In response to the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to ban Huawei from participating in federal subsidy funding programs, Huawei held a press conference at its headquarters in Shenzhen on December 5 to announce that Huawei filed an indictment in a U.S. court today. The court found that the FCC’s decision to ban Huawei from participating in federally subsidized funding programs violated the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. Huawei said the FCC’s findings were arbitrary and did not give it the opportunity to exercise due process.
The FCC approved a decision on November 22 that identified Huawei as a national security threat and banned operators in rural U.S. from using the General Services Fund (USF) to buy Huawei devices. In an indictment filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Huawei found that the FCC’s direct finding that Huawei posed a national security threat and that it violated the principle of due process by not giving Huawei the opportunity to rebut the allegations. Huawei also argued that the FCC had violated U.S. law such as the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act by providing no evidence or reasonable grounds to support its arbitrary decision.
“Just because Huawei is a Chinese company, we can’t solve any cyber security problems,” Song Liuping, Huawei’s chief legal officer, said at a press conference. ”
He added that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and other commissioners had not provided any evidence to support allegations that Huawei posed a security threat. Since the FCC first proposed the proposal in March 2018, Huawei and u.S. operators in rural areas have submitted several rounds of factual evidence and objections, but the FCC has completely ignored them.
“Huawei also submitted 21 rounds of detailed comments on the damage the decision will do to users and businesses in remote areas,” Song said in a statement. But the FCC ignored all those arguments. ”
“Operators in rural areas of the United States, including small towns in Montana and Kentucky, and farms in Wyoming, have chosen to work with Huawei because they recognize the quality and safety of Huawei’s equipment,” he added. The FCC should not prohibit Huawei from working with carriers to provide connectivity services to rural areas of the United States. ”
Glen Nager, the lead lawyer in the case, said the FCC passed the decision to target Only Chinese companies such as Huawei, which itself acknowledged was targeting Chinese companies, in accordance with the relevant standards.
In addition, Glen Nager said, the rule goes beyond the FCC’s statutory authority because the FCC does not have the authority to make national security decisions and does not have the power to limit the use of USF funds based on that judgment. In addition, the FCC does not have the expertise to identify national security.
Glen Nager also said there was no legal and factual basis for the decision. “The FCC is not based on evidence, but on fundamental misreading of Chinese law and unreasonable, unreliable and unacceptable allegations and innuendo,” he said. The decision was purely an unreasonable and poor pretrial. ”
Song Kai, Vice President of Corporate Communications at Huawei, said the FCC’s decision was not conducive to improving connectivity in rural areas of the United States, which rely on Huawei’s devices to access the network, while other vendors were reluctant to operate in “very remote, difficult terrain and sparsely populated” areas. He also said the ban, along with subsequent proposals to remove and replace Huawei’s devices, would add hundreds of millions of dollars in costs and even bankrupt some smaller carriers.
In response to the FCC’s decision to ban Huawei from participating in federal subsidy programs, Huawei issued a statement on November 22 stressing that the FCC’s decision was based on one-sided information and a misinterpretation of Chinese law, “and that, without evidence, Huawei is a national security threat, not only in violation of the principles of due process of legislation.” Also suspected of breaking the law.”