, R & D, to products and solutions. Huawei's business covers more than 170 countries and regions around the world, and no major network security incidents have occurred. Huawei has won the victory by fully meeting the customer's network security needs Our trust. "
It is understood that operators in rural areas of the United States, including those in small towns in Montana and Kentucky and farms in Wyoming, chose to cooperate with Huawei because they recognized the quality and safety of Huawei's equipment. The FCC should not ban Huawei from cooperating with carriers to provide connectivity services in rural areas of the United States.
In addition, Song said that if the FCC is really worried about the security of the telecom supply chain, they should realize that any equipment made by manufacturers in China has the same risk. In addition to Huawei, ZTE, Nokia, Ericsson and other telecom equipment manufacturers also produce equipment in China. "Replace another set of equipment made in China with one made in China Politicians and security advisers are smart people, and they should know that better. " Song Liuping said.
Huawei believes that the FCC violates the U.S. Constitution and announced to file an indictment in the U.S. Court on December 5.
FCC decisions will have a bad impact
Glen nager, the chief lawyer in the case, said the FCC failed to pass the decision on Huawei and other Chinese companies in accordance with relevant standards, and the FCC itself admitted that it was aimed at Chinese companies. According to glen nager, the rule goes beyond the FCC's statutory powers, because the FCC has no power to make national security determinations, nor to limit the use of USF funds based on that judgment. In addition, the FCC does not have the professional identification ability in terms of national security.
In fact, the FCC's decision is not conducive to improving connectivity in rural areas of the United States, which rely on Huawei's equipment to access the network, while other manufacturers are reluctant to operate in "very remote, difficult terrain and sparsely populated" areas. The ban, along with subsequent proposals to remove and replace Huawei's equipment, will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs and even lead to the bankruptcy of some small operators.
Song Kai, vice president of Huawei's enterprise communication department, said that Huawei has set up a network for American users in places other manufacturers do not want to go. Even if the scale of these areas is too small, the traffic conditions are not convenient, or they are not profitable enough, Huawei's cooperation with these small operators is something the company has been committed to doing, which is also Huawei's right to strive for doing this.
"Other manufacturers cross users from their customer list and define them as low value customers, but Huawei will never do so," Song said Huawei's equipment in the United States is mainly sold to 40 small wireless and cable operators, connecting schools, hospitals, farms, families, community universities and emergency centers locally, he said.
"These small wireless and cable operators have set up a digital lifeline for local operators, which requires digital general equipment. The FCC requires rural operators in the United States to remove Huawei equipment already installed in the network, which will bring hundreds of millions of dollars of additional costs. Operators say that if they comply with this regulation, they will end up in bankruptcy." What's more distressing, says song, is that removing Huawei devices does not make the network more secure.
"Many of our competitors' devices are made in China, and some even have joint ventures with Chinese state-owned enterprises, while their devices are widely used in the US network," Song said. A member of the FCC once said that almost 40% of the U.S. network contains equipment made in China. Huawei will not change this situation. "
In addition, China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying also commented on the incident at a recent press conference of the Ministry of foreign affairs. If a country is both an athlete, a referee and a black whistle in terms of security standards, can it still be trusted?
Indeed, in the absence of exact evidence, those so-called "protecting the interests of the United States" policies have repeatedly deliberately discredited and suppressed Chinese enterprises with unwarranted accusations, even at the expense of the interests of American enterprises and the public, which can be seen from the deep behind.