‘No technical grounds’ to ban Huawei says UK Parliament committee

Chair of the Science and Technology Committee in the UK, Norman Lamb, has stated there is not enough technical evidence to ban Huawei and is demanding a final decision by the end of August.

In a letter written to Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), Lamb has demanded a conclusion to the Supply Chain Review which has staggered the progress of 5G networks in the UK. Many in the industry have become increasingly frustrated with the state of purgatory which has loomed over the UK telecoms industry, and now the influential Science and Technology Committee has had enough.

“Following my Committee’s recent evidence session, we have concluded that there are no technical grounds for excluding Huawei entirely from the UK’s 5G or other telecommunications networks,” said Lamb.

“The benefits of 5G are clear and the removal of Huawei from the current or future networks could cause significant delays. However, as outlined in the letter to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, we feel there may well be geopolitical or ethical considerations that the Government need to take into account when deciding whether they should use Huawei’s equipment.”

This is the interesting aspect of the letter to Wright. Lamb is effectively telling DCMS and the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) to hurry up and make a decision, but not to come to a conclusion too quickly as there are ethical and political considerations to account for. It’s a bit of a mixed message, but a deadline is perhaps overdue for this saga.

The message from Lamb is relatively simple; there are no technical grounds to ban Huawei. Quoting the NSCS’ assumption that 100% secure is impossible, suggesting a lack of concrete evidence against Huawei espionage, reasserting legal obligations placed on telcos to maintain security and pointing towards the international nature of supply chains nowadays are all points made by Lamb to suggest Huawei should be allowed to contribute to network infrastructure.

There are of course concessions make in the letter. Lamb is suggesting Huawei should be excluded from contributing to the network core, while there should also be a mechanism introduced to limit Huawei should it fail on-going competency tests and security assessments, but the message seems to be focused on the idea that Huawei is no more of a security threat than any other organization.

“Supply chains for telecommunications networks have been global and complex,” the letter states. “Many vendors use equipment that has been manufactured in China, so a ban on Huawei equipment would not remove potential Chinese influence from the supply chain.”

Another interesting point raised by Lamb is the legal obligation which has been placed on the telcos to ensure security. Communications infrastructure is a key component to today’s society, but the telcos are the ones who will suffer some of the greatest consequences for poor risk mitigation and due diligence. None of the telcos have raised concerns of an increased security risk from Huawei, and this should be taken as some of the most important evidence when considering the fate of the Chinese vendor.

Ultimately, this is action from the Government. It might kick-off some bickering between the parties (Lamb is a Liberal Democrat) and between departments, but finally someone is forcing DCMS and NSCS into a decision. It seems Lamb is not concerned about the distraction of a party leadership contest or Brexit, he simply wants an answer by the end of August.

Interestingly enough, this letter also forces DCMS into basing the outcome of the Supply Chain Review on politics. By stating there are no technical grounds for a ban, should Wright and his team want to exclude Huawei it will have to be done for another reason. Lamb has asked DCMS to consider the ethical and political weight of a decision, as well as the impact it might have on relationships with allies.

This is now a very difficult decision for DCMS. Lamb has seemingly taken technical considerations off the table; any ban would have to be political.

Facebook investors brush off leaked $5 billion fine

It has been widely reported that Facebook will receive a record fine for privacy violations, but investors seems strangely pleased about it.

All the usual-suspect business papers seem to have received the leak late last week that the US Federal Trade Commission voted narrowly to fine Facebook $5 billion for data privacy violations related to the Cambridge Analytica thing. The FTC, like the FCC, has five commissioners, three of which are affiliated to the Republican party and two the Democrats. As ever they voted on partisan lines, with the Democrats once more opposing the move.

The FTC has yet to make an official announcement, so we don’t know the stated reasons for the Democrat objections. But since that party seems to have decided it would have won the last general election if it wasn’t for those meddling targeted political ads, it’s safe to assume they think the fine is too lenient.

Just because the Democrats have a vested interest, that doesn’t mean they’re wrong, however. Of course Democrat politicians have criticised the decision, but many more independent commentators have noted that the fine amounts to less than a quarter’s profit for the social media giant. Nilay Patel, Editor in Chief of influential tech site The Verge, seems to speak for many in this tweet.

That Facebook’s share price actually went up after such a big fine initially seems remarkable, but all it really indicates is that Facebook had done a good job of communicating the risk to its investors, so a five bil hit was already priced in. The perfectly legitimate point, however, is that as a punishment one month’s revenue is unlikely to serve as much of a deterrent from future transgressions.

Patel seems very hostile to Facebook, stating in his opinion piece on the matter “Facebook has done nothing but behave badly from inception.” A lot of this bad behaviour consists of exploiting user data, but what is really under attack seems to be Facebook’s core business model and, to some extent, the whole-ad-funded model on which sites like The Verge rely.

Debates need to be had about the way the Internet operates and monetizes itself, but identifying Facebook as a uniquely bad actor when it comes to exploiting user data seems disingenuous. Laws and regulations are struggling to catch up with the business models of internet giants and there are many other questions to be asked about how they operate.

The fact that Facebook’s share price has now largely recovered from the Cambridge Analytica scandal of a year or so ago, as illustrated by the Google Finance screenshot below, indicates that investors consider these issues to be just another business risk, to be weighed up against obscene profits. While we have always considered the scandal to be overblown, it also seems clear that, as a meaningful punishment, even a $5 billion fine is totally inadequate in this case.

Facebook share price July 19

Cybersecurity is becoming impossible without AI – Capgemini report

Security is certainly a topic which is top of the agenda for almost everyone in the technology world, but it is quickly becoming apparent it will be impossible without AI.

The concept of 100% secure has now been rightfully banished and now more people are waking up to the idea any form of security is going to be impossible without artificial intelligence.

According to a new report from the Capgemini Research Institute, 69% of respondents believe they will not be able to respond to cyberattacks without the use of AI. Such is the velocity, volume and variety of threats thrown towards businesses nowadays, there will never be enough budget or hours in the day for humans to effectively deal with the problem in its entirety.

“Organizations are facing an unparalleled volume and complexity of cyber threats and have woken up to the importance of AI as the first line of defence,” said Geert van der Linden, Cybersecurity Business Lead at Capgemini Group.

“As cybersecurity analysts are overwhelmed, close to a quarter of them declaring they are not able to successfully investigate all identified incidents, it is critical for organizations to increase investment and focus on the business benefits that AI can bring in terms of bolstering their cybersecurity.”

The report follows another interesting bit of research from enterprise ISP Beaming earlier in the week. Beaming suggested the number of attacks levelled at British businesses during Q2 increased 179% year-on-year. These firms were effectively facing a threat every 50 seconds on average over the three-month period.

The Capgemini research suggests investments in security AI will increase dramatically over the next twelve months. During 2020, 48% of decision makers suggested investments in this area will increase by a third. 73% are currently testing use cases for AI in cybersecurity, while 63% intend to deploy AI security in 2020 to bolster defences.

And while it might seem like a grave conversation to have right now, the situation is only going to become worse. With the introduction of 5G, more products and services moving to the cloud, consumers adopting more connected devices and IOT set to boom over the next couple of years, the perimeter is expanding. Threats exist today, but exposure to the dark corners of the web is going to become much more apparent.

US refarms 2.5 GHz band from education to 5G

The US telecoms regulator has decided to redirect the 2.5 GHz band away from its current educational use to create more 5G spectrum.

The Federal Communications Commission is positioning this as a move to modernize the outdated regulatory framework for the 2.5 GHz band, which is apparently the single largest band of contiguous spectrum below 3 GHz. The band had been set aside for educational TV use and the FCC move removes any restrictions on who can use it and how. It had previously been made available for free but now the government gets to cash in on yet another auction.

At long last, we remove the burdensome restrictions on this band, allowing incumbents greater flexibility in their use of the spectrum, and introduce a spectrum auction that will ensure that this public resource is finally devoted to its highest-valued use,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “These groundbreaking reforms will result in more efficient and effective use of these airwaves and represent the latest step in advancing U.S. leadership in 5G.”

According to Pai, most educational users of this spectrum ended up leasing it out for commercial use anyway, which he seems to consider justification enough alone to take it off them. His full statement makes several oblique references to dissent among the FCC commissioners. The motion was opposed by two Commissioners and Pai infers that their obstruction could result in the US falling behind in the 5G race.

One of those dissenters was Jessica Rosenworcel, who often disagrees with Pai. Here’s her tweet on the matter.

“This order turns its back on the schools and educational institutions that have made the 2.5 GHz band their home since 1962,” said Rosenworcel in her statement.  “Today the FCC takes the innovative effort to infuse this band with learning opportunities—an initiative that dates back to the Kennedy Administration—and reverts to uninspired and stale commercial spectrum policy.

“This is a shame. Instead of using these airwaves in creative ways, we take the 2.5 GHz band, cut education from its mission and collapse this spectrum into an overlay auction system that structurally advantages a single nationwide carrier.” She then went on at considerable length about how important education is.

Commissioner Starks was the other dissenter and wrote an essay on the importance of the education sector having access to this spectrum that it made Rosenworcel’s efforts look like a memo. With boring inevitability the two dissenters are both affiliated to the republican party and the three in favour are all republicans, which makes you wonder whether there is any principle involved at all.

As Light Reading informs us, this spectrum is likely to be used largely for rural coverage and especially for fixed wireless access. The US is a big country and there are still plenty of coverage gaps to fill. The education sector is apparently bemoaning the decision but if it has been largely reselling the spectrum maybe it’s the revenue that it will miss the most.

US/Huawei saga enters the realm of ‘who knows what going on?’

The US Commerce Department has held a press conference to announce some companies can now trade with Huawei, but no-one knows who, how, what or where.

Speaking at the annual department conference in Washington, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has said US companies can now start trading with Huawei, assuming they have had a license approved by his department, which is unlikely to happen, while little guidance has been offered to the criteria on how decisions will be made.

The only clue which we have so far is a reference to ‘national security’. Huawei and its affiliates remain on the ‘Entity List’, though US firms are allowed to do business if it doesn’t compromise national security. What that actually means is anyone’s guess.

The move from the US Commerce Department follows comments from President Donald Trump at the G20 Summit in Japan. In order to get trade talks back on track, Chinese President Xi Jinping insisted the aggression towards Huawei be ended. This seems to be somewhat of a compromise with a nod to the likely domestic opposition the White House will face.

Immediately after Trump signalled his intentions to let Huawei off the hook, two of the President’s biggest opponents, from opposite sides of the aisle, voiced their disapproval. Republican Senator Marco Rubio, who has Presidential ambitions, and Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, who consistently undermines the President, both suggested they were going to be hurdles in the pursuit of Huawei relief.

For the moment, the language is still very negative. US suppliers can apply to work with Huawei, but applications will be looked at with refusal at the front of mind. There will have to be proof such business would not compromise security, though it is highly likely the vast majority will be turned down.

“To implement the president’s G20 summit directive two weeks ago, Commerce will issue licenses where there is no threat to US national security,” said Ross during the conference.

“Within those confines, we will try to make sure that we don’t just transfer revenue from the US to foreign firms.”

This seems to be an attempt to keep all parties involved happy. In China, it might look like the White House is trying to relieve pressure on Huawei, while in Congress, Trump seems to be attempting to give the impression he is protecting national security. However, it does paint an incredibly confusing picture.

Ross’ statements seem to ignore the fact that supply chains are now globalised, and it is almost impossible to do business without working beyond domestic shores. Few firms will have any concrete understanding to where they stand either.

For those who have lobbied against the ban, its difficult to see whether this is a win or not. Yes, it is somewhat of a concession, but it might not mean anything ultimately. If the US Commerce Department is going to be stubborn, few suppliers might receive the golden ticket to do business with Huawei. Only time will tell whether this is anything more than ego stroking from Ross.

China responsible for one in seven attacks on UK business – report

Cybersecurity attacks directed towards businesses in the UK are on the up and it appears the source of these nefarious activities can be quite often traced back to China.

After years of being ignored or swept aside for another day, security professionals are finally being taken seriously in the world of IT. It might be considerably overdue, but it is at a very apt time; according to research from enterprise ISP Beaming, the number of cybersecurity attacks directed towards UK businesses increased by 179% year-on-year for the second quarter of 2019.

“The rate at which UK businesses are attacked online has soared over the last year and companies large and small are under sustained attack from hackers around the world,” said Sonia Blizzard, MD of Beaming.

“The majority of cyber-attacks on businesses are indiscriminate, malicious code that trawls the web seeking to exploit any weak point in cyber security systems. A single breach can be catastrophic to those involved.”

Unfortunately for those who would like international tensions to simmer-down, Beaming is also pointing the finger towards China as the source of many threats. China is seemingly the source of one in seven of these attacks, though Taiwan, Brazil, Egypt and the US are some of most persistent offenders.

Amazingly, on average UK businesses are under-threat from a cyber-criminal every 50 seconds, totalling 146,491 over the period in question. It might sound ridiculous, but it demonstrates the simplistic nature of some of these attacks. For the most part, large businesses will be able to avoid any serious damage by simply investing in basic security principles and systems, though you have to wonder how many SMEs are underprepared to resist the suspect fingers of the dark web.

According to Beaming, 63% of small businesses suffered a cyber-attack last year, with the average cost to the business being £63,000. The total cost of cybercrime for small businesses was £13.6 billion. The under-preparedness of SMEs is perhaps best indicated by its proportion of the total; £13.6 billion of the £17 billion total.

Although there is likely to be a fair bit of fear-mongering from Beaming here, security is considered to be one of the selling points of the business, the threat of cybercrime should not be undervalued.

One trend which presents as much of a threat as it does opportunity is IOT. This is a technology which has the potential to revolutionise business models but also give rise to new services and products. However, the threat is just as prominent. The more a company relies of IOT, the bigger the perimeter of its network and the more points of exposure. The number of gateways increases, increasing complexity of cybersecurity.

For those companies which are struggling to cope in the embryonic version of digital which we live in today, tomorrow could be a disaster.

The research has been released at a very intelligent time when you consider the number of GDPR fines which are potentially on the horizon. Earlier today, July 8, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) announced its intention to fine British Airways £184 million for a data breach which occurred in September 2018.

This is the biggest fine handed out by the ICO, but it is worth remembering this is only one of the first examples of the watchdog swinging the GDPR stick. The number of ‘contacts’ the ICO has had with businesses, organizations and individuals has increased 66% since GDPR was introduced in May 2018. In terms of workforce, 200 additional employees have been drafted in since GDPR with plans to hire another 100 to take the total north of 800.

These numbers suggest the ICO is getting more serious about investigation and enforcement, though another consideration for the importance of security is the buying preferences of UK consumers.

If the number of complaints about personal data breaches are increasing, up to 14,000 for the 12 months to May 1 from 3,300 in the prior year period, consumers are clearly more aware about security and data protection. With more products incorporating connectivity, and consumers becoming more away of the dangers of the internet, the security credentials of an organization will become a factor in the purchasing decision-making process.

If start-ups are going to challenge the status quo in the digital world, they will need to sort out security systems and processes. It might surprise some that SMEs account for such a large proportion of the cost of cybersecurity to UK businesses, but such statistics will start to become more prominent as digital increasingly becomes the norm.

Theoretically, the digital world levels the playing field, affording the opportunity for start-ups to challenge the status quo, but if they aren’t up-to-speed when it comes to security, it might well turn out to be a non-starter.

Study tenuously links Huawei to the Chinese state

A new study used a bunch of CVs to draw the conclusion that many Huawei employees have ties to the Chinese state security services.

The study was conducted by Christopher Balding, Associate Professor at Fulbright University Vietnam, but with support from hawkish foreign policy think tank Henry Jackson Society. It seems to set out to undermine Huawei’s repeated claims of innocence when it comes to collaborating with the Chinese state, as it’s headlined ‘Huawei Technologies’ Links to Chinese State Security Services’.

“Using a unique dataset of CVs that leaked from unsecure Chinese recruitment databases and websites and emerged online in 2018, I analyze the relationship between Huawei and the Chinese state security services,” wrote Balding in his introduction. “In the first of what will be a series of papers, I find that key mid-level technical personnel employed by Huawei have strong backgrounds in work closely associated with intelligence gathering and military activities.”

The core evidence revolves around just three CVs, which the author concedes are a limited source but insists are just a sample of the material he uncovered. One CV reveals a Huawei software engineer also holds a position at the National University of Defense and Technology (NUDT), which apparently means he’s officially employed by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

The second CV reveals a person who used to work at a state-owned organisation before joining Huawei as a Ministry of State Security (MSS) representative. Balding notes that the MSS is the main Chinese spy agency and that the CV indicates the person was involved with building lawful interception capability into Huawei equipment.

The third CV covers someone who once worked at China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASTC), before eventually joining Huawei. Balding reckons that ‘placed him in contact with some of the most sensitive aspects of all PLA operations and technologies.’ The report also notes that the CV talks of expertise in Cisco and Nortel switches and that such equipment was extensively hacked by actors linked to the Chinese state at the time he worked at CASTC.

“This paper has sought to answer whether there is evidence of Huawei acting in concert with the Chinese state, military, and or intelligence gathering services,” concludes the report. “After examining a unique dataset of employee provided work activity at Huawei, it is clear that there is an undeniable relationship between Huawei and the Chinese state, military, and intelligence gathering services.

“While data limitations prevent us from saying whether Huawei follows official commands, acts in concert with the state, or seeks to preempt greater control by acting in advance, there is significant direct evidence of Huawei personnel acting at the direction of Chinese state intelligence with multiple overlapping relationship links through the Chinese state. This should concern governments worried about Chinese intelligence gathering.”

Huawei, you’ll be amazed to hear, doesn’t agree with these conclusions. Here’s its initial statement: “We have not been able to verify any of these so-called ‘Huawei Employee CVs’ Professor Christopher Balding is citing following our preliminary examination. As such, we cannot confirm the veracity of all of the information published online.

“Huawei maintains strict policies for hiring candidates with military or government backgrounds. During the hiring process, these candidates are required to provide documentation proving they have ended their relationships with the military or the government.

“Cyber security and privacy protection have been and will always be our top priorities. Huawei conducts background checks and provides pre-job training to this effect for employees who will access customer networks and data. Huawei requires all such employee operations be authorized and monitored by the customers. This institutional requirement has enabled Huawei’s products and services to serve our global customers well over the past 30 years.

“Huawei understands that cyber security concerns are paramount in the digital world. We welcome professional and fact-based reporting on investigations into Huawei’s transparency. We hope that any further research papers will contain less conjecture when drawing their conclusions, and avoid so many speculative statements about what Professor Balding ‘believes’, ‘infers’, and ‘cannot rule out’.

The company then issued this follow-up statement once it had given the study a further look. “The report fails to identify any clear evidence that Huawei works on military projects. It is based on just three CVs and in each case admits its attempts to link the company to military activity is based on inference and speculation – not hard facts.”

A few third parties have also questioned the rigour of the study, of which this Twitter thread is a good example.

The author, as you would expect, has taken to Twitter to defend his work.

Our first impression was that this whole thing fells like a bit of a reach, which draws dotted lines between Huawei and the Chinese state on the basis of a few CVs. Having said that Huawei does insist that none of its employees have ties to the state and at least one of these CVs seems to contradict that. This study is one of a steady drip of leaks and reports alleging Huawei to have closer ties to the Chinese state than it admits, but conclusive evidence remains elusive.

TIM hits the 5G go-button

Telecom Italia is the latest telco to join the 5G bonanza, announcing launch of its own network in Turin, Naples and Rome.

The launch is limited for the moment, though it seems TIM is confident it can scale very quickly. By the end of the year, an additional six cities (Milan, Bologna, Verona, Florence, Matera and Bari) will be added to the list, as well as 30 tourist destinations, 50 industrial districts and 30 specific projects for big business.

By 2021, TIM has set itself further ambitious targets; coverage for 120 major cities, 200 tourist destinations, 245 industrial districts and 200 specific projects for big business. The dreaded ‘up-to’ metric has also made an appearance, with speeds ‘up to’ 2 Gbps promised by the end of the year, progressing to 10 Gbps by 2021, when it is also promising 22% population coverage for 5G.

What hasn’t been detailed is the number of base stations which will be upgraded to 5G over the coming months and years. It’s all well and good to ‘have’ 5G in Turin, Naples and Rome, but without knowing the number of base stations which are 5G there is little way to gauge the coverage footprint. It might end up meaning very little unless you are stood in the perfect spot just outside the entrance to Vatican City.

Onto pricing, TIM has elected to take the SIM-only approach, with the option to bolt on a subsidised handset as an additional product. For €29.99 a month, users will have a data allowance of 50 GB, with unlimited calls and SMS, while the data pool is increased to 100 GB for €49.99 a month.

Interestingly enough, the most attractive offers which we have seen around the world for 5G have been SIM-only plans. Vodafone in the UK has taken this approach, while T-Mobile US has done the same also. Telcos have wanted to distance themselves from the profit churning subsidised handset model for years and perhaps this is further evidence of this. Whether a SIM-only approach to 5G, with optional bolt-ons for subsidised handsets, becomes a defining trend, only time will tell.

Another excellent move from TIM is the roaming. Although there are few telcos who have announced roaming plans, Vodafone is one of the only ones to do so, TIM has suggested it will offer 5G roaming in six countries, starting within July in Austria, the UK and Switzerland and moving on to Spain, Germany and the UAE soon after.

The announcements are coming think and fast as we move closer to the 5G dream, but this looks like one of the more comprehensive ones to date.

Ren’s back to tell us how Huawei is starting to ditch the US

Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei appears to be little more than a celebrity spokesperson nowadays, but a recent interview suggests the vendor is just fine with its US shunning.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Ren has once again been called into action to address the tensions between China and the US, as a result of which, Huawei has become a prime target for anyone hoping to inflict damage on the worlds’ second largest economy. The message from Ren is relatively simple; we’re doing OK and we’ll move away from US suppliers.

Such comments will certainly set off alarm bells in the offices of some US semiconductor firms, but it should hardly come as a surprise. The ‘Made in China 2025’ strategy might be unpopular with the US and Europe, but it is by no-means a secret.

‘Made in China 2025’ is an initiative set into action by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang during 2015. Through this initiative, the Chinese Government wants to evolve the perception of the country, ditching the ‘world’s factory’ tagline and moving up the value chain towards higher value products and services. The Government will be contributing $300 billion to the project to enable China to compete with the US.

This plan has been heavily criticised by the US for a number of reasons, but ultimately it all boils down to one; this is a genuine threat to the technological domination of the US on the global scene.

Of course, there are plenty of reasons not to like the idea. Some have suggested it violates the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules on self-sufficiency. Others have said trade secrets have been stolen from foreign companies or unfairly obtained through forced joint-ventures. For ‘Made in China 2025’, companies have to move up the value chain, targeting growth industries such as AI or medicine, and these smarts have to come from somewhere.

However, you always have to bear in mind the end-result irrelevant of path taken to get there. If ‘Made in China 2025’ succeeds, the US will no-longer be the dominant force in the technology world, and other economies could be shattered if China replaces imported goods with domestic.

In the latest interview, Ren is suggesting that even if there is a reprieve from President Donald Trump following the G20 summit last weekend, Huawei will continue to move its supply chain out of the US. Perhaps this is the catalyst which was needed to kick the ‘Made in China 2025’ concept up another gear.

“The US is helping us in a great way by giving us these difficulties,” said Ren. “Under external pressure, we have become more united than ever.

“If we aren’t allowed to use US components, we are very confident in our ability to use components made in China and other countries.”

Although there has been a concession from Trump with regard to the ban facing Huawei, some might view this pardon with scepticism. The President’s opinion seems to change more often than the tides so why would any organization pins its hopes and aspirations on the door of the Oval Office. Instead of a power demonstration, the US seems to have pushed the Chinese further towards autonomy.

While it is far from confirmed, we strongly suspect the huffing and puffing from the White House was little more than a demonstration of power. Huawei’s entry onto the Entity List might have been an aggressive move to gain the upper-hand in trade talks with the Chinese; look what we did to ZTE last year, the US appears to be saying, so play nice or we’ll do the same to Huawei.

But it doesn’t seem to have worked; Huawei is still alive and still OK, if you listen to Ren.

How OK Huawei actually is remains to be seen. Ren has been wheeled out to put a positive spin on the situation, but the picture is rather gloomy. Smartphone shipments are set to decline by 40-60% over the remainder of the year, Google hasn’t said it is once again on friendly terms with Huawei despite Trump’s amnesty, and some have questioned whether China is capable of filling the semiconductor hole created through the China/US vacuum.

Huawei has done a lot to add diversity to its supply chain in recent years, while also moving numerous operations to its own fabless semiconductor company HiSilicon, but can it satisfy its appetite for more specialised components? Huawei works with a number of US firms who have niche operations, Qorvo supplies radio-frequency systems and solutions for Huawei for example, and when it comes to specialised components, the US rules the world.

For certain segments of the semiconductor industry, field programmable gate arrays as another example, and China has not been able to replicate the US success just yet. Despite what Ren says about moving Huawei’s supply chain out of the US, it will still be reliant for some incredibly important cogs.

One way of viewing this situation is that there is a short-term demonstration of power. Without the likes of Xilinx, Qualcomm, Qorvo, NeoPhotonics and numerous other semiconductor businesses, Huawei cannot produce the products it is promising customers. Not yet at least.

But long-term, perhaps this approach is simply forcing ‘Made in China 2025’ to accelerate and eroding the control the US has globally over some very high-value, highly profitable segments. Prior to the trade war, US companies were inside the tent. Admittedly conditions were not perfect, but they were inside not outside.

Perhaps this is the watershed moment; companies are going to be forced out as companies like Huawei increasingly look for domestic suppliers, and once they find them (by luck, convenience or necessity) there is no coming back.