WASHINGTON -- The back story on the scathing congressional report on security threats posed by Chinese telecom giants is beginning to emerge.
Reportedly at the center of U.S. lobbying effort against Chinese telecom gear manufacturer Huawei is none other than Cisco Systems, the U.S. network equipment giant whose Chinese partners have included Huawei.
The Washington Post reported this week that it obtained a copy of a September 2011 “presentation” it said was authored and distributed by Cisco. The Post article asserts that the Cisco document is part of a lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill to blunt Huawei’s access to the U.S. telecom equipment at a time when carriers are building out faster IP-based networks.
[Get a 10% discount on ARM TechCon 2012 conference passes by using promo code EDIT. Click here to learn about the show and register.]
The Post quoted the Cisco report as asserting that “Fear of Huawei spreads globally,” adding, “Despite denials, Huawei has struggled to delink itself from China’s People’s Liberation Army and the Chinese government.”
The article linked what is said is a Cisco-led lobbying effort to this week’s release of the House Intelligence Committee report warning that Huawei and China’s other large telecom equipment vendor, ZTE, pose a threat to U.S. national security.
Cisco declined to comment on the Post story or the House report, saying only that it is attempting to get a copy of the document cited in the article to “verify its validity.” The company acknowledged to the Post it has recently “taken a more competitive stance against competitors including HP, Huawei and Juniper.”
From here, the alleged Cisco lobbying campaign against former partner Huawei looks like a continuation of a long-running intellectual property fight that ended in a stalemate. During a visit to Huawei headquarters in the late 1990s, we asked Huawei executives about widespread allegations of IP theft. We were shown the door.
The Cisco lobbying effort, if in fact that’s what’s going on, coupled with the House report on Huawei along with concerted U.S. efforts to stop domestic carriers from buying Chinese networking products constitutes an major escalation of U.S.-Chinese trade frictions.
If it continues, a trade war with China in key sectors like telecommunications and energy (the Commerce Department announced tariffs this week as high as 36 percent on Chinese solar panels) is inevitable.
The timing of the House report’s release on Huawei and ZTE was not a coincidence. Bashing China has become a standard election-year tactic. In the long run, we’d be far better off competing against China than starting trade wars that will only hurt both nations.
The fact that this war is fought on US market should be a warning to all of us in the tech industry. Cisco can cry to Uncle Sam for help here, but who are they going to cry to in Zambia? Or heaven forbid, in China?
Look at all those huge companies filled to the brim with animated PPT. You are the next.....
Despite its IP dispute with Huawei, Cisco has done very well in the Chinese market. There were also a number of reports, most notably in the Financial Times, that Cisco assisted the Chinese government by providing network monitoring capabilities.
Huawei blatantly copied Cisco designs. Did the Chinese govt respond to Cisco's claims. So why shouldn't a US company go the US govt and get redress one way or another?
We need a trade war with China. After all, they are waging an industrial war with us stealing IP and dumping products at below cost.
If the current presidential campaign rhetoric translates into action, we'll likely get a trade war with China. It will serve short-term politic interests but will do little or nothing to solve systemic problems like IP theft.
EE Times has identified scholars and other experts in China with close ties to its technology sector who are trying to change Beijing's attitude toward IP. That may seem insignificant, but China is legally obligated under the WTO IP agreements to put in place the legal underpinnings to protect IP. We need to hold Beijing's feet to the fire on this, but a trade war isn't the best mechanism for doing that.
After enjoyed the inexpensive products, now you want back the money you paid?
Look at what jobs Chinese are doing. Are you sure you really want the high-pollution jobs back?
War, war, you guys know nothing but war
"After enjoyed the inexpensive products, now you want back the money you paid?"
No, they want back the jobs they lost.
Nothing comes for free, neither in the US nor in China. If China dumps products on the US market, that hurts US industry, which hurts employment opportunities, which means reduced demand even for Chinese-made products.
China is making itself an easy target, with its attitude toward intellectual property. The much lower wages in China should be plenty of incentive for moving US jobs to China, but the IP nonsense makes it that much easier for the US to impose trade barriers.
"Nothing comes for free, neither in the US nor in China. If China dumps products on the US market, that hurts US industry, which hurts employment opportunities, which means reduced demand even for Chinese-made products."
And that really needs to be viewed in a broader context.
Consider the solar panels discussed elsewhere. Chinese competition has made it difficult for a US manufacturer to produce solar cells, because Chinese producers have lower costs and can sell them cheaper. If you concentrate only on US photovoltaics manufacturers, it looks dismal.
But making the underlying photovoltaics is only one part of an overall solar *industry.* Other companies will be responsible for taking those solar cells and placing them into panels, which must be sold, installed, and serviced, with jobs every step of the way. Part of the problem the solar industry faces is high cost of entry for customers, because solar panels are expensive.
If the underlying solar cells are cheaper because China has glutted the market and many Chinese companies are selling below cost, this lowers the cost of solar installations made by US companies, and may *help* the growth of the entire US solar industry.
This applies to other areas besides the solar industry, too.
And on a larger level, those jobs moved offshore because they could be done cheaper elsewhere. Bringing them back would mean higher costs for manufacturers because of higher US pay scales, and higher *prices* for those buying the affected products. Higher prices might just *drop* demand for various things, because the higher prices might be more than customers are willing to pay for things they can arguably do without.
I fear the cost/benefit analysis is usually not as simple and clear cut as the prevailing rhetoric makes it appear.
Sorry if my post was not clearly targeted. I was responding to "We need a trade war with China". Some people never consider co-operation as an option, never respect others and think things from others perspective. They want nothing but force their will onto others.
Things can be win-win if we try for it. but will be zero-sum or even worse if no effort in the right direction. I would suggest BobsUrUncle watch the documentaries on world war II. I see no winner form any war, just tragedy. yes, we are talking about economics, but with that mindset, real war is closer than we think.
BTW, think about who is really responsible for the problem of US economy, China or the 1%? Who created the bubbles? Who benefited form the bubbles and accumulated more wealth when bubbles break? Why the media is always focusing on China only, who control media?
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.