FCC and Oval Office locking horns over 5G

The FCC originally looked like a diligent foot-soldier for the President, but with the nationalised 5G infrastructure argument seemingly emerging again, heads are set to butt.

Reports have been emerging in various corners that the White House is revisiting plans to develop a nationalised 5G network, a plan originally raised in January 2018 to keep the US at the front of the technology arms race. The plan was shot-down back then, and the FCC has already raised set the tone of resistance through social media over the last week or so.

Following the President’s twitter rant last month, which saw the Commander-in-Chief bemoan progress being made by the telcos, FCC chiefs set their position out quite firmly.

In the case of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a retweeted message from 2018 reiterates a point which was made when the plans were first suggested; hands-off from the government is the best stance. This seems to be one of the only positions the Democrat and Republican representatives on the board of the FCC seem to agree on; the telcos should build the US 5G network, not the government.

Although the White House has not released any official statement confirming its favour of a nationalised 5G infrastructure, the defensive position entrenched by Pai and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel suggest there have been conversations which neither like. These tweets could be viewed as in-direct opposition, with the pair attempting to get ahead of the game.

According to Politico, this isn’t the only conflict which is emerging either. The Trump 2020 re-election campaign team have been pushing the benefits of a government-owned, wholesale infrastructure, while the current Trump political administration are keen to avoid the topic. While the disagreement is hearsay and reports for the moment, it would not surprise us if the Trump campaign led with such a promise.

This sort of political manoeuvre fits perfectly into the Trump playbook from his first election campaign. It hits pain-points for US citizens in the politically less-attractive states, the very people Trump was able to mobilise in 2016. However, attacking the digital divide in rural communities is not a new trick, Hilary Clinton used this tactic in 2016 also, but a nationalised 5G infrastructure will appeal to those who feel ignored by corporates. Trump has shown he can communicate effectively to those who believe they are under-represented by mainstream politics, and this angle could prove to be an effective tool.

The idea which seems to have been raised here is to create a wholesale network in partnership with a private third-party. The government would fund the deployment of the network, while the third-party would manage the operations and wholesale business, creating a system which would operate like the electricity market, with parties ‘purchasing connectivity’ on a rolling basis.

Theoretically, this position sounds wonderful. The arguments for nationalisation are often very compelling, and it could be justified as an effective way to spend tax-payers money. However, nationalised businesses and infrastructure have been shown to be ineffective time and time again. The government is not equipped to manage such projects in the long-run and not savvy enough to compete against private entities when they emerge. It might sound very appealing to voters who are stuck in the chasm of the digital divide, but it will not help the US in the global technology arms race.

As Brenden Carr, a Republican FCC Commissioner, notes above, private industry is the best way to secure a leadership position in 5G. This is a lesson which has been learned numerous times over the years in the US; when you leave private industry alone, simply creating a legislative and regulatory framework to encourage growth, much can be gained. In the technology world, this is perfectly evident with the success of Silicon Valley.

The dominance of the US on the technology stage is being widely challenged, though it seems the ego of the Trump party is getting in the way of logic. First to market does not necessarily mean the best, but this seems to be the angle which the President’s team is taking.

The big question is what impact this will have on the future for the Republican party. Should these rumours of a nationalised network evolve into reality, a split may well appear in the rank and file. The Republican FCC representatives are clearly not happy about this position, and neither are the science and technology advisors in the White House. However, you can’t argue that such a campaign promise would be very attractive to those who currently reside on the wrong side of the digital divide.

Here is what the Trump 2020 electoral campaign team will have to assess; is the long-term detriment of communications infrastructure a fair trade-off for the lure of ‘Middle America’ votes in the 2020 election? We suspect they won’t be looking much further beyond 2024.

Trump opposition to AT&T/Time Warner deal was personal revenge – report

Few would consider Donald Trump a conventional President but attempting to block AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner to get revenge for poor coverage would be another level.

Trump’s distaste for CNN is widely known, though The New Yorker is now claiming the President’s opposition to AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner was little more than a personal vendetta against the newsroom for poor coverage as opposed to an ideological protest against market consolidation. We’re not too sure whether to be surprised by such an accusation, such is the dramatic impact to the status quo Trump has had on politics.

It is claimed President Trump was attempting to pressure the Department of Justice into blocking the monstrous acquisition as revenge for the negative news coverage on Time Warner-owned CNN. According to The New Yorker, in a meeting with Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen and former Chief of Staff John Kelly, the President said:

“I’ve been telling Cohn to get this lawsuit filed and nothing’s happened. I’ve mentioned it fifty times. And nothing’s happened. I want to make sure it’s filed. I want that deal blocked.” Gary Cohn was, at the time, the Director of the National Economic Council – the main Presidential policy-making forum for economic matters.

The New Yorker then goes onto to claim Cohn resisted the push from the President, with aides suggesting he did not understand the ‘nuances’ of antitrust and competition law.  The Department of Justice did eventually file its complaints, though these were eventually overturned by a Federal Judge, with the DoJ then turning to the court of appeals.

It’s worth noting is that The New Yorker is not a friend of President Trump. Owned by Conde Nast, the editors are apparently given complete freedom from the parent company, with the publication having endorsed Barack Obama in 2012 and Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Election. The main topic of the New Yorker piece was an investigation into the relationship between right-leaning Fox News and President Trump.

While there certainly is a left-sided slant, it is also a highly respected title which has never failed a fact check according to the Media Bias/Fact Check website. This should not be considered as unusual as there are very few (if any) mainstream media titles in the US (or worldwide for that matter) which can honestly state they are impartial; there is always some sort of political bias.

What this does indicate is the growing, and not always positive, influence of politics of the TMT segments. Although politicians might have been slow off the mark in regard to the digital euphoria, they are certainly catching up quickly. Mass market communication has dramatically shifted away from traditional media in recent years, and the politicians are following the wake.

For AT&T, this is a headache which it will be happy to put in the past. Last week, a US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit rejected an appeal from the Department of Justice challenging the Federal Judge which overturned its complaint against the acquisition. The DoJ claimed AT&T would have “both the incentive and the ability to raise its rivals’ costs and stifle growth of innovative, next-generation entrants”, though the Federal Judge and the appeals court dismissed the antitrust claims.

The number of lawsuits, counter-lawsuits and appeals has now created an incredibly complicated timeline, but there does not seem to be many routes of resistance left. Sooner or later, AT&T will be able to start figuring out how to recoup the $107 billion it decided to spend on Game of Thrones.

Trump tweets about 6G

Somebody seems to have told US President Donald Trump there’s a mobile industry trade show coming up so he’s using his favoured medium to get involved.

Trump opened a two-part Tweet by saying “I want 5G, and even 6G, technology in the United States as soon as possible.” This laudable wish was presumably prompted by the imminence of Mobile World Congress 2019 and some kind of need to be seen to be aware of it, but it’s not at all clear what Trump expects them to achieve.

We’re not avid followers of Trump’s Twitter output but he generally seems to use the platform to do one of the following: trumpet his political achievements, defend himself from perceived attacks, insult people he doesn’t like, criticise the media, or just try to wind up as many people as possible. His telecoms tweets don’t seem to fall into any of these categories, however.

In his second Tweet he said “I want the United States to win through competition, not by blocking out currently more advanced technologies.” This is intriguing but again it’s not clear what he’s referring to. On the surface he seems to be berating domestic telcos for lagging behind in the 5G race, but another interpretation could be some kind of olive branch to Huawei, which offers some of the most advanced technologies. Who knows?

Whether that’s his primary intention or not, anything Trump tweets seems to trigger a legion of Twitter obsessives apparently just waiting to take offense. Some of the more ‘liked’ responses are worth paying attention to, if only to get a measure of how the message is being received. Be warned though, the Twitter rabbit-hole can be a very dark place.

 

Trump’s Huawei executive order not much more than a power play

Rumours are swirling around Washington DC suggesting President Donald Trump is on the verge of signing another executive order, this one the final blow to Huawei’s US ambitions.

While the document itself will actually have very little impact on Huawei’s business, it is more of a symbolic blow to the kit vendor, as well as other Chinese businesses looking to exploit the riches of the Land of the Free. While the rumours were originally reported last week, by the time you get back to the office on Monday the order may well have been signed.

In a single signature, Huawei, a representation of China’s ambitions in the global technology and telecommunications industry, could be officially and explicitly shut out of the worlds’ largest economies.

Although details on the executive order are limited to rumour and hearsay for the moment, officials have stated this order will not impact electronics companies or products which incorporate Chinese components. This is a political move to demonstrate the power of the US. Trump is making a statement to China; look at what I can do to one of your flagbearers.

As it stands, Huawei’s involvement in US communications infrastructure is pretty minimal. T-Mobile US CEO John Legere has very publicly stated his business will very much avoid using Huawei equipment, while back in August Trump signed the Defense Authorization Act into law which effectively banned any meaningful work Huawei or ZTE could do in the US.

Huawei’s, and ZTE to a lesser extent, condemnation has become nothing more than a symbol of US dominance on the technology world. Trump is posturing, demonstrating what will happen to anyone who challenges the US leadership position. Over the last few months, US delegations have been visiting governments around the world to pitch the idea of a ban, admittedly with varied success, though there have been some willing to listen. Banning ZTE from using US components or IP brought the firm to the brink of extinction. The US forced Canada to arrest the Huawei CFO. A lot of this is a demonstration of power.

This is of course a complex and rich tapestry, and there are numerous intertwining and independent narratives going on. Some of it will be political, some economic, some espionage assumptions will be true and there will be validity to accusations of a government-influenced unfair playing field. This is an incredibly complex matter. But look at what the executive order actually is.

Huawei is already incredibly limited in the US, the damage to ambitions has already been dealt, this is chest beating from Trump.

Time Warner acquisition resistance could turn ugly for Trump

President Donald Trump’s administration certainly has been a different shade of politics for the Oval Office, though actions and alleged prejudice could come back to haunt the Commander in Chief.

Despite being proclaimed a resounding victory for the Republicans, the mid-term elections could have gone a hell of a lot better. With the House of Representatives swinging back into the hands of the Democrats, not only will Trump find passing his questionable legislation more difficult, but his actions over the first two years of the Presidency could be called into question.

In an interview with Axios, California Congressman Adam Schiff, who is also the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested an investigation into the President would now be able to make a material impact because of the swing of power across the aisle. The President’s tax records will once again become a topic of conversation, though the appropriateness of his objections to AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner will also come under scrutiny, as will his seemingly personal vendetta against Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.

While the President’s actions have constantly been condemned by critics and political opponents, there has been little opportunity to do anything considering Trump’s political foundations. With majorities in both Houses of Congress, the Republican party have been able to block, or at least stifle, any investigations. However, with last week’s mid-term elections swinging the House of Representatives into a Democrat majority things might be about to change.

Trump’s opposition to the AT&T and Time Warner deal has been widely publicised, dating back to the Presidential campaign trail. Some have suggested his hatred for Time Warner owned CNN is the reasoning behind the probes and appeals against the acquisition, though this will come under question through the investigations.

“We don’t know, for example, whether the effort to hold up the merger of the parent of CNN was a concern over antitrust or whether this was an effort merely to punish CNN,” said Schiff.

While the deal has been greenlight by District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Richard Leon, the Department of Justice is appealing the decision, suggesting Judge Leon is ignorant to the facts and the economic implications of the deal. It has been reported the Trump administration has been pressuring the DoJ to pursue the appeal and attempt to derail the acquisition.

Looking at the spat with Jeff Bezos, this has been tackled on several fronts. Not only has President Trump constantly berated the excellent reporting by the Washington Post, privately owned by Bezos, Trump has been targeting the tax activities of Amazon. Back in March, Trump tweeted he would be tackling the tax set-up at Amazon, sending share price down 2%, while he has also been reportedly pressuring the Post Office to charge Amazon more, despite the eCommerce revolution seemingly saving the service with the vast increases in package delivery.

These are just two examples relevant to the telecoms and technology industry, but the Democrats are seemingly going for the throat. Tax records will be called into question, as well as reports the President blocked the FBI from moving its headquarters because it would negatively impact business as one of his hotels, located opposite the bureau’s offices.

For the moment, this seems to be nothing more than political posturing, as while the statements might appease those in opposition to Trump, they are nothing more than statements. The Democrats will not assume their majority in the House of Representatives for two months, a long-time in the lightly-principled world of politics. Much could change during this period.

What the change in political landscape could mean more than anything else is a bit more stability. President Trump has been praised by his supporters as a man of action, though actions are of questionable benefit to business executives who crave legislative, regulatory and policy consistency. Only with the promise of consistency can businesses made long-term strategies to conquer the world, but with Twitter a constant threat of change it is understandable some are nervous.

With the Democrats in control of the House of Representatives, Trump will find it much more difficult to force through any controversial or overly aggressive policies, though there is also the threat of legislative standstill. The US political landscape has certainly been an interesting one over the last two years, though it could become even more interesting over the next two for completely different reasons.

Trump set sights on spectrum strategy

US President Donald Trump has unveiled plans to create a National Spectrum Strategy to prepare the country prepare for the introduction of 5G wireless networks.

The presidential memorandum, which was signed last week, directs the Secretary of Commerce to work with agencies and policy makers on all levels to develop a National Spectrum Strategy. As part of the strategy, the Secretary of the department will report annually to the President on efforts to repurpose spectrum, while a Spectrum Strategy Task Force will also be created which, including representatives from the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the National Security Council, the National Space Council, and the Council of Economic Advisers.

“American companies and institutions rely heavily on high-speed wireless connections, with increasing demands on both speed and capacity,” the memorandum states. “Wireless technologies are helping to bring broadband to rural, unserved, and underserved parts of America. Spectrum-dependent systems also are indispensable to the performance of many important United States Government missions. And as a Nation, our dependence on these airwaves is likely to continue to grow.”

Within 180 days, executive departments and agencies are required to report to the Secretary of Commerce on their anticipated future spectrum requirements, while the OSTP shall submit a report to the President on emerging technologies and the expected impact on spectrum demand. Once these reports have been submitted and assessed, the Secretary of Commerce will have to brief the White House on the status of existing efforts and planned near- to mid-term spectrum repurposing initiatives, as well as a long-term National Spectrum Strategy that includes legislative, regulatory, or other policy recommendations to rework the approach to spectrum management.

While work on spectrum has been underway for some time, this intervention from the White House demonstrates the importance of 5G to the US economy, and perhaps its long-standing battle with the Chinese to maintain control of the global economy.  Although Silicon Valley still maintains the leadership position on the worldwide technology and telecommunications industry, this grip is not quite as ironclad as it was in previous years. With digital taking over in the cockpit as the driver for almost every ‘developed’ economy around the world, a flexible, future-proofed spectrum policy is critical.

“We commend the administration for recognizing the importance of establishing a national spectrum strategy,” said CTIA President Meredith Baker. “With the right approach based on licensed wireless spectrum, America’s wireless carriers will invest hundreds of billions of dollars and create millions of jobs to deploy next-generation networks and win the global 5G race.”

“Spectrum has become one of the most critical inputs for the communications and information technologies that are driving America’s economic growth,” a statement from the NCTA reads. “The services that rely on unlicensed spectrum alone generated more than $525 billion in value for the U.S. economy in 2017. We look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue with the White House, NTIA, and the FCC on the development of a balanced national spectrum policy that will meet the growing need for both licensed and unlicensed spectrum to support next-generation wireless technologies.”

The attention from the White House will certainly be welcomed by the industry, though some have questioned why it has taken so long. With the Trump administration focusing on other areas, in particular looking outwards, some critics have questioned why it has taken so long for the White House to take a firm position in the 5G world. Democrat FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel is one who has questioned the sluggish nature of the administration, particularly focused on reports and action, suggesting it has allowed other countries such as China and Korea to steal valuable yards in the 5G race.

While specifics are relatively thin for the moment, the spectrum strategy might go some way to settle bickering in the industry. A good example is the battle between the autonomous vehicles camp, which is currently guarding largely unused spectrum reserved to allow vehicles to communicate, and telcos who want the assets opened up for wifi. This is only one example, but without a comprehensive, forward-looking, strategy in place, these arguments will not be settled.

Such a policy will provide much needed clarity in the industry, though six months is a long-time to wait with the 5G world fast approaching.

Apple warns of higher prices with looming Chinese tariffs

Apple’s relationship with the White House looks to be straining at the seams as the iLeader continues to criticise the impending trade war, while the President offers little knowledge of how supply chains actually work.

Using his favourite means to spread tripe, President Donald Trump took to Twitter to hit back at a filing make by Apple with the US Trade Representative. In the filing, Apple argues the tariffs would lead to higher consumer prices, slower economic growth in the US and Apple being exposed to higher competition from foreign rivals.

“Apple prices may increase because of the massive Tariffs we may be imposing on China – but there is an easy solution where there would be ZERO tax, and indeed a tax incentive,” the President wrote in a tweet. “Make your products in the United States instead of China. Start building new plants now. Exciting!”

While some of Apple’s products have been hit by the current tariffs placed on Chinese exports, the iPhone, which accounted for 56% of revenues over the second quarter of 2018, is yet to be effected. As a company which manufactures the majority of its good in China, Trump’s next tariff proposal, essentially covering everything coming out of China, would have a very negative impact.

On the surface, forcing Apple’s manufacturing process back onto US shores would be a political PR win for the President, though the move could be disastrous for Apple and iLifers. There might well be tax incentives in moving the manufacturing process back to the US, but cost of building the factories would be incredibly high, while labour costs are also much higher. Tax incentives might compensate for these incurred costs, as would a price hike to consumers, but there is a bigger issue at hand which the President doesn’t seem to understand.

Managing a supply chain in the manufacturing trade is more than simply understanding how much labour costs. It’s access to raw and manufactured materials, cheap energy and real estate and finally, skilled workers. Once the plant has been built, the transportation and logistics puzzle to access materials will have to be addressed. Finding the right plot will also be tricky, as real estate will have to be cost effective, but it will also have to be close enough to a large enough workforce. This in itself is perhaps the biggest challenge as important aspects of this workforce do not actually exist at scale in the US.

Precision tooling is an excellent example of one of these skills. Precision tooling is a trade which requires years of training, combining artisanal craftsmanship with precision engineering skills. Apple CEO Tim Cook pointed out a couple of years back at a Fortune conference China actually stopped being the low-labour market and instead has a skilled workforce which enables the manufacture of smartphones and other advanced electronics. There are of course cost savings to be made in Chine, but these skills are critical in the smartphone manufacturing industry, and simply cannot be created overnight in the US.

The risk for Apple when it comes to moving the manufacturing process into the US, isn’t simply the cost as President Trump is suggesting. There are immensely complicated supply chain issues which will take months and years to perfect, this was the case for China as well, but the manufacturing industry here has evolved with technology industry. Skills have been taken forward and adapted to the manufacturing process as more complicated techniques and processes become commonplace. The learning process in the US will have to be much sharper.

When you take these elements into consideration, the risk is much more than financial. Apple could probably absorb a couple of years of heightened manufacturing costs, such is the profitability of the organization, but what it cannot allow is for a glitch in the supply chain. This is an incredibly well-oiled machine which produces hundreds of millions of devices every single year. Poking, prodding, moving and shifting this machine will impact Apple’s ability to meet consumer demand.

On one side of the coin, this is not worst case scenario. Less products on the market create a sense of exclusivity, which is turn increases the value of the products. Many luxury brands limit supply to create this sense of exclusivity which inflates prices. Some in the accounting department might like this idea, but Apple is a different beast. Somehow, Apple has managed to create the image of an exclusive, luxury brand, while flooding the market with supply and still maintaining incredibly high prices. Its contradictory and defies logic in the branding and price game.

If there is money to be made, Apple will profit. If it can offer a customer an Apple product, it will make the offer. When there is an opportunity, Apple usually capitalises. However, this saga threatens to impact Apple’s ability to supply the masses with their iFix.

Most of the time, disagreements are about money. But President Trump doesn’t seem to understand anything more than surface complications here. Tax incentives and price hikes will not compensate for the massive issues the Apple supply chain could face.

California defies FCC and Trump by passing tough net neutrality laws

The state versus federal argument looks like it is heading towards full-throttle as California passes what it describes as the toughest net neutrality laws in the country.

The FCC and President Trump’s administration are seemingly set on creating a regulation-free USA, though some states are not having it. California is the latest to demonstrate its mistrust of the US telcos, passing its own net neutrality laws.

“We passed the strongest net neutrality standards in the nation,” said State Senator Scott Wiener, who authored the bill alongside Senator Kevin de León. “The internet is at the heart of 21st century life – our economy, our public safety and health systems, and our democracy. So when Donald Trump’s FCC decided to take a wrecking ball to net neutrality protections, we knew that California had to step in to ensure our residents have access to a free and open internet.”

Looking at the broadest of explanations, Senate Bill 822 prohibits blocking websites, speeding up or slowing down websites or whole classes of applications such as video. Certain aspect of zero rating will also be banned, unfortunately this is where the bill becomes a bit more complicated. Zero rating services, applications or content will be allowed, providing ‘no consideration, monetary or otherwise’ is paid to the ISP by third parties. This is the sort of grey area which lawyers dream about, and will encourage the creative thinkers of the judiciary community to hunt down the loop holes.

While the Trump administration and the FCC have been consistently moving to eradicate every aspect of net neutrality from the rule books, this move from California could threaten to fuel the state versus federal jurisdiction arguments and power plays which we have seen in years gone. In the latest version of the Communications Act, the legislation which underpins all telecommunications regulations in the US, states any state-level rules which contradicts the position of the FCC are invalid. This would suggest Senate Bill 822 will have a short lived life, though should the dominos start to fall who knows what could happen. How many states would have to pass laws contradicting the Communications Act for something to be done?

Privacy-advocacy groups, coalitions of private businesses, attorney generals and more have been challenging the FCC dismantling of the rules, and the escalation of this saga seems to be entering into uncharted territories. We have been talking about a need for an opposition win in the net neutrality resistance, but whether this can topple some dominos remains to be seen.

This is not the first state wide resistance to the FCC’s attack on net neutrality, with Washington State passing House Bill 2282 in March, with the rules coming into effect on June 6. While there has been a lot of posturing and promises about defying the FCC position, that is until Wiener and his meaty balls stepped up. Perhaps this might encourage other states to move forward with their own ambitions.

That said, the telco lobbyists and supporter of more light-touch regulatory environments are powerful. Over the last couple of years, dozens upon dozens of proposed laws to increase user privacy and scale back the untouchable power of the telcos have been defeated by money. In Kentucky for instance, House Bill 332 failed. This bill proposed no telco or ISP would collect personally identifiable information from a customer as a result of the customer’s use of the telecommunications or internet services without the customer’s approval. In Nebraska, LR 453 would have allowed for an interim study to examine the impact of net neutrality, though this failed.

There are countless examples of the sticky telco fingers prodding various bills, which perhaps make the passing of both the Washington and California bills a bit more impressive. With the net neutrality debate continuing to rumble on, the conflict between the states and the White House will only escalate. If more states start passing net neutrality laws, ignoring federal guidance and the chain of command, what will be the reaction of central government?

Trump declares war on Google

US President Donald Trump has tweeted that Google search results about him are biased in favour of leftwing media.

Leaving aside whatever Machiavellian motives Trump has for tweeting for the time being, this move seems to mark an escalation in the debates over the role the big internet companies play in controlling the flow of public information and discussion. Being openly accused of acting in bad faith by such a powerful person is not something Google can afford to ignore.

Here are the tweets in question, which have apparently been slightly revised since they were first published.

Unsurprisingly Google rejects these accusations. At time of writing it didn’t seem to have published a blog, or whatever, on the matter, but it has sent statements to a bunch of media. In keeping with the theme of this piece here’s an NBC Politics tweet containing the statement.  

Trump isn’t the first to flag up perceived leftwing bias from internet giants such as Google and Facebook, and may well be opportunistically riding that wave ahead of US midterm elections in November, in which all of the seats in the House of Representative and a third of the seats in the Senate are up for grabs. At the very least it seems likely he’s trying to swing search results in his favour at this critical juncture.

This is also a sensitive time for Google, especially on this topic. Its claims not to let its search results be affected by political ideology come just a few days after it had to deal with internal concerns that it’s planning to do just that in order to get back into the Chinese market. There is huge pressure on internet giants to censor undesirable content from their platforms, but if they accept the role of censor then they can’t be surprised if they also get accused of bias.

US effectively bans ZTE and Huawei from any valuable government work

President Trump has now signed the Defense Authorization Act into law, effectively banning the use of ZTE and Huawei components in many government or state-funded projects.

The new rules should hardly come as a surprise considering the political paranoia which has been swelling to tsunami levels over the last couple of months. With Republicans checking under their bed every night for the naughty Chinese government, it was only going to be a matter of time before the vendors were officially banned from US projects.

Although the vast majority of the bill is directed towards more traditional aspects of national security, a few clauses, specifically sections 886 and 889, point the finger at the two Chinese vendors. The bill had been working its way through the legislative red tape maze for months, with the House hitting back at measured included in the text which would have overruled the President’s olive branch extended to ZTE when turning over the ban. While Congress wanted a more extreme ban on the two companies, this is the new rules are somewhat off a compromise, but just as damning.

The ban will be rolled out over the next two years, with the pair effectively not being allowed to provide any components or services to processes or infrastructure which would be considered ‘essential’ or ‘critical’. Should the components be used to route or view any data on the network, they hit the sh*t list. Companies or departments which currently have these components in their networks have been instructed to remove and replace them. The FCC will be prioritising funding to assist with these projects.

Legal action will of course be launched over the coming months, the US is a big prize for the Chinese vendors, though we ponder how effective any challenge from Huawei and ZTE, or protests from the Chinese government, will actually be. The duo have been in the sights of the isolationist-inspired government for some time, with this bill perhaps being a critical blow.

Although the ban does seemingly go against the wishes of President Trump, who had worked to overturn the ZTE ban, we suspect the White House will be secretly happy with the outcome. Tensions between the US and Chinese governments have been on the rise again in recent months, primarily due to the anti-foreigner rhetoric which is being championed by the ‘Leader of the Free World’ in the Oval Office.

Confusion, contradiction and chaos; the three Cs of the Trump administration.

The new rules should hardly come as a surprise considering the political paranoia which has been swelling to tsunami levels over the last couple of months. With Republicans checking under their bed every night for the naughty Chinese government, it was only going to be a matter of time before the vendors were officially banned from US projects.

Although the vast majority of the bill is directed towards more traditional aspects of national security, a few clauses, specifically sections 886 and 889, point the finger at the two Chinese vendors. The bill had been working its way through the legislative red tape maze for months, with the House hitting back at measured included in the text which would have overruled the President’s olive branch extended to ZTE when turning over the ban. While Congress wanted a more extreme ban on the two companies, this is the new rules are somewhat off a compromise, but just as damning.

The ban will be rolled out over the next two years, with the pair effectively not being allowed to provide any components or services to processes or infrastructure which would be considered ‘essential’ or ‘critical’. Should the components be used to route or view any data on the network, they hit the sh*t list. Companies or departments which currently have these components in their networks have been instructed to remove and replace them. The FCC will be prioritising funding to assist with these projects.

Legal action will of course be launched over the coming months, the US is a big prize for the Chinese vendors, though we ponder how effective any challenge from Huawei and ZTE, or protests from the Chinese government, will actually be. The duo have been in the sights of the isolationist-inspired government for some time, with this bill perhaps being a critical blow.

Although the ban does seemingly go against the wishes of President Trump, who had worked to overturn the ZTE ban, we suspect the White House will be secretly happy with the outcome. Tensions between the US and Chinese governments have been on the rise again in recent months, primarily due to the anti-foreigner rhetoric which is being championed by the ‘Leader of the Free World’ in the Oval Office.

Confusion, contradiction and chaos; the three Cs of the Trump administration.