Risk From China Real, Experts Say; US Could Be Focused on Wrong Bands for 5G
Huawei and other Chinese companies pose a major challenge for the U.S. and other nations, said Jamil Jaffer, executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University's law school, during a Technology Policy Institute panel Tuesday. “The risk is real.” A Trump administration supply chain security executive order apparently is off the table (see 1903250055).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Chinese companies are “market dominators” because they benefit from low-cost loans and “a research and development base that was largely stolen,” Jaffer said. “There’s a reason why a Huawei router looks a lot like a Cisco router. It’s because it largely is a Cisco router.” Huawei didn't comment.
Many countries are skipping over 4G and going straight to 5G, Jaffer said. Buying a “network in a box” from Huawei “is a very appealing thing, particularly when it comes at a low cost,” he said. Getting the network in place will allow China to sell more gear down the road. “It’s an economic move,” he said. “It’s a strategic move and it’s a potential intelligence collection capability.”
The “reality” is that Huawei is being deployed worldwide, Jaffer said. “Are we simply trying to stem an inevitable flow?” he asked. “That is part of what the government continues to struggle with today.” Huawei makes cheap gear, he said. “There’s a debate about how good it is,” he said: “There are plenty of people who say, ‘It’s serviceably good. It’s good enough to get the job done.’” The company didn't comment right away.
There’s growing concern about China’s role in the 5G standards committees and "the influence that they’re having over the technology ecosystem as it matures,” said Charles Clancy, executive director at the Hume Center for National Security and Technology. “That’s really more an economic risk.”
There are also concerns about “back doors” in equipment and that the code might be “buggy,” Clancy said. A recent report by British cybersecurity officials critical of Huawei (see 1904030004) noted lots of bugs in the code, Clancy said. “Those bugs [mean] cyber vulnerabilities that could be exploitable by the Chinese government or by whomever.” Clancy said he has the most concerns about the large number of countries where Huawei operates the network on behalf of providers. “You don’t need a back door because they’re already in the house,” he said. The question is how to manage the risks, he said.
Trillions of dollars are in play with 5G, said Harry Wingo, chair of National Defense University's Cyber Security Department. It’s clear the U.S. doesn’t want Huawei in its network, he said. “The best argument against a cold north wind is an overcoat,” he said. “The best argument against a deluge that could drown you is to learn how to swim.”
A big question getting more attention is whether the U.S. is putting too much emphasis on high-band spectrum for 5G, while China concentrates on spectrum below 6 GHz, Wingo said. “If we don’t pivot,” the U.S. could lose “first mover advantage” on 5G, he said: “It’s a complicated issue.”
People aren’t sure what to make of the risks posed by Huawei, said TPI President Scott Wallsten. Huawei is seen as not just a low cost but high quality provider of telecom equipment, he said. Security concerns seem plausible, he said. “Why wouldn’t the Chinese take advantage if that opportunity exists?” Security concerns come at the same time as a fight over trade, he said. “It plays into some of our biggest fears regarding emerging powers and protectionist impulses.”
The U.K. cybersecurity report was viewed differently on both sides of the Atlantic, Wallsten said. “In the U.S. this was reported as ‘Huawei’s equipment is terrible and we can’t trust it,’” he said: “In the U.K. it was reported as ‘Well, we can manage this risk.’”
The U.S. and the U.K. are usually “almost inseparable” on cybersecuity and intelligence but are “at odds” on the risks of Huawei, Jaffer said. Maybe the British strategy of mitigating the risk is the only practical next step at this point, he said.
Other countries are concerned that if they eliminate Huawei they’ll be left with just Nokia and Ericsson, said Samm Sacks, fellow at the New America Foundation. If Huawei is a bad actor, is it better “to be left with two mediocre players?” she asked. The FCC is weighing whether to bar use of USF money to make purchases from companies that “pose a national security threat” to U.S. communications networks or the communications supply chain (see 1812210032), she noted: “There’s a real trade-off involved in cutting off connectivity in these areas.”