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.

Editorial: Stop the 5G health risk scaremongering

A recent string of scaremongering and conspiracy theories around purported 5G health risks needs some factual counterbalance.

One image has recently gone viral of a person in a ‘hazmat suit’ installing a 5G cellphone tower. The image appears to have originated from Instagram account TheOrgonizedEarth, a page spreading dangerous pseudoscience theories.

5g-haz

First off, that’s not a hazmat suit and would not protect against radiation. That is a Tyvek suit which protects against particulates and other contaminants. We can’t guarantee what the person is doing, but they’re most likely spraying for bugs or painting.

You can find many examples of videos and images where engineers are installing 5G equipment with the only protective gear being their safety harness to prevent falls.

If you don’t follow the telecoms industry, such disinformation around 5G health risks can be understandably terrifying.

Just yesterday, The Scotsman reported a couple removed their three children from school over concerns of exposure to a health risk after the building was fitted with a 5G mast. “My family is my world, and I would never forgive myself if I looked back later in life and asked myself could I have done more to protect them,” said the father.

Similarly, UK operator EE was forced to tell a ‘really frightened’ mum in the city of Bath that she ‘misunderstood’ 5G risks after she raised fears residents are being used as ‘guinea pigs’. The woman “read a number of articles about 5G after hearing about it from her husband,” reports Somerset Live, and is now “going to bed worrying about it”.

The facts about 5G

5G uses non-ionising radiation, which means it does not damage the cells. This radiation “does not have sufficient energy to break molecular bonds or remove electrons from atoms,” according to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

As stated at Cancer.org, such non-ionising radiation – which even includes visible light – does not damage the DNA within cells “which is how stronger (ionizing) types of radiation such as x-rays, gamma rays, and ultraviolet (UV) light are thought to be able to cause cancer.”

5G’s benefits to society, especially in areas such as healthcare, are more likely to save lives rather than pose risks. Remote surgeries from the world’s best doctors can be undertaken even in rural areas or ambulances unable to reach a hospital in time, while smart cities and driverless cars will likely reduce traffic casualties.

If you want a more plausible 5G conspiracy theory, look to Russia. According to New York Times, a slightly more reputable source than TheOrgonizedEarth, state broadcaster RT America is using disinformation to stoke 5G health concerns and delay other countries' rollouts while Russia prepares to launch the new technology belatedly.

RT once claimed, “the higher the frequency, the more dangerous it is to living organisms”. Scientists, with their pesky factual information, have noted that 5G’s higher frequency wireless signals are less likely to penetrate human skin than earlier generations.

So, that’s where we stand on the disinformation around 5G today. Let’s try and stick to the facts and stop the scaremongering (which could very well be playing into the hands of a foreign power).

Interested in hearing industry leaders discuss subjects like this? Attend the co-located IoT Tech Expo, Blockchain Expo, AI & Big Data Expo, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo World Series with upcoming events in Silicon Valley, London, and Amsterdam.

New BT logo looks more like a warning than an invitation

British Telecom has filed for a trademark on a new logo but it’s a bit rubbish and the internet is ridiculing it.

Whichever brand consultancy BT has hired, presumably at great expense, to refresh its logo presumably either couldn’t be bothered to think about it properly or was given bad advice by its client. The result is simply the letters ‘BT’ with a circle around them. Black letters, black circle, white background, that’s it. Even the font is boring.

The Guardian was one of the first to cover the filing and marketing mag Campaign pointed out that its seems to be an even more stark and boring version of a rebrand it was planning three years ago, but wisely put on the back burner. At least that one had some colour in it. Unsurprisingly the internet has been quick to mock this feeble effort, with a great piece of opportunistic guerilla marketing from Poundland our current favourite.

“We’ve shared our new logo with our colleagues today and will consult them on the detail as we gradually roll it out towards the end of the summer,” a BT spokesperson told the Guardian. “Our CEO has been very clear that the new mark symbolises real change. Making every BT employee a shareholder in the company is the first step towards transforming BT into a national champion that exceeds our customers’ expectations.”

While it’s understandable that new CEO Jansen would want to spray his scent on his new company we think he can afford to take a bit longer over such a momentous decision. Right now it looks at best like a functional street sign designed to warn the unsuspecting punter about BT rather than endear it to them. Not all change is good, Phil, and you might want to give the whole thing a rethink on your summer holidays.

The real branding challenge faced by BT is how to incorporate, if at all, EE. Its brand currently goes heavy on the letters-in-a-circle theme, albeit with a bit more creative flair, so maybe BT is trying for a bit of geometric alignment or something. But as we move into the 5G era, Britain’s biggest telco should think twice before rebranding itself to look like a speed limit sign.

Microsoft and Sony join up on AI and cloud gaming

Microsoft and Sony have signed a memorandum of understanding to jointly develop cloud systems for game and content streaming, and to integrate Microsoft’s AI with Sony’s image sensors.

This is another step on Sony’s journey to transform from a console and title seller to a game streaming service platform. Microsoft’s leadership in both cloud computing, its Azure cloud platform, and the global footsteps of its datacentres makes it an ideal partner to Sony.

The collaboration will also cover semiconductors and AI. Sony has been a leader in image sensors (among its clients is the iPhone including the latest XS Max model), and the integration of Microsoft Azure AI will help improve both the imaging processing in the cloud and on device, what the companies called “a hybrid manner”. Microsoft’s AI will also be incorporated in Sony’s other consumer products to “provide highly intuitive and user-friendly AI experiences”, the companies said.

“Sony has always been a leader in both entertainment and technology, and the collaboration we announced today builds on this history of innovation,” said Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, in a statement. “Our partnership brings the power of Azure and Azure AI to Sony to deliver new gaming and entertainment experiences for customers.”

Kenichiro Yoshida, president and CEO of Sony agreed. “I hope that in the areas of semiconductors and AI, leveraging each company’s cutting-edge technology in a mutually complementary way will lead to the creation of new value for society,” he said.

Looking to the future of the PlayStation platform, Yoshida said, “Our mission is to seamlessly evolve this platform as one that continues to deliver the best and most immersive entertainment experiences, together with a cloud environment that ensures the best possible experience, anytime, anywhere.”

Gaming is following the trend of video and music from one-off ownership selling to access streaming. But gamers are more sensitive to the visual quality and, above everything else, lagging. So to provide good experience to convert gamers to long-term streaming subscribers, the platform needs to guarantee superb connection. This is where Microsoft’s datacentre footsteps and the upcoming 5G networks will fit well with the “game” plan.

Another key success factor, similar to video streaming market, is the content. Gamers’ taste can be fast changing and frivolous. That is why the companies also stressed the importance to “collaborate closely with a multitude of content creators that capture the imagination of people around the world, and through our cutting-edge technology, we provide the tools to bring their dreams and vision to reality.”

No information on the size of investment or the number of staff involved in the collaboration is disclosed, but the companies promised to “share additional information when available”.

Don’t ignore Huawei’s ban on buying US components

While everyone is focusing on the ban on selling in the US, the ban on buying US components is a much more interesting chapter of the Huawei saga.

President Donald Trump has dropped the economic dirty bomb on China and it’s dominating the headlines. Although Huawei, or China, are not mentioned in the text, the Executive Order is clearly a move to stall progress made in the telco arena. China is mounting a challenge to the US dominance in the TMT arena, and this should be viewed as a move to combat that.

There are clearly other reasons for the order, but this should not be ignored. The security argument, albeit an accusation thrown without the burden of concrete evidence, is a factor, but never forget about the capitalist dream which underpins US society.

However, although most are focusing on Huawei’s inability to sell components, products and services in the US market, there might be an argument the ban on purchasing US components, products and services is more important, impactful and influential.

“This action by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, with the support of the President of the United States, places Huawei, a Chinese owned company that is the largest telecommunications equipment producer in the world, on the Entity List,” said Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. “This will prevent American technology from being used by foreign owned entities in ways that potentially undermine US national security or foreign policy interests.”

While we will focus on the ban on purchasing US components, products and services for this article, it is worth noting the ban on Huawei selling in the US will have an impact.

Rural telcos in the US have mostly been against any ban on Chinese companies. In October 2018, Huawei made a filing with the FCC arguing its support for rural telcos is underpinning the fight against the digital divide and a ban would be disastrous for those subscribers. Michael Beehn, CEO of MobileNation, was one of those who argued against the ban, suggesting the cost-effectiveness of Huawei allowed his firm to operate. Without the advantage of nationwide scale, these organizations will always struggle when the price of networks is forced north.

While the US is a massive market, with huge opportunities to maximise profits, not being able to sell in the US is not going to have a significant impact on Huawei. Its customers are the rural telcos not the national ones. Huawei has not managed to secure any major contracts with the big four, therefore it is missing out on something which it never had. Huawei has still managed to grow sales to $105 billion without the US, therefore we believe this ban is not going to be a gamechanger.

However, it is the ban on purchasing US components, products and services which we want to focus on here.

Huawei is not outrightly banned from using US technologies and services, however, those companies who wish to work with the dominant telco vendor will have to seek permission to do so beforehand. The US can now effectively how strategically it wants to twist the knife already dug deep into Huawei’s metaphorical chest.

Although we’re not too sure how this will play out, Huawei’s business could be severely dented by this move.

Huawei recognises 92 companies around the world as core suppliers to the business. It will have thousands of suppliers for various parts of the business, but these 92 are considered the most important to the success of operations. And 33 of them are US companies.

Some are small, some are niche, some are more generic, and some are technology giants. The likes of Qualcomm, Intel and Broadcom all have interests in keeping the US/Chinese relationship sweet, though more niche companies like Skyworks Solutions, Lumentum and Qorvo have much more skin in the game. Firms like NeoPhotonics, who are reliant on Huawei for 46% of its revenues, might well struggle to survive.

Huawei will be able to survive this move, it has been preparing for such an outcome, but you have to wonder what impact it will have on its products and credibility.

HiSilicon, the Huawei-owned semiconductor business, has been ramping up its capabilities to move more of its chip supply chain in-house, while the firm has reportedly been improving the geographical diversity of its international supply chain. According to the South China Morning Post, not only has Huawei been moving more operations in-house, it has also been stockpiling US components in the event of the procurement doomsday event.

A similar ban on procuring US components, products and services was placed on ZTE last year and it almost crippled the firm. Operations were forced to a standstill due to the reliance on US technology. Huawei has never been as dependent on the US, though it seems the lessons were learned from this incident.

The big question is what impact a ban would have on the quality of its products.

Huawei might preach the promise of its own technology and the new suppliers it will seek/has sought, but there is a reason these 33 US companies were chosen in the first place. Either there is/was a financial benefit to Huawei in these relationships, or they were chosen because they were best in class.

Huawei is a commercial organization after all, it wants to make the best products for the best price. There will certainly have been compromises make during these selections, either paying more for better or sacrificing some quality for commercial benefits, and having to make changes will have an impact. Huawei, and its customers, will have fingers and toes crossed there is no material impact on the business.

The other aspect to consider is disruption to operations. ZTE found out how detrimental dependence on a single country can be, and while Huawei has mitigated some of this impact, it remains to be seen how much pain could be felt should the ban be fully enforced. Might it mean Huawei is unable to scale operations in-line with customer deployment ambitions? Could competitors benefit through these limitations? We don’t know for the moment.

The ban on selling in the US might sound better when reeling off headlines, but don’t forget about Huawei’s supply chain. We think there is much more of a risk here.

FCC reveals glacial progress on the resale of location data by operators

US operators have been reselling the location data they accumulate about their subscribers and have been slow to deliver on promises to stop.

This practice was already well-known by the time it was highlighted in an expose at the start of this year. At the time operators were quick to stress that they’re pulling out all the stops to protect their customers’ personal data but Federal Communications Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel was apparently skeptical. Frustrated by their deafening silence on the matter she wrote to the four US MNOs at the start of the month to ask them what they were playing at.

Rosenworcel received relatively prompt responses from those operators and decided to publish them alongside a mea culpa that was probably directed more at other FCC Commissioners than herself. “The FCC has been totally silent about press reports that for a few hundred dollars shady middlemen can sell your location within a few hundred meters based on your wireless phone data. That’s unacceptable,” she said.

“I don’t recall consenting to this surveillance when I signed up for wireless service—and I bet neither do you. This is an issue that affects the privacy and security of every American with a wireless phone. It is chilling to think what a black market for this data could mean in the hands of criminals, stalkers, and those who wish to do us harm. I will continue to press this agency to make public what it knows about what happened. But I do not believe consumers should be kept in the dark. That is why I am making these letters available today.”

You can read the contrite and exculpatory responses here, but in case you can’t be bothered here’s a summary. AT&T said it started phasing out this sort of thing in June 2018, while still making location data available in emergencies. Additionally the letter attempted to distance AT&T from the reports in question and said it had stopped sharing and data with location aggregators and LBS providers on 29 March 2019.

Sprint said it current works with just one LBS (location based services) provider but will pack that in by the end of this month. T-Mobile said it had terminated all contracts with LBS types by 9 March 2019 and went on at considerable length to correct what it considers to be flawed reporting on how it used to handle this sort of thing. Verizon said it had terminated all location deals by the end of March 2019.

So that would appear to be that. All the operators have said they don’t deal with location data aggregators anymore and presumably Rosenworcel is a happy Commissioner. But the fact that they’ve only just stopped reselling their customer’s personal data, and even then only after persistent nagging and bad publicity, is a further illustration of how cavalier the tech industry has been with personal data to date.

LG muscles in on competitive AI chip space

LG has unveiled has developed its own artificial intelligence chip in an attempt to muscle in on this increasingly competitive segment of the semiconductor market.

The AI market is proving to be rewarding for those who can prove their worth, and each day there seems to be a new ‘thought leader’ entering the fray. While there is a feeling AI could benefit application developers (Uber, Cruise, Waymo etc.) and internet companies (Amazon, Google, Microsoft etc.) more than the semiconductor giants, there will be winners and losers in this segment also.

“Our AI C​hip is designed to provide optimized artificial intelligence solutions for future LG products,” said IP Park, CTO of LG Electronics. “This will further enhance the three key pillars of our artificial intelligence strategy – evolve, connect and open – and provide customers with an improved experience for a better life.”

Nvidia might have made a run at this segment in the early days, though considering its experience lies in gaming applications, whether it can mount a serious challenge remains to be seen. Graphcore is one which has attracted investment from the likes of Dell, Microsoft and Samsung, while AMD, Intel, Huawei, Google and Qualcomm (as well as numerous others) are making this a very competitive space.

As with Intel in the PC-era and Qualcomm’s continued dominance in mobile, some might suspect there might be a clear leader in AI also.

LG has stated its chip will feature its proprietary LG Neural Engine to better mimic the neural network of the human brain. The aim is to distinguish space, location, objects and users, while hoping to improve the capabilities of the device by detecting physical and chemical changes in the environment. As with every AI plug, LG is also promoting the ability of on-device processing power.

Looking at the approach from LG, the team are targeting quite a niche aspect of the AI segment; the smart home. This makes sense, as while LG has a smartphone business, the brand is perhaps primarily known for its home appliances range.

During the last earnings call, the LG mobile business continued to struggle in a sluggish and cut-throat market, reporting a 29% year-on-year drop to $1.34 billion, though the home appliance market soared. Revenues and profits soared to record levels, accounting for more than 80% of the total profits for the business over the three months.

Future products, such as washing machines, refrigerators, and air conditioners will be fitted with the devices, as ‘intelligence’ and personalisation become more common themes in more generic and everyday products.

Maybe the smart toilet isn’t that far away after all.

Are the days of the full MVNO numbered?

Telecoms.com periodically invites third parties to share their views on the industry’s most pressing issues. In this piece, Darren King, Head of Business Development for Three’s wholesale division, assesses the future for MVNOs.

For as long as there have been MVNOs there has always been the received wisdom that a full MVNO was the best strategy to adopt. Having full control of your brand, the marketing and the technology is of great comfort when you are launching a new operator to market.

There are numerous examples that have stood the test of time. There are also the brands that have stretched out into countries all over the world, think Lycamobile for example.

One of the biggest reasons for going full MVNO has been the ability to switch wholesale partner easily to chase better commercials. However, the rate of change in our industry, particularly technological change, is bringing the tried and tested concepts into review.

That’s because to keep meeting customer expectations, you have to invest in the core network. It’s an expensive business, and it’s becoming even more expensive as the time between cycles of improvements shorten. There is no way of competing with the incumbents without a technology roadmap that keeps relative parity. It’s catch 22. If you want to keep growing your customer numbers and reduce churn you have to keep up the investment.

And that’s before we mention the challenges of managing, maintaining and improving UX.  One of the biggest challenges is getting the right settings onto handsets as the model has changed so much over the years. Traditionally all the settings needed to use a mobile service were stored in the SIM.  This is no longer the case, and there’s increasing reliance on settings being pre-populated in direct and market sourced devices across the board. This means that services like VoLTE, which make propositions stand out, can be difficult to deliver to customers.

There’s also something we refer to as the ‘blacklog’ conundrum.  As more consumers opt for SIMO and bring your own device, it becomes more complicated to get them access to newer services unless the MVNO can get retrospective updates. There are a heck of a lot of handsets out there so it’s no mean feat to pull it off!

Added to this, there’s the expectation to have a roaming proposition. This too is hurting MVNOs as they seek out roaming agreements and strike deals on interconnect charges. It requires full-time management and very often some form of partner hub to give you the scale that will sway customers to your brand and give commercially viable pricing.

There is no escaping the investment required. It’s brought into focus when you read the analyst firm Enders’ opinion on the Sky Full MVNO, which states the broadcaster will need around 3 million subscribers to break even in today’s climate.

It’s very easy to see why MVNOs and high street brands considering becoming an MVNO are saying ‘there has to be another way’.

And there is. We are now seeing MVNOs launch without these overheads and operational commitments. Instead, in our case, they are using a telecoms as a service model whereby the core network, billing and customer management tools, fraud detection, web front ends, existing roaming agreements, and the technology for proposition design and development of the operator are used lock stock, and the brand adds its sales and marketing expertise over the top.

In the case of our model, even the hardware challenges are reduced as the MVNO benefits from pre-populated settings that support MVNOs using a Three network profile. This means customers can use the devices straight away with no fuss.

It’s simplifying the MVNO model beyond recognition. In fact, in some ways you could argue it’s really bringing the word virtual to life in the phrase MVNO.

This radical partnership approach to MVNOs is shaking things up and allowing brands that have previously dismissed an MVNO to have a go with far more confidence than they otherwise would have. Superdrug is a perfect example. It’s used its loyalty card and understanding of its customers to develop a proposition that customers want and launched Superdrug Mobile at significantly lower risk and with extraordinary results.

It’s this success that leads me to predict that we’ll see and hear a lot more of the telecoms as a service model in the coming year, and in particular at MVNO World Congress. I’m certain it will be the early adopters of this model that will not only succeed in their launch market but outperform past records. For any brand considering how it will survive tough trading conditions, this has to be a very attractive way ahead.

Darren KingDarren King, Head of Business Development for Three’s wholesale division. Darren is responsible for new Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO), wholesale, and Internet of Things (IOT) commercial partnerships. Experienced at seeking new partnerships, whether through traditional MVNO’s or through White Label partnerships with the overall aim of doubling Three Wholesale’s customer base and revenue year on year to 2021.

A look at how US suppliers have been hit by Huawei news

President Trump’s Executive Order and the decision to place Huawei on the US ‘Entity List’ is going to dominate the headlines over the next couple of days, but what will be the impact on US suppliers?

During the ZTE saga last year, where the firm was banned from using US components in its supply chain, several US firms faced considerable difficulty. With Huawei potentially facing the same fate, the next few days will certainly make for uncomfortable reading for some.

Although the main focus of the news has been on the Executive Order banning any Huawei components or products in US communications infrastructure, the entry onto the ‘Entity List’ should be considered as big. This is effectively the commerce version of a dirty bomb, and some might suggest it is being used to disrupt Huawei’s supply chain and dent its ability to dominate the telco vendor ecosystem.

But what is the impact of losing a major customer? What are the realities these US firms will face if the Secretary of Commerce turns down their application to work with Huawei?

Speaking to members of the financial community, it could be pretty severe.

Losing a customer which accounts for 2-3% of total revenues would be a concern but nothing major. For 5% of revenues, this is a headache, but something the spreadsheets could most likely tolerate. When you start getting to 10% the panic button needs to be hit.

A customer which accounts for 10% of total revenues is a major prize. Losing this revenue would result in a complete rethink in how the business operates, as this could effectively wipe out any profit for the year. If you are in the services industry, it isn’t as much of an issue, but when it comes to manufacturing and components, there are so many different implications.

For example, in the first instance you have to consider how this hits budgets, forecasts, resource allocation and manufacturing strategy.

Sales staff are probably the safest here, as the lost revenues will have to be replaced as soon as possible with new customers, but what about the marketing strategy? Do you want to replace the lost capacity with short-term customers (i.e. quicker) or long-term customers which may offer larger orders?

On the R&D side, does a company have dedicated resource working on projects for that customer? What will these staffers do now? Can those projects be re-orientated for another customer?

Finally, on the manufacturing side, there are all sorts of issues. How will the loss of revenue impact the resource recovery plan? How are the manufacturing facilities configured – do you have to close plants?

Another consideration is on your own supply chain and procurement strategies. When supplying products to said customer, you will have to source your own raw materials. Will the loss of this customer result in contracts with suppliers having to be re-negotiated? Will this mean quantity discounts are now impacted?

These are all the considerations when you are losing a customer worth 10-15% of total revenues. Anything above this and you would have to question whether the company can survive, or at least face a major restructure.

Share price of US suppliers to Huawei
Company Share price
Qualcomm -3.18%
Xilinx -4.1%
Western Digital -1.12%
Marvell Technology +0.5%
Seagate Technology +0.43
Texas Instruments +0.045
Skyworks Solutions -4.56%
ON Semiconductor -0.99%
Qorvo -5%
NeoPhotonics -12.9%
Flex -1.13%
Finisar -2.05%
II-VI -2.86%
Maxim Integrated -0.99%
Analog Devices -2%

All share prices at the time of writing (UK: 16:20) – in comparison to market close on 15 May 2019

Looking at Qorvo, executives at semiconductor supplier might certainly have something to worry about. Huawei is features in the ‘top three’ customers for the firm, while on the most recent earnings call, the team discussed the success of Huawei’s smartphone division and in particular the ‘P’ series as a contributor towards a successful quarter. Some have suggested 11% of Qorvo revenues are dependent on Huawei.

Skyworks Solutions, another semiconductor company, has been suffering in recent years. With large parts of the business reliant on smartphone shipments, the global slowdown has been tough. The team work with Huawei on both the mobile and infrastructure side, and while it does work with many tier one firms in both segments, the market is clearly worried about a competitive field and an inability to work with one of the largest telco vendors worldwide.

Both Qorvo and Skyworks supply radiofrequency chips to Huawei, which might have an effect on the Chinese vendors ability to manufacture devices. That said, the supply chain disruption will not be anywhere near as damaging to Huawei as it was to ZTE as it has HiSilicon which manufacturers many of its components.

Xilinx is another which seems to have worn the news quite negatively. The team work with Huawei’s enterprise business unit, helping with video streaming challenges. This might be the smallest business group at Huawei, though the 5G euphoria is set to offer considerable opportunities. Xilinx share price has been recovering after a 17% drop in April, though this has proved to be another set-back.

NeoPhotonics is a company which should be seriously concerned. As a customer, Huawei accounted for more than 46% of the total revenue across 2018. The executive team is relatively open with investors regarding this fact, and this might have been factored into any decision to invest, though this is a massive loss for the business to absorb.

Lumentum is another business which is somewhat reliant on Huawei. While we were not able to nail down specific numbers, the firm supplies fiber optic components to Network Equipment Manufacturers (NEM) and considering there aren’t many of them to supply to, losing Huawei will be a headache.

At Finisar, Huawei described as one of the company’s major customers, though it has seemingly been diversifying its customer base in recent years. In 2017 and 2016, Huawei accounted for 11% and 12% of the annual total respectively, though the percentage is not listed for 2018. This is because the percentage has dipped below 10%, though we were unable to ascertain what the figure now is.

We might have to wait a few weeks to understand the full extent of the impact, and how stringently the US will enforce Huawei’s entry onto the ‘Entity List’, but we suspect there will be some very stressful meetings taking place in numerous offices throughout the US.

Monetize 5G with New Business Models

Communication service providers (CSPs) that want to become digital service providers (DSPs) need to be able to innovate in digital time. That starts by putting the right business support systems (BSS) in place so they can engage with new partners and tap into the new use cases business models that will be made possible by 5G.

In the lead-up to 5G’s deployment, CSPs who start evolving their monetization solutions today will be in a much better position to capitalize on and monetize new opportunities right out of the gate — and also gain the scalability and agility needed to generate more revenue from existing sources now.

Please fill in the short form below to receive a copy of this whitepaper.
  • Nokia's Privacy Statement