100% behind you on that. When China is a true member of the world community with fair equivalent wages and benefits, has environmental laws and a real democracy so that we are on an even footing, then we can talk about it.
To Mr. Divakar's "Capitalism 2.0 = Conscientious Capitalism" statement I would add the necessity of a nation's overall survival. Some would see this as a "market" survival within a nation, e.g. the population must be able to buy/acquire goods and services regardless of a particular political slant. If we produce nothing, we can afford nothing. If we cannot (or will not) produce what we need to survive, then we are at the mercy of other nations. And unless we can do far better than this minimum standard, we cannot afford to buy from anyone else. Is that where we want our Nation to be? For me, the answer is an emphatic NO!
The discussions above take me back to the print days of EE Times where we had scores of debates on H1B's, globalization, immmigration, cheap labour, and on and on... Eventually market forces win, won they have, and have continued to do so despite one's sentiments and national pride. The past decade has seen incredible progress in driving the cost down on electronics while cannibalizing the very customer market it was supposed to market to! When jobs disappear to lower cost locations and replenishment of opportunities is non existent, we know that this model is seriously flawed.
The basic premise of globalization was that given a "level" playing field, any enterprise from any country that delivered the most value is supposed to win. It was not supposed to be a zero-sum game but one with more value additions and opportunities to all sides. A continuing non-equilibrium was supposed to keep the top of the pyramid running while creating more opportunities for the stacks below. In an era of increasingly open and accessible knowledge, it has become almost impossible to keep the top replenished with value-based opportunities.
Much blame can and should be assigned to profit at any cost. Investors and VC's always talk about exit strategy -you seldom hear about any 'staying' or 'commitment' strategy! If there is ever an undoing of the capitalistic model, it is this greed from a few corporate behemoths that value money over minds and have the clout to sway entire continents. Until a conscientious capitalistic model evolves, we are doomed to be stuck in this predicament and pay the prices.
In my world and in my own words,
Capitalism 2.0 = Conscientious Capitalism!
As the owner of a struggling 3-person startup, I am proud to say this: at the end of the day, my assets go home!
Globalization is indeed happening. Business is business. If we support free market economy, shall we selectively keep certain business from operating? I am more interested in knowing what kind of opportunity the worry will bring.
It truly saddens me that this letter is not about any real attempt to look at issues like outsourcing of engineering jobs or any other economic issue that would be important at this time. This is simple electoral pandering and payback to political backers. It has no more real importance to the american people than steroids in baseball. Politicians need to start worrying about the real issues in our country rather than sending out conspiracy theories that sound like they are out of the latest spy novel.
Huawei is already a global company with a substantial market share. Nobody has yet reported any intentional security leaks or evidence of anything that would raise national security concerns.
Perhaps the U.S. government might choose not to do business directly with Huawei, and it has that right, but here we are talking about a for-profit company, Sprint-Nextel, having the right to choose to buy equipment from Huawei rather than from a western company.
It's Sprint-Nextel's business, not the governement's...
I suggest you go to Wikipedia and look at Huawei's entry, especially:
Criticisms and controversy
Some of Huawei's first products were routers running Cisco's router code. I have talked with friends who saw Huawei equipment that displayed Cisco error messages.
The other concern is that counterfeit Cisco gear turned up in China two years ago and posed a potential security threat.
May 12, 2008
FBI worried as DoD sold counterfeit Cisco gear:
By tampering with networking equipment, spies could open up a back door to sensitive military systems
In late February the FBI broke up a counterfeit distribution network, seizing an estimated $3.5 million worth of components manufactured in China. This two-year FBI effort, called Operation Cisco Raider, involved 15 investigations run out of nine FBI field offices
According to the presentation, Cisco's gold and silver partners have purchased counterfeit equipment and sold it to the government and defense contractors.
People should at least read the NY Times article (link included in the EE Times article). Personally, I think it is likely that in the near future, Huawei equipment will be found to have intentional security leaks. And if they get this Sprint Nextel contract, they will use it as as a starting point to undercut and dominate the US telecom market.
If Huawei doubles their annual sales, they will be bigger than Cisco, which was added to the Dow Jones Industrial Average last year.
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Are the design challenges the same as with embedded systems, but with a little developer- and IT-skills added in? What do engineers need to know? Rick Merritt talks with two experts about the tools and best options for designing IoT devices in 2016. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.