[PaulB]

If we don't use the Chinese firm's technology, what are the alternatives and are they any more trustworthy?

[Boxkite]

Why can I never see Paul's posts?

[PaulB]

That particular one is largely a tweet...

[Genghis the Engineer]

Shouldn't HM Government be aiming to promote the development of, then buy and use, British technology ahead of what China is selling, thus creating the ability to export these technologies in competition against China.

Virtually exactly what China is presently doing with commercial aircraft design and manufacture, in other words.

G

[riverrock]

Before discussing again - perhaps could add to one of these topics?

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=114427
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=112055
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=112010
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=110588

[JoeC]

Shouldn't HM Government be aiming to promote the development of, then buy and use, British technology

But, but...we'd all be holding one of these to our ears:

[JoeC]

PS: I actually have a working version of the above and it is rather lovely.

[TheFarmer]

Why can I never see Paul's posts?

Because in a moment of sense some time ago you blocked him and have saved 23 trillion electrons passing through your computer every day ever since.

[Boxkite]

Why can I never see Paul's posts?

Because in a moment of sense some time ago you blocked him and have saved 23 trillion electrons passing through your computer every day ever since.

Nah, I have only blocked two, and neither one is Paul.
It must be a filter at work (thankfully then), as he so often links to twitter. I see a bit of his own text but the blank space above his text didn't make sense.

[akg1486]

If we don't use the Chinese firm's technology, what are the alternatives and are they any more trustworthy?

My former colleague Paul Sengupta, whom I have yet to actually meet, should be able to answer that.

[matthew_w100]

We evaluated Huawei networking kit for our university network when we moved it up to 100Gbps a few years ago. It was cheap but nasty. Whilst it would theoretically do everything it said on the tin, it wouldn't do it all at the same time - if you used one feature it would block another. And every time we reported a problem they sent us a new customised version of the operating system the next day. Which made us think their quality control and engineering processes were top-notch - not! Also, in retrospect, the products we evaluated are not available now.

So I'd be rejecting Huawei on quality grounds long before I even got to considering national security. I'd expect to need to be ripping it all out in a couple of years if we bought it. Anyway is being in hock to the Chinese any worse than using American kit?

[PaulB]

Anyway is being in hock to the Chinese any worse than using American kit?

That was the un asked question.....

[Pete L]

The USA argument overlooks the long history of security flaws in their networking equipment. My working assumption is that many of these are built in by design and then fixed when discovered independently.

Unlike the Chinese, the USA has documented form - viz the deliberate weakening of DES:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Encryption_Standard

[PaulB]

Not unexpected UK response. Let's compromise!

The UK government has decided to allow Huawei to continue to in its 5G networks but with restrictions.

The Chinese company will be banned from supplying equipment to "sensitive parts" of the network, known as the core.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51283059

Here's a paper from the National Cyber-Security Centre published today. Not aimed at techies, particularly..

https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/the-f ... -in-the-uk

[eltonioni]

In a parallel universe the UK will buy a load of Chinese gear, reverse engineer it, commoditise it, then make and sell it under the 5Eyes® brand.