Why is Huawei suing the FCC? No evidence of forced repression

Huawei’s 2019 years are in constant turmoil. Following the May 16 U.S. inclusion of Huawei on the list of entities, on November 22nd the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) identified Huawei as a national security risk company by a vote of five in favor and zero against, prohibiting U.S. rural telecommunications business customers from using government funds to purchase the company’s equipment or services. Huawei will have 30 days to defend the ban, and a final order to force the removal of devices won’t come up until next year at the earliest.

In response, Huawei issued a statement on November 23rd saying the FCC had voted against the decision to ban operators from using federal subsidy funds to buy Huawei equipment. “The FCC’s decision, based on one-sided information and a misinterpretation of Chinese law, found Huawei to be a national security threat without evidence, not only in violation of the principles of due process of legislation, but also for alleged violations of the law.” ”

Then Huawei fought back again. On December 5, Huawei’s Shenzhen headquarters held a press conference to announce an indictment in a U.S. court asking the court to find that the FCC’s decision to bar Huawei from participating in federally subsidized funding programs violated the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Why is Huawei suing the FCC? No evidence of forced repression

“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 argued that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and other commissioners had not provided any evidence to support allegations that Huawei posed a security threat.

Not only that, but the FCC has completely ignored the many rounds of factual evidence and objections submitted by Huawei. The FCC’s actions are a political-driven crackdown on Huawei under the guise of security.

No evidence of forced repression

In fact, the FCC’s move was not a no-show, but a premeditation.

The FCC has made the proposal since March 2018, but FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and other commissioners have not provided any evidence to support allegations that Huawei poses a security threat.

In addition, Huawei and operators in rural Areas of the United States submitted several rounds of factual evidence and objections, but the FCC completely ignored these factual basis and opinions.

Huawei said the FCC’s universal services funding is mainly used to improve telecommunications and broadband Internet services in rural and remote areas. Without this funding, U.S. operators in many remote areas will not be able to continue to have access to competitive Huawei products and services, continue to provide reliable, high-speed communications services to utilities such as schools, hospitals, libraries, and weaken competition in the U.S. telecommunications equipment market, especially 5G networks. Ordinary consumers will also have to pay more for online services.

Banning carriers from buying Huawei devices does not really improve U.S. cyber security, and the FCC is well aware of that.

“Cybersecurity and user privacy protection are Huawei’s top business platform, and since its inception 30 years ago, Huawei has established end-to-end network security practices ranging from strategy, supply chain, research and development, to products and solutions, and Huawei has operated in more than 170 countries and regions around the world, with no major cyber security incidents. You’ve earned your trust by comprehensively meeting our customers’ cyber security needs. ”

Operators in rural Areas of the United States, including small towns in Montana and Kentucky and farms in Wyoming, are known to have chosen to work with Huawei because they recognize the quality and safety of huawei equipment. The FCC should not prohibit Huawei from working with carriers to provide connectivity services to rural areas of the United States.

In addition, Mr. Song said, if the FCC is really concerned about the security of its telecommunications supply chain, they should be aware that any manufacturer’s equipment made in China carries the same risk. In addition to Huawei, ZTE, Nokia, Ericsson and other telecommunications equipment manufacturers are also in China production equipment. “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. Song Liuping said.

In response to the FCC’s crackdown, which found it had violated the U.S. Constitution, it announced an indictment in a U.S. court on December 5.

FCC decisions will have a bad impact

Glen Nager, the lead lawyer in the case, said the FCC passed the decision to target Only Chinese companies such as Huawei, which it self acknowledged was aimed at Chinese companies. Glen Nager argued that 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.

In fact, the FCC’s decision is not conducive to improving connectivity in rural Areas of the United States, which relies on Huawei’s devices to access the network, while other vendors are reluctant to operate in “very remote, difficult terrain and sparsely populated” areas. 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.

Song Kai, vice president of corporate communications at Huawei, said Huawei has built a network for U.S. users where other vendors don’t want to, even if they are too small, less convenient, or not profitable, but working with these small carriers is something the company has been working on. This is also Huawei’s right to fight for it.

“Other vendors have removed users from their customer lists and defined them as low-value customers, but Huawei would never do that, ” says Mr Song. Huawei’s u.S. equipment is sold primarily to 40 small wireless and cable carriers, connecting schools, hospitals, farms, families, community colleges and emergency centers, he said.

“These small wireless and wired carriers have put a digital lifeline on local operators, which require digital general-purpose devices, and the FCC requires rural U.S. carriers to remove Huawei’s facilities that are already installed in their networks, in addition to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs that operators say would end in bankruptcy if they comply.” Even more distressing, says Mr Song, removing Huawei devices will not make the network more secure.

“Many of our competitors have equipment made in China, and some have even joint ventures with Chinese state-owned enterprises, and their equipment is widely used in the U.S. network, ” Song added. An FCC commissioner once said that nearly 40 percent of U.S. networks contain Chinese-made devices. Targeting Huawei will not change the status quo. ”

In addition, for this incident, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying in the Foreign Ministry press conference also expressed the view, if in the safety standards, a country as both athletes, as referees, but also always blowing black whistles, then it can be trusted?

Indeed, in the absence of conclusive evidence, the so-called “protection of American interests” policy has repeatedly deliberately smeared and suppressed Chinese enterprises on unnecessary charges, even at the expense of American enterprises and the interests of the people, which can be seen behind it.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *