I was bemused to see illustrated on the front page of today's DT, here:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48209607
.. the headline 'Thatcher would have blocked Huawei', attributed to Pompeo.
HMG is in current position in the 5G debate because of the terms of the privatisation of GPO Telecoms as BT whereby the Board of the latter came to have a fiduciary duty only to their shareholders (however they see that), not to 'the nation' in any sense. For their customers it means 'if you want security as well as connexions it'll cost you extra'. The selection of Huawei as provider of earlier infrastructure has already cost HMG (ie, the taxpayer) a lot of money in security measures to airgap or otherwise mitigate (eg by bulk encryption) its own communications from Huawei digital switches, as well as costing UK as a whole loss of jobs and current and future pertinent expertise in Marconi, because BT was bound to accept the cheaper bids from Huawei. This was the 'free market' working, presumably, 'efficiently' precisely as intended by the proponents of the privatisation. Now, presumably, if Huawei is kept out of 5G for the wider security interest of the nation, the nation will presumably have to pay some other, more expensive, provider(s).
(mere guide at) Jet Age Museum, Gloucestershire Airporthttp://www.jetagemuseum.org/
TripAdvisor Excellence Award 2015http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction ... gland.html