Huawei US ban metastasizes to ARM – where next?

The BBC is reporting that mobile chip designer ARM is the latest tech company to suspend its business with Huawei.

An ARM internal memo leaked to the Beeb instructed all employees to cease “all active contracts, support entitlements, and any pending engagements” with Huawei and made it clear that this was as a direct result of the recent US decisions to put Huawei on a list of companies US companies aren’t allowed to do business with.

ARM is based in the UK but is now a subsidiary of Japanese conglomerate SoftBank. However the memo apparently states that since ARM designs contain technology that originates from the US, ARM is cutting ties just in case that causes problems. Since these are probably design and software patents this move introduces the prospect that any company with even a trace of US intellectual property in its products may feel compelled to shun Huawei.

Huawei’s smartphone business is already in a lot of trouble thanks to its reliance on Android, but this ARM move will mean it can’t make its own chips either, which renders talk of OS alternatives redundant. It’s surely impossible to make a viable smartphone that contains no US intellectual property whatsoever and that may also be true of networking equipment.

The ARM business model involves licensing its semiconductor designs to third parties, who then incorporate them into their own chips. ARM’s designs are so effective, especially in power constrained environments, that they’re ubiquitous in the mobile world. The appear in not just processors and modems but IoT sensors and countless industrial applications, including a lot of networking gear. It’s hard to see how Huawei can function without access to them.

Here’s Huawei’s statement on the matter: “We value our close relationships with our partners, but recognise the pressure some of them are under, as a result of politically motivated decisions. We are confident this regrettable situation can be resolved and our priority remains to continue to deliver world-class technology and products to our customers around the world.” ARM doesn’t seem to have made a public statement yet.

Elsewhere it’s being reported that the US is mulling over the next tranche of Chinese companies to put on its blacklist. Next in the crosshairs are those that make surveillance gear, which isn’t too surprising. The way this is headed there seems to be no limit to the scope of this US ban. Only companies that do absolutely no business whatsoever with the US seem safe at this stage.

Qualcomm’s share price nosedives after FTC antirust loss

Qualcomm might have some of the most battle-hardened legal experts in the technology world, but it can’t win every fight.

In a ruling coming out of the District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Lucy Koh has ruled the chipset giant had violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. The judgment could have a significant impact on the Qualcomm business model, with Judge Koh suggesting it used its dominant position to impose excessive licensing fees.

While this certainly won’t be the end of Qualcomm dominance in the chipset market, the firm houses too much competence and smarts, it might have a drastic impact on the spreadsheets. And investors seem to be fearing the worst also, with Qualcomm’s share price declining almost 12% in pre-market trading at the time of writing.

“Qualcomm’s licensing practices have strangled competition in the CDMA and the premium LTE modem chip markets for years, and harmed rivals, OEMs, and end consumers in the process,” Judge Koh said in the ruling.

In a filing made in 2017, the Federal Trade Commission argued Qualcomm was employing anticompetitive tactics, using its dominant position in certain segments of the semiconductor market to hamper competition and effectively hold customers to random. The FTC suggested some components licenced by Qualcomm were standard essential parts, meaning they would have to be licenced on ‘fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms’. In short, Qualcomm should not have been charging such a handsome premium on the licences.

The FTC also claimed it was not reasonable for Qualcomm to enter into an exclusive agreement for some components with Apple, shutting other smartphone manufacturers out of the equation.

The Qualcomm business model has been under fire for some time, with the business facing numerous legal challenges in different markets worldwide. Although this is only a single ruling, it remains to be seen whether this sets a precedent and a subsequent domino effect around the world. Qualcomm is on the ropes here, though it will be interesting to see how the firm reacts to this latest antitrust blow.

Huawei’s in-house mobile OS is a very long shot

This story includes additional reporting from Jamie Davies.

In response to the threat of an imminent Android ban Huawei has started banging on about its own mobile OS, but who would want to use it?

Huawei’s mobile business boss Richard Yu was reported by the South China Morning Post as saying “The Huawei OS is likely to hit the market as soon as this fall, and no later than spring next year.” From the report this seems more like a fork of the open source Android core OS, with novel apps and a Huawei app store, much as Amazon has done with its Fire devices range.

While this is pretty much the only option available to Huawei if Google does withdraw access to licensed parts of Android, such as the Play Store, it’s hard to see it as a viable solution. The Amazon Fire phone offers perhaps the best precedent to draw upon. The premium device ticked all the hardware boxes but used a forked version of Android without the Play Store and as a result found a new use as a paperweight across Washington state.

Huawei will be able to continue using Android, it is open source after all, though technical support is only supplied to licenced partners, while any updates are rolled out through the open source much later than for the licenced one. This will have notable impacts not only on performance, but security. The most recent WhatsApp spyware issues were corrected through such an update, though unlicensed partners would still be exposed to the risk.

The issue Huawei faces is in the ecosystem. Wang Chenglu, President of the software engineering segment of the consumer business, told media in September developing the OS wasn’t a particularly complicated issue, but getting apps, services and products into the ecosystem is.

Smartphones are no-longer communications devices. These devices, which are millions of times more powerful than the computers which sent spacecraft to space in the 60s, are the focal point of our lives. If calling and texting was all we did, there would not be an issue, but asking for directions, collecting loyalty points, watching movies, playing games, signing into work, paying bills… everyday more functionality is being put onto the devices, and all these apps will have to be migrated to the Huawei OS.

Without apps smartphones are no longer smart. Yes, you can use the internet browser to access most services that also have an app but the user experience is significantly diminished. Huawei has the resources to ensure a lot of the top apps are ported to its own OS, but not all of them. Ultimately, in a largely undifferentiated Android smartphone market, there’s no reason for consumers to accept any compromise whatsoever.

There have also been numerous reports that Huawei was shocked by the Google decision but, in hindsight, that was an inevitable consequence of being put on the entity list, which in turn followed from US President Trump’s executive order. Maybe it was the Trump decision that surprised Huawei but since the US has been steadily increasing its hostility towards it for months that too seems a tad naïve.

Appropriately enough for something that could be Huawei’s last hope this OS is reportedly called Project Z. This has apparently been on the back-burner for a while, but largely designed for the Chinese market where a lot of Android features are blocked anyway. While we can safely assume it has now been given top priority, Project Z is reportedly still miles away from completion.

Even if Huawei completed the development of its own OS today, that wouldn’t make much difference for the reasons previously stated. Chinese smartphone vendors have benefitted enormously from having access to Android, but their reliance on a third party operating system and platform was always a precarious position. The likes of Xiaomi and Oppo will be watching Huawei’s struggles carefully.

Microsoft starts ruffling privacy feathers in the US

This weekend will mark the one-year anniversary of Europe’s GDPR and Microsoft has made the bold suggestion of bringing the rules over the pond to the US.

Many US businesses would have been protected from the chaos that was the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), with the rules only impacting those which operated in Europe. And while there are benefits to privacy and data protection rights for consumers, that will come as little compensation for those who had to protect themselves from the weighty fines attached to non-compliance.

Voicing what could turn out to be a very unpopular opinion, Microsoft has suggested the US should introduce its own version.

“A lot has happened on the global privacy front since GDPR went into force,” said Julie Brill, Deputy General Counsel at Microsoft. “Overall, companies that collect and process personal information for people living in the EU have adapted, putting new systems and processes in place to ensure that individuals understand what data is collected about them and can correct it if it is inaccurate and delete it or move it somewhere else if they choose.

“This has improved how companies handle their customers’ personal data. And it has inspired a global movement that has seen countries around the world adopt new privacy laws that are modelled on GDPR.

“Now it is time for Congress to take inspiration from the rest of the world and enact federal legislation that extends the privacy protections in GDPR to citizens in the United States.”

The rules themselves were first introduced in an attempt to force companies to be more responsible and transparent in how customer data is handled. The update reflected the new sharing economies the world had sleepwalked into; the new status quo had come under criticism and new protections had to be put in place while also offering more control to the consumer of their personal data.

GDPR arrived with little fanfare after many businesses scurried around for the weeks prior despite having almost 18 months’ notice. And while these regulations were designed for the European market, such is the open nature of the internet, the impact was felt worldwide.

While this might sound negative, GDPR has proved to be an inspiration for numerous other countries and regions. Brazil, Japan, South Korea and India were just a few of the nations which saw the benefit of the rules, and now it appears there are calls for the same position to be adopted in the US.

As Brill points out in the blog post stating the Microsoft position, California has already made steps forward to create a more privacy-focused society. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) will go into effect on January 1 2020. Inspired by GDPR, the new law will provide California residents with the right to know what personal information is being collected on them, know whether it is being sold or monetized, say no to monetization and access all the data.

This is only one example, though there are numerous states around the US, primarily Democrat, which have similar pro-privacy attitudes to California. However, this is a law which stops short of the strictness of GDPR. Companies are not on the stopwatch to notify customers of a breach, as they are under GDPR, while the language around punishment for non-compliance is very vague.

This is perhaps the issue Microsoft will face in attempting to escalate such rules up to federal law; the only attempt which we have seen so far in the US is a diluted version of GDPR. Whereas GDPR is a sharp stick for the regulators to swing, a fine of 3% of annual turnover certainly encourages compliance, the Californian approach is more like a tickling feather; it might irritate a little bit.

At the moment, US privacy laws are nothing more than ripples in the technology pond. If GDPR-style rules were to be introduced in the US, the impact would be significant. GDPR has already shifting the privacy conversation and had notable impacts on the way businesses operate. Google, for example, has introduced an auto-delete function for users while Facebook’s entire business rhetoric has become much more privacy focused. It is having a fundamental impact on the business.

We are not too sure whether Microsoft’s call is going to have any material impact on government thinking right now, but privacy laws in the US (and everywhere for that matter) are going to need to be brought up-to-date. With artificial intelligence, personalisation, big data, facial recognition and predictive analytics technologies all gaining traction, the role of personal data and privacy is going to become much more significant.

US autonomous truck trials go up a gear

The US Postal Service is trialling self-driving trucks between Texas and Arizona in partnership with autonomous vehicle specialist TuSimple.

The US has been ahead of the game when it comes to putting self-driving trucks on regular roads along with the rest of the traffic. This trial involves trucks that drive themselves but have someone sitting in the driver’s seat anyway, just in case, who presumably drinks endless cups of coffee.

The two week trial will, appropriately enough, mark a milestone in the development of autonomous vehicles if it’s successful. The parameters by which success will be measured aren’t clear but causing a massive pile-up would presumably constitute a failure.

While the eventual utopia of 100% autonomous vehicles is still a long way down the road, this sort of thing could extend the distances a truck can travel in one go without the driver requiring intravenous espresso, with this one covering 1,000 miles. The technology leans heavily on cameras, apparently, and we’re not aware of any mishaps but the thought of other drivers unwittingly sharing the road with these trial trucks is still a bit unsettling.

“It is exciting to think that before many people will ride in a robo-taxi, their mail and packages may be carried in a self-driving truck,” said Dr. Xiaodi Hou, Founder, President and Chief Technology Officer, TuSimple. “Performing for the USPS on this pilot in this particular commercial corridor gives us specific use cases to help us validate our system, and expedite the technological development and commercialization progress.”

We got in touch with the USPS and it gave us the following statement: The United States Postal Service is participating in an autonomous truck pilot program with TuSimple. The truck, with a safety engineer and driver on board, will make five round trips, between postal facilities in Arizona and Texas in late May.

“This pilot is just one of many ways the Postal Service is innovating and investing in its future.  We are conducting research and testing as part of our efforts to operate a future class of vehicles which will incorporate new technology to accommodate a diverse mail mix, enhance safety, improve service, reduce emissions, and produce operational savings.”

For many self-driving vehicles remain a disturbing prospect. While on one level technology can equip them with a greater range of tools and awareness of their immediate environment human drivers typically have at their disposal, there will always be the matter of judgment and decision-making. As trials of this sort of technology ramp up the first serious accident will be a test of how ready we are to embrace it.

US suspends Huawei export ban for three months to help operators adapt

The US Department of Commerce has given Huawei a three month license to buy US goods in order to lessen the disruption to US companies.

The decision follows the news that a bunch of US companies, including Google, were going to stop doing business with Huawei. Not only would this do severe damage to the desirability of Huawei Android smartphones sold outside of China, but would have caused major disruption to any US companies that rely on working with Huawei.

The DoC therefore decided to grant a temporary licence allowing Huawei and US companies to buy stuff from each other for 90 days starting 20 May. Any US operator that use Huawei gear now effectively have three months to swap it out for equipment not made by anyone on the US shitlist. Any still flogging Huawei smartphones might want to take that time to return them to their source too.

“The Temporary General License grants operators time to make other arrangements and the Department space to determine the appropriate long term measures for Americans and foreign telecommunications providers that currently rely on Huawei equipment for critical services,” said Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. “In short, this license will allow operations to continue for existing Huawei mobile phone users and rural broadband networks.”

Huawei responded with its now familiar defiance, telling Chinese media that none of this is remotely surprising and that it doesn’t even need the temporary license because it saw all this stuff coming ages ago. Additionally a UK Huawei exec told the beeb he reckons Huawei is just collateral damage in the broader trade war between the US and China, which is hard to argue with.

If you’re really into that sort of thing you can read the full temporary license decision here. This doesn’t seem to represent any softening of the US position, just an attempt to cushion the blow for US companies and consumers. It may, however, also represent a diplomatic window for US and China to try to resolve their differences and prevent the ban kicking in on 19 August. Time will tell but further escalation seems more likely than a truce at this point.

US supply ban threatens to cripple Huawei’s global business

Another day, another escalation as Google heads a stampede of US companies apparently refusing to do business with Huawei.

As escalations go, however, this is a pretty big one. Reuters was the first report that Google has suspended some business with Huawei in response to the company being put on the US ‘entity list’, which means US companies need explicit permission from the US state before they’re allowed to sell anything to them. It seems that permission has been denied.

For Google this means denying access to those bits of Android Google licenses – mainly the Play Store and Google’s own mobile products such as the Gmail and Maps apps. Huawei can still access the core Android operating system as that has an open source license but, as companies such as Amazon have discovered, that’s pretty useless without all the other Google goodies.

We recently wrote that Huawei’s addition to the entity list is the most significant consequence of Trump’s executive order and here we have an immediate illustration of that. It looks like pretty much all other US companies are also rushing to comply with the new regulations, with Bloomberg reporting that Qualcomm and Intel are among others cutting of business with Huawei and others will presumably follow. Nikkei even reckons German chip-maker Infineon has joined the stampede.

Huawei already has an extensive chip-making operation of its own, so arguably it can cope without the likes of Qualcomm, but what about the millions of other bits and bobs that get crammed into a smartphone such as screens, cameras, memory, sensors, etc? A lot of these could be supplied by non-US companies like Samsung and, of course, Chinese ones, but there must surely be some areas in which Huawei is entirely reliant on the US supply chain.

But Google’s licensed mobile products and services are unique. An Android phone that doesn’t provide access to the Play store is massively diminished in its utility to the end user and Google Maps is the market leader. Google also has a near monopoly with YouTube and millions of people are reliant on things like Gmail, Google Pay, Play Movies. When there are so many great alternative Android smartphone vendors, why would anyone now buy a de-featured Huawei one?

In response to these reports Android moved to stress that it will continue to support existing Huawei Android phones in the following tweet.

Meanwhile Huawei issued the following statement. “Huawei has made substantial contributions to the development and growth of Android around the world. As one of Android’s key global partners, we have worked closely with their open-source platform to develop an ecosystem that has benefitted both users and the industry.

“Huawei will continue to provide security updates and after sales services to all existing Huawei and Honor smartphone and tablet products covering those have been sold or still in stock globally. We will continue to build a safe and sustainable software ecosystem, in order to provide the best experience for all users globally.”

Huawei has reportedly been working on its own smartphone OS in anticipation of this sort of thing happening but, as Microsoft, Samsung and others have found, there seems to be little public appetite for alternative to Android and iOS. Huawei may be able to sell a proprietary platform in China, where the Play Store is restricted anyway, but internationally this move will surely see Huawei smartphone sales fall off a cliff.

“If the US ban is permanent, we predict Huawei’s global smartphone shipments will tumble -25% in 2019,” Neil Mawston of Strategy Analytics told Telecoms.com. “If Huawei cannot offer Android’s wildly popular apps, like Maps or Gmail, Huawei’s smartphone demand outside China will collapse.

“If the US ban is temporary, and lifted within weeks, Huawei’s global smartphone growth will return to positive growth fairly swiftly. Huawei offers good smartphone models at decent prices through an extensive retail network, and it should recover reasonably well if it is allowed to compete.”

“We still don’t have a clear understanding of what Google has told Huawei and what elements of the Android operating system may be restricted, so it remains unclear what the ramifications will be,” said Ben Wood of CCS Insight. “However, any disruption in getting updates to the software or the associated applications would have considerable implications for Huawei’s consumer device business.”

There have been very few official statements on the matter from US companies, so Wood is right to tread carefully at this stage, but it’s hard to see this news as anything other than catastrophic for Huawei. Its consumer business, which is the most successful unit in the company, relies largely on Android to run its products and will surely be severely diminished by the Google move.

And there’s no reason to assume the damage will be contained there. Last year Huawei’s contemporary ZTE was almost driven out of business by a ban on US companies doing business with it. Huawei may have hedged its position regarding networking components suppliers more effectively than ZTE but it will presumably suffer greatly once those companies follow suit.

Huawei is one of the biggest companies in the world and has become so in spite of being largely excluded from the US market. The Chinese state will do everything it can to support Huawei, but at least some of its US suppliers offer unique products. At the very least this puts Huawei in a weak negotiating position with potential replacement partners and international customers, but the implications of this latest development are potentially existential.

T-Mobile and Sprint ponder concessions to force through merger

T-Mobile US and Sprint are weighing up the sale of one of the pair’s prepaid brands in an attempt to woo decision makers into greenlighting the divisive merger.

Dating back to April 2018, you will be forgiven for forgetting this saga is still an-going debate in the US. With privacy scandals, the Huawei drama and BT’s dreadful logo stealing all the column inches, the debate over whether T-Mobile US and Sprint should be allowed to merge their operations has been relegated below the fold. But it is still a thing.

The countdown clock, the 180 days the FCC gives itself to approve mergers, spent a lot of time on pause, though the longer the process takes the more likely it appears the answer will be no. If the relevant authorities were looking at the information in front of them, an answer would surely have been given by now, but sceptics might assume the FCC is desperately searching for a reason to say no.

According to Bloomberg, the duo is prepared to make concessions to force through the deal. These concessions include the sale of one prepaid brand, a pledge to finish the rollout of a 5G network in three years and promises not to raise prices during this deployment.

In terms of the timeline, crunch day is fast approaching. The FCC 180-day review is set to come to a close at the end of June, though the deal also has to be signed-off by the Department of Justice. With decision time on the horizon, egos will have to be stroked and arguments set in stone.

The issue at the heart of this debate is focused on competition. Critics of the deal suggest consumers who are at the low-end of the tariffs scale will effectively be punished with higher prices in a market with only three providers. T-Mobile US and Sprint have suggested prices would be kept down in an attempt to compete with AT&T and Verizon, though more than paper-thin promises will be needed.

Selling off one of the prepaid brands would help to preserve competition in this segment, offering more choice for those consumers who do wish to, or cannot afford to, invest in postpaid contracts. It is believed Sprint’s Boost brand is the one facing the chop, with the Virgin Mobile and Metro brands to remain in the potentially merged operations.

Peter Adderton, who sold Boost to Sprint in 2006, has previously stated he would invest in the divested brand. Adderton has been a critic of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, though if there is a chance to make money entrepreneurs have a way of changing their tune.

Reports have been emerging over the last couple of weeks suggest regulators are still concerned over competition despite assurances made by executives. The Wall Street Journal suggests the deal would not go ahead with the proposed structure of the company, a claim which T-Mobile US CEO John Legere rejects, suggesting there is still some stroking to be done.

Although trying to figure out which way this deal will go is little more than guess work at the moment, there is a feeling it is not going the way T-Mobile and Sprint would want. Rumours are only rumours, but the familiarity of the reports is starting to add weight. It does sound like T-Mobile and Sprint will have to make some considerable concessions to get the greenlight.

Senators call for 5G slowdown because weatherman won’t be accurate

Two US Senators have asked President Trump and the FCC to halt spectrum usage on the 24 GHz spectrum brands as it would decrease the accuracy of weather forecasts.

Democrat Senators Ron Wyden (Oregon) and Maria Cantwell (Washington) have jointly penned a letter for the Oval Office suggesting use of the 24 GHz spectrum brands should be blocked as it would interfere with the accuracy of weather forecasts. The pair claim accuracy of these forecasts could be impact by as much as 30%, similar to the guesswork offered in the 1980s.

“American advancement in 5G networks and devices is critically important to maintaining global leadership,” said Wyden. “It’s just as imperative, however, for our nation to do 5G right. If the FCC continues advocating for standards that fail to pass scientific scrutiny, their decision will lower America’s standing in this global race for 5G leadership and risk serious damage to our economy and national security.”

Although linking weather forecasts back to national security might cause some to scoff, the pair suggest this insight is used by the navy, military and coast guard to help plan operations. Some of these operations’ focus on warning and preparedness when it comes to dealing with tornadoes, hurricanes and typhoons.

“Millions of Americans live in areas under increasing threat from hurricanes, tornadoes, and other extreme weather events,” said Cantwell. “The US military and our aviation, maritime, and numerous other industries rely on accurate forecasting information every day to ensure safety and make crucial decisions.

“We can’t afford to undermine our data and set the quality of weather forecasting back to the 1970s. Instead of overruling or ignoring the experts, the FCC and the administration should look at the science, listen to experts, and take the time needed to get this right.”

While the Senators are seemingly jumping on the bandwagon in an attempt to generate PR inches, the concerns of the use of these frequencies have dated back to 2010. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine put forward a report in 2010 suggesting 30% of the data collected on the 23.8-gigahertz signal would eliminate 30% of all useful data, making a significant impact on the ability to forecast conditions accurately.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have now completed an investigation, which is yet to be made public, on the effects of interference from usage in neighbouring frequency bands.

Water vapour in the atmosphere emit very faint signal which is used by probes to monitor energy radiating from Earth at this frequency. This data offers insight to humidity in the atmosphere below helping to predict how storms and other weather systems will develop over the short- and medium-term future. The 23.8 GHz frequency is used to measure water vapour, 36-37 GHz for rain and snow, 50.2-50.4 GHz for atmospheric pressure and 86-92 GHz for clouds and ice.

During the most recent spectrum auction, the FCC sold licences for frequencies in the 24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz but set noise limits on the 5G network of –20 decibel watts. The FCC might suggest this is protection enough, however the European Commission put limits of –42 decibel watts for 5G base stations, and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is recommending –55 decibel watts.

While the two Senators are not necessarily complaining about the limits, the pair are asking the FCC to clarify a few different notes:

  • Provide details on investigations that support the FCC’s assumptions that emission limits will not negatively impact applications in adjacent frequency bands
  • Provide details on the FCC’s public interest analysis, including any cost-benefit analysis, which addresses the loss of investments made in weather-sensing satellites, the costs to public safety and national security, and to the nation’s commercial activities that rely on weather data
  • Plans if the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) does not accept the emissions limits in the 24 GHz band
  • How the FCC addressed the concerns of the NOAA, NASA and other bodies

It does appear the Senators are looking for a stick to swing as opposed to any specific objections. That said, these are some valid concerns.

Numerous businesses and industries rely on accurate weather forecast, not to mention the security and safety of US citizens. In Europe, we are not at the mercy of some severe weather conditions, or not to the degree the US is. You only have to look at the $65 billion in damages caused by Hurricane Irma in 2017 or the 3,000 lives claimed during Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico to understand the importance.

US influence on Europe failing as France resists Huawei ban

The White House might have felt banning Huawei was an appropriate measure for national security, but France does not agree with the drastic action.

Speaking at a conference in Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron has confirmed the country will not ban Huawei. This is not to say it won’t in the future, but it appears Europe is remaining resolute against the demands of the US. The burden of proof might be a concept easily ignored in the US, but Europe stands for more.

“Our perspective is not to block Huawei or any company,” Macron said. “France and Europe are pragmatic and realistic. We do believe in cooperation and multilateralism. At the same time, we are extremely careful about access to good technology and to preserve our national security and all the safety rules.”

President Donald Trump is most likely a man who is used to getting his own way, and upon assuming office as head of the most powerful government worldwide, he might have thought this position of privilege would continue. However, Europe is being anything but compliant.

In direct contradiction to the Executive Order banning Huawei from supplying any components, products and services to US communications networks, Macron has declared France open is for business. France won’t use the excuse of national security to beat back the progress of China but will presumably introduce mechanisms to mitigate risk.

Germany has taken this approach, increasing the barrier to entry for all companies, not just Huawei. Vendors will have to pass more stringent security tests before any components or products can be introduced to networks, though Chancellor Angela Merkel has also made it clear she intents to steer clear of political ties to the decision.

“There are two things I don’t believe in,” Merkel said in March. “First, to discuss these very sensitive security questions publicly, and second, to exclude a company simply because it’s from a certain country.”

The UK is seemingly heading down a similar route. Alongside the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC), run by GCHQ with the objective of ensuring security and privacy credentials are maintained, the long-awaited supply chain review is reportedly going to place higher scrutiny but stop short of any sort of ban. The official position will be revealed in a few weeks, but this position would be consistent with the UK political rhetoric.

Over in Eastern Europe, governments also appear to be resisting calls to ban the company, while Italy seems to be taking the risk mitigation approach. Even at the highest bureaucratic level, the European Commission has asked member states to conduct an assessment for security assessments. Unless some drastic opinions come back in October, we suspect the official position of the European Union will be to create higher security mechanisms which offer competitive opportunity for all vendors in the market.

For the moment at least, it appears the Europeans are immune to the huffing and puffing making its way across the Atlantic. That said, the trade war with China is set to escalate once again and it would be fair to assume more US delegations will be attempting to whisper in the ears of influential Europeans. At some point, the US will get tougher on Europe, but it does appear those pesky Europeans are stubborn enough to resist White House propaganda and pressure.