Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.

Moderator: Flyin'Dutch'

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
User avatar
By PaulB
#1690708
I assume that there are other competent suppliers of such equipment, and it all boils down to cost at the end of the day?
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
#1690719
The main players are Ericsson (us!), Nokia and HuaWei. Most of the others have fallen by the wayside or have withdrawn from the main mobile radio market. Samsung have entered the market with 4G and are doing ok but aren't quite as up there as the top three. Another Chinese supplier, ZTE are around somewhere as well and are up and coming.

Our traditional digital switches (exchanges) are known as the AXE10. ZTE have ones called ZXC10...

Early HuaWei equipment allegedly was a direct copy of Ericsson and Cisco kit, but they've moved on a lot since then.
User avatar
By PaulB
#1690720
Without giving away state secrets, who is providing the infrastructure for the US or France/Germany etc.?
User avatar
By Pete L
#1690722
That's just the equipment required to do the mobile part, isn't it? I'm guessing the other router vendors get a look in at some point. Or have things moved on?
User avatar
By kanga
#1690730
Paul_Sengupta wrote:... There's a lot of talk about 5G, but already a fair bit of the UK's 2G, 3G and 4G mobile phone network architecture is run on HuaWei equipment. ...


Indeed. And, aiui, when they first bid on BT invitations to tender, their price was so low that the by then wholly privatised BT was bound on strictly commercial terms to accept it. When UK Government security advisers recommended that the bid be refused on national security grounds, BT responded to Ministers' pressure that they were now by the terms of privatisation answerable only to their shareholders, and Ministers could not veto any deal. Among the results were

A. The one UK company with a technically credible bid for the then new digital exchanges, Marconi, lost the bid and were effectively shut out of any future comparable business anywhere in the world; and

B. Many UK Government establishments who handled particularly sensitive material had to spend a lot of money airgapping their internal systems from the external lines which would now be going to Huawei exchanges, and adding bulk end to end encryption on many of these lines, at considerable expense to the taxpayer. :twisted:
PaulB, johnm liked this
By johnm
#1690733
It's a common misconception that both Govt and large Private companies must accept the lowest price. That simply isn't the case. Govt must have a transparent decision making process because it can be challenged, but I have often had such criteria weighted such that price wasn't the most important criterion.

Private companies can do as they please.


Procurement departments are often incentivised to get lower prices, but don't have to live with the consequences and I was rarely popular with them :-)
User avatar
By PaulB
#1690737
johnm wrote:It's a common misconception that both Govt and large Private companies must accept the lowest price.


That may be so, but many of those running them think that this is the case and indeed state it to be so when challenged.
kanga liked this
By johnm
#1690740
PaulB wrote:
johnm wrote:It's a common misconception that both Govt and large Private companies must accept the lowest price.


That may be so, but many of those running them think that this is the case and indeed state it to be so when challenged.



Indeed, a lot of people seems to operate on the basis of unfounded assertions and half baked assumptions and interpretations of rules, it's lazy, inefficient and can be downright dangerous...
By JoeC
#1690751
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
PaulB wrote:
Paul_Sengupta wrote:I'm staying out of this one! ;-)


I was hoping for some informed comment, but understand exactly why you need to refrain!


Ok, just a little bit for now.


Some secret agent you are!
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
#1690755
Pete L wrote:That's just the equipment required to do the mobile part, isn't it? I'm guessing the other router vendors get a look in at some point. Or have things moved on?


There are all sorts of players in the internet/IP sphere and several in the transmission game. Tellabs are a big player in transmission in this country with both the mobile operators and BT. There are various microwave link suppliers including HuaWei. There are various gateways, etc, including security gateways, any many are mix and matched from various suppliers.

PaulB wrote:Without giving away state secrets, who is providing the infrastructure for the US or France/Germany etc.?


The same players are worldwide.

The aforementioned Samsung supply some of Verizon's 4G and have won a 5G contract with them.

https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-selected-as-a-4g-lte-open-ran-provider-on-verizons-4g-lte-network

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/samsung-snags-houston-5g-market-verizon

JoeC wrote:Some secret agent you are!


:D

Nothing that's not in the public domain!
johnm liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1691137
kanga wrote:
Therefore, the relative triviality (disputes over actions and policies between Ministers, which happen all the time) of the topic of the leak is relatively unimportant. It is the forum from which the leak occurred which is very worrying, and to my knowledge unprecedented. For those who may be personally imperilled by leaks of sensitive information (as I have been, and had colleagues and comrades killed by such), I very much hope the culprit(s) is/are identified, dismissed and at least publicly shamed. I have no sympathy with the 'press freedom' argument in this context, but it is not the journalists' fault: it is absolutely the leakers'.


Well, your wish was her command.

Gavin Williamson unceremoniously sacked...
User avatar
By PaulB
#1691138
Here’s the letter from the PM



Penny Mordaunt is the new defence secretary.
By johnm
#1691149
Penny Mordaunt is the new defence secretary.


One can see the logic given her record but she’s pretty lightweight.
User avatar
By kanga
#1691153
PaulB wrote:..

Penny Mordaunt is the new defence secretary.


.. who, at least, has some military experience if only as RNR. It arguably should not make any difference, of course, but may help when talking to senior military officers, including by understanding (and not being flannelled or intimidated by their uses of acronyms and jargon). Her replacement at DfID, Rory Stewart, is ex-Regular (Black Watch); another Department where military experience can be useful. :thumright: Not that military background always yields competent Ministers (or, indeed, MPs) by any means :roll:

Tradition is for Ministers including PM to say 'we do not comment on leaks', so it is unlikely that it will be officially confirmed that Williamson was sacked for confessing or being proven to be the leaker. Ironic that the Defence Secretary should be, with Foreign and Home, the most sensitive to the sacrosanctity of NSC discussions. He was also formerly Chief Whip, where he reportedly exercised discipline with a ferocity which won him few friends among his backbenchers or fellow Ministers (who, of course, also have to be Whipped; in 'normal times' this is a formality, but times are not normal). Some may not be too unhappy to see his downfall.

Further, it cannot yet be known whether there was only one leaker. The DT reporter may have sought or even passively received corroboration from other Ministers or (the 'usual suspects' in most leak cases) their SAs.

Interesting times, but I hope for those who depend on it, sometimes with their lives, that NSC is now as secure as it always should have been.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7