Today, Huawei filed an indictment in a U.S. court asking it to find that the FCC’s decision to bar Huawei from participating in federally subsidized funding programs violates the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. Song Liuping, Huawei’s chief legal officer, spoke at a news conference. The following is the full text of Song Liuping’s speech:
Ladies and gentlemen, good morning and welcome to today’s press conference.
This morning, Huawei filed an indictment asking the court to overturn an illegal decision passed by the Federal Communications Commission.
On November 22nd the FCC passed a decision that identified Huawei as a national security threat.
The decision will prohibit U.S. carriers from using the Universal Services Fund to buy Huawei devices.
Many users and small businesses in rural America are still not connected to mobile networks, a decision that will hurt them.
The FCC claimed Huawei posed a security threat, but FCC Chairman Ajit Pai offered no evidence.
This is the usual practice of the Us Government recently.
“Huawei is a Chinese company. “It’s the only excuse he can give.”
He also tried to spread fears about China, using words such as “backdoor” to spread fear, but offered no evidence.
Other FCC commissioners have used the same argument.
As with May’s list of entities, the decision was driven by political factors rather than security considerations.
These politicians ignore the important fact that Huawei has been working with operators in rural America for years and that our customers trust our devices.
They are their own cyber security experts, and they are willing to work with us.
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 equipment.
They also respect our services because other equipment manufacturers don’t care about their needs.
These operators are often overlooked by large manufacturers because providing services in rural areas does not yield significant benefits.
The government should not be banned from co-operating together to achieve connectivity in rural America.
Since the FCC pushed the ban on Huawei in March 2018, several operators in rural areas have filed objections.
These include the American Rural Wireless Carriers Association.
Huawei also submitted 21 rounds of detailed comments on the damage the decision will do to users and businesses in remote areas.
But the FCC has turned a deaf ear to these comments.
Unfounded allegations of national security threats are very dangerous.
U.S. politicians say they’re very worried about cybersecurity, and we’re worried about it.
But in fact, banning companies such as Huawei simply because of China will not solve any cybersecurity problems.
If the FCC is really concerned about the security of its telecommunications supply chain, it should be aware that any manufacturer’s equipment made in China carries the same risk.
This includes not only Huawei, ZTE, but also Nokia and Ericsson, which also have production facilities in China.
Replace one set of equipment made in China with another set of equipment made in China… Politicians and security advisers are smart people, and they should know better about it.
The U.S. government has never produced any real evidence that Huawei poses a national security threat.
This is because there is no such evidence.
Asked to base their case, they responded that “public evidence may also harm The national security of the United States.” ”
This is nonsense.
Just last month, Bill Gates said, “It’s crazy to think that anything from China is bad. . . ”
We very much agree with him. We are willing to work with the U.S. government to prove that our products and services are safe.
In passing the decision, the FCC did not allow Huawei to exercise due process or verify the facts, but rather loudly and publicly determined that Huawei posed a national security threat.
The FCC’s decision violates the U.S. Constitution, and we have no choice but to resort to legal action.