avon b7

This Apple response is weak IMO but I feel their case is weak anyway so it falls squarely into the PR realm and has no real substance to tackle the issue at hand:

"Sixteen years ago, we launched the iTunes Store with the idea that there should be just one trusted place where users discover and purchase great music and every creator is treated by our definition of fairly. The result revolutionized the music industry, and our love of music and the people who make it are deeply engrained in Apple."

I have added the bolded words to highlight what Apple isn't tackling with its note.

If the EU runs with the Spotify complaint, at the very least it will apply the same logic it applied to past complaints about Google. That at best. At worst it might look harder and take a stance on what I added in bold to the quote above.

Away from the formal complaint perspective, the PR perspective may also see people's noses put out of joint and get attacked (again for the points I highlighted).

In this particular case I think it would have been better to stay silent and let Spotify let off steam, file the complaint and just wait.

By responding, Apple has brought Spotify's gripe to a wider audience.

deminsd said:

Can someone explain WHY we need such fast speeds on our phone?  What is it people would be doing on their phones that need to pay extra for 5G speeds?  

To be honest, I'm not waiting for anything on my iPhone on 4G LTE that would be fixed by faster speeds.  If anything, it's the apps and sites that cause delays.

The thinking is that 5G will go beyond phone use. The more devices connecting, the more bandwidth and and speed will be needed.

Companies are now beginning to push CPE's (Customer Premises Equipment) to help get signals in and out of our homes.

randominternetperson said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

avon b7 said:

tmay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

georgie01 said:

avon b7 said:

You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself. 

What you seem to be suggesting here is worrisome. You appear to see the deployment of 5G as some sort of global human ‘right’ to the extent that if the US impedes Hauwei’s deployment of 5G technology in the US that the US is ‘overreaching its power’. You seem to perceive that the US is accountable to other nations for what those nations want to do in the US.

Globalism is a nice idea that is completely impossible—people of the world will never ever be able to agree on how to live and do business with a single voice. If globalism continues to be pursued it will only work temporarily through silencing and oppressing the opposition. And eventually it will fall by rebellion. The US as an individual country is already showing it may be too big to accommodate the perspectives of its people (as the left tries to pull the country in a continually new direction), and a return to more individual state rights would probably be a more healthy thing for the country. Globalism is the opposite of what the world needs right now.

That would be true if Trump were limiting this to the U.S. -- but he's upping the stakes making a frantic effort to impose his will on every country in the world.  And, many of them are now pushing back and calling bull to his bull.

But, even here in the U.S. he is depriving us of state of the art technology and a competitive environment based on what many consider to be bull.  Huawei's case is contesting a law Trump had the Republicans ram through congress just prior to losing the House in the Midterms without meaningful debate and that deprived Huawei of the right to defend itself.  

So, Huawei is taking it to court hoping that they get to counter Trump's politically motivated rhetoric with facts and truth.

Regardless of how the court rules, the American people deserve the truth rather than political rhetoric.  

https://www.c4isrnet.com/it-networks/2019/03/06/top-us-general-in-europe-wants-to-keep-china-out-of-5g-networks/#.XIEmqiiPvm4.twitter

"While not the only area where Chinese investments in Europe concern the Pentagon, the 5G issue has risen to the forefront. Earlier this month, Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan issued a statement: “Secure and resilient 5G telecommunications is vital to the security and prosperity of the United States, and DoD is working closely with our industrial and research partners to develop comprehensive and innovative solutions for both the Department and commercial industries.
“The United States and our allies and partners must demand nothing less than robust, trusted, and secure next-generation communications systems,” Shanahan said."

Our military alliances depend on secure communications, and there is enough risk to veto Huawei. 

That is certainly a truth that you are not providing.

Around a third of the world's communications hardware is Huawei gear. Secure communications must therefore already exist for the US military and political staff.

5G won't change that. If anything, things will become more secure over time as more focus is put on security.

The U.S. uses almost no Huawei or ZTE infrastructure at all, and there are obviously secure communications systems that are not available to the public.

5G increases the potential access points;

https://ijcsmc.com/docs/papers/September2014/V3I9201499a27.pdf

"The All-IP Network (AIPN) is an evolution of the 3GPP system to fulfill the increasing demands of the cellular communications market. It is a common platform valid for all sorts of radio access technologies. AIPN focused primarily on the enhancements of packet switched technology but now it provides a continued evolution and optimization in terms of both performance and cost. The key benefits of AIPN architecture includes a variety of differentaccess systems‘ provision, lower costs, universal seamless access, and increased user-satisfaction and reduced system latency. But with the advantages of IP come some dangers: as data flow more freely and the internet is open not only to developers but also to all manner of criminals and viruses, developers and operators face new security challenges which should be solved properly.[8] Hence the 5G RAN (radio access network) technology should be a dynamic mesh network based on IP backhaul. In 5G networks there could be many types of base station including UDN (user densification network), massive MIMO (multiple-input multiple-output), traditional macro, and D2D. These various base stations will coordinate with each other horizontally more often than they do in 4G networks, and so will require a dynamic and adaptive wireless mesh network.[9]"

Wishing security happens is quite different that actually happening, and mesh networks are an invitation to insecurity. 

First you continuously confuse Huawei with the Chinese government and now you are going on about 5G as a technology. No mention of Huawei in your pasting.

Could it be that the risks are universally applicable and independent of manufacturer in the matter you are raising and as such a question is for the bodies behind the architecture of 5G?

You know, exactly like the risks involved in 4G.

Of course, if governments and standards bodies saw 5G as such a risk on a technical level then there was nothing stopping them from not auctioning 5G frequencies.

Huawei is a member of a group of companies behind 5G. Companies producing 5G equipment have to ensure interoperability and remain in compliance with standards. Huawei does more (probably) than any other manufacturer in terms of opening itself to scrutiny and striving for improvement.

It doesn't matter that the US has almost no Huawei infrastructure. Why do you think the US went on a world tour threatening allies?

If they have there own secure channels, where is the problem?

Reality is security isn't the problem at all.

None of your arguments in this thread many any logical sense.

You assert that the only possible reason the US has done what it's done (and allegedly done) is because of "protectionism" (i.e., to aid US companies by tilting the playing field in their favor).

Let's test an alternate hypothesis (which the US government is asserting).  Suppose the US government knows or suspects that Huawei has acted or intends to act as an agent of the Chinese government by using it's technology to compromise communications.  Suppose that's the case.  Wouldn't they do all the things the US government has been doing (or is alleged to have done), namely "discouraging" AT&T from working with Huawei, prohibiting US agencies from using Huawei's gear, and encouraging allies to do the same?

Do I personally have proof of what the government is asserting or do I 100% believe that that risk is certain?  No.  Do you have incontrovertible proof that the government doesn't believe its assertions?  If not, then you can't rule out "national security" rather than "protectionism" as the explanation for their actions.

We live in a world with rules of play, laws and common practices.

As I implied earlier, in communications you will be hard pressed to stop your activity passing through Huawei equipment - at every step of the way. That's for 4G and probably 5G too. Standards have been drawn up. Patents have been established. Equipment is shipping. We are very late in the day.

Look at it another way. This has been cooking for over a decade. There was plenty of time to deal with this but no one even considered it. It wasn't an issue until the US - and only the US -began its campaign.

A campaign that is very weak as it has nothing going for it. So weak that 'allies' have requested evidence and not been given any.

On the other hand you have a company that has been in the business for more than 30 years, deals with more than 170 countries and is at the forefront of 5G. It has an impeccable security record. Those are not my words. They come from Huawei.

Huawei follows those words with a convincing argument: If ANY wilful wrongdoing by the company in terms of security were ever to be discovered, it would mean the end for the company. Overnight. Literally.

They are right and the argument is convincing.

The US argument is far from convincing and made far less so by those Donald Trump tweets.

hammeroftruth said:

StrangeDays said:

hammeroftruth said:

It’s funny how many fandroids get very upset at the fact that they cannot buy Huawei devices here and scream that there is no proof about any allegations of espionage. 

The simple fact that the CIA and the NSA issued the warning isn’t good enough for them. I get not trusting some parts of our govt, but when the part that spies on other countries warns the American people that there is a real risk, I think we should listen. 

Especially when it’s all the heads of six intelligence agencies, operating in unison.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/14/17011246/huawei-phones-safe-us-intelligence-chief-fears

The same agencies that said Russia meddled in the election and are no friends to the administration. Their findings were valid then, but now they aren’t — for the Chinese Cheer Squad, anyway. 

Cognitive dissonance, much?

It almost like a disease. People would risk having their info monitored by another country just to have a shiny new toy. 
I don’t like the thought of my country tracking me, but the thought of another country tracking me creeps me out. 

Has anyone seen how many cameras China has in public to watch them? Do they get that you can get arrested by looking at a website they label as subversive?

They still want the device because it will do 5G. Great trade off!!

A disease? 

Risks exist everywhere - even today. Just ask all those countries who have detected attempts by the US to get into their networks.

Most security experts agree that 5G should evolve into something more secure than 4G. It will be more pervasive but far more scrutiny, development and planning at an industry level is taking place than it ever did for LTE.

Proposals for an industry wide security certification protocol are also being looked at.

However, just like today with computer software, there will be bugs, human error etc. Governments - of all flavours - will continue to try and find a way in through any crack they find. There is nothing new here except maybe for what Huawei stated (half in jest and half seriously): Using Huawei gear makes it harder for the NSA.

If you, personally, get the creeps when some foreign government (in your opinion, ar least) tries to get at your data, you should also be able to understand that other people feel the same way in their countries when it comes to the NSA (which creeps you out, but less).

You should also understand why other countries resent being threatened on what to do with regards to their handling of 5G by the US. It is overreaching its power and this is seen as abuse. By extension you should also understand why Huawei is defending itself. 

Here is a decent summary of the current situation:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/03/07/huawei-sues-the-u-s-but-this-is-not-about-the-u-s/#30fc18f870e8

It is not about shiny new toys. People understand the risks. The risks have always existed but from risk to reality there can be quite a gap and without evidence, everything rings shallow. The US doesn't have a very good record here.

Huawei says it abides by all laws where it operates. Logically those same laws exist to be used in case of necessity by any company operating in the territory. From there on it it up to the courts to decide the outcome.

Huawei is NOT China. It is a private company.

I suggest we simply wait and see what comes of this.