Re: It's not about clean or secure...
Huawei ONLY competes on cost.
If costs are the same, why is Huawei cheaper? Who is subsidising this?
I don't get your logic - US is bad, China is bad, so let them all in.
They are different kinds of bad. Politics and policy do matter.
The fact that China is bad on the other side of western values is being ignored by you. UK has intelligence and security relationships with the US, not with China. China is an political antagonist of the UK, it is not an ally. The US does not interfere with democracy and misinformation with the UK, China actively does. The US are not innocent, but for the UK, the US policy is congenial, not China's.
But no, let China in, deep into the key infrastructure build for the next decade.
You are also rather misinformed:
>>Huawei have been going hell-for-leather in 5G for a long time and hold a huge patent portfolio worldwide.
So have qualcomm and ericsson. Qualcomm's cross licensing with Huawei still requires Huawei to pay Qualcomm.
>>still getting significant royalties
Not for infrastructure - deployments do not match the device count of phones/terminals for revenues. Huawei pays Qualcomm. The patent license for the standard is common ((there isn't a different pool to license for 5g infra vs 5g mobile).
>>This has nothing to do with labour laws.
How is Huawei cheaper? I am talking R&D, we agree manufacturing costs are the same for all vendors. Either Huawei pay their r&D less (as labour laws as weaker - no pension ,holidays, excess working hrs etc) or something else allows them to be cheaper. If the former we should not support, if the latter, where is the money coming from?
>> This is mostly about payback to Cisco
You are badly misinformed. The equipment in question is not made by Cisco, Huawei was already excluded from that for quite a while now. The alternate vendors for the equipment are Ericsson and Nokia-Seimens NSN. Both european. Monetarily no US company benefits, as none manufacture the equipment in question (Nortel, Canadian, did, the reason all the other vendors died is due to severe price undercutting by Huawei for decades, many times well below cost.)
Given the misinformation, I assume you are responding emotionally. US cronyism emotions.
China needs to align their foreign policy with their economic ambitions as a world player. They could change the laws to allow true independence of companies. They can take a far less aggressionist foreign policy and they would still be successful.
But their ideology wont permit that. That's fine, but there are then consequences on the global field with other ideologies. And there should be.
Huawei battles are a failure of Chinese foreign policy. When 53 nations are convinced, somethings up. Even if the other bad boy started it.