FCC Moves To Cut Off Huawei, ZTE From Subsidies

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wall Street Journal: The Federal Communications Commission is moving to place another restraint on the U.S. business of Huawei and ZTE by banning U.S. companies receiving federal subsidies from purchasing the Chinese firms' equipment (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). FCC Chairman Ajit Pai set the proposal for vote at the agency's meeting on Nov. 19. It would designate Huawei and ZTE as national security threat and tell U.S. firms not to buy their equipment using money from an $8.5 billion federal fund designed to fund telecommunications service in rural areas. The FCC would also propose further study, and potentially federal funding, for removing and replacing equipment from the companies that has already been installed. Mr. Pai in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Monday called this existing equipment an "unacceptable risk."

Who

[Ryanrule]

Allowed such things for purchases from foreign companies in the first place?

Re:

[Anonymous Dotter]

If enough money is involved the US will work with just about any foreign country. It's a capitalist country so it's no surprise that the FCC finally decided that the risks out-weight the means. This also gived the FCC a financial pass if another debacle with Huawei and ZTE ensues. This is business politics at it's norm.

who's the unacceptable risk?

[nnet]

Idjit Pai is the unacceptable risk to america.

Re:

[Xenx]

It's arguably worse than that. They're not forcing those companies to purchase from US companies, they're just specifically preventing purchase from Huawei/ZTE. This is a targeted attack against them and China. The reason I say it's arguably worse, is because there is a lot of grey when dealing with China. On the surface, at least, the US is banning Huawei/ZTE for security reasons with little to no proof.

Re:

[WindBourne]

???? WTF?
America's subsidy (basically, my phone $) will go towards companies other than these 2. Basically, it will include not just America, but all of the western companies. So what? How is this worse than China's massive tariffs on all imported vehicles and denying subsidies on imported EVs?

Re:

[Xenx]

The subsidies are there for the phone companies to provide better service to people in rural areas and the like. It's not about that money going to any one network hardware provider. I'm not making a judgement, but pointing out the situation. This also assumes we're talking about a telecom that isn't just milking the subsidies from the system. The choice is to go with the most cost effective manufacturer and provide better service to more people, or to spend more for equipment elsewhere and serve fewer peop

Re:

[eaglesrule]

This move is nothing but 100% nativism and protectionism.

If by nativism and protectionism you mean taking precautions against espionage and subterfuge from a hostile foreign adversary on domestic networks, then sure.

Oh you mean normal "free market" standards should be applied even for a corporation backed by the Chinese communist government?

Re:

[DesScorp]

You said it. This move is nothing but 100% nativism and protectionism.

Good. Let's have more of it then. Because I'm tired of corporations killing off American jobs so they can move those jobs to China. People like me gave "competitive advantage" a chance decades ago, and now we regret it. Because you're never going to turn most of those factory workers into C coders or Python developers. "We'll retrain them for a modern economy" is a bullshit pipe dream. They're just going to be out of jobs. And a government's first responsibility is to its own citizens. Cheap Chinese crap in

Re:

[WindBourne]

yup. I fully support helping nations like Mexico, Russia, India, South Korea, etc, but once a nation is helped and gets up to a decent economic level like China is, then it is time to stop the BS.

Re:

[WindBourne]

Hold on. China denies subsidies on imported EVs, as well as massive tarrifs on all imported vehicles, Canada and Germany manipulated their subsidies so as to preclude Tesla PURPOSELY (which Tesla got around in Canada, but Germany got upset for Tesla pulling same thing there), and you think that America is horrible for stopping spying from happening, why?

Re:

[Freischutz]

Idjit Pai is the unacceptable risk to america.

Pai is the inescapable product of America, or more precisely the American brand of 'greed is good and corruption is even better' capitalism.

Re:

[WindBourne]

I am not a fan of his, but how is he wrong in this? This is about stopping companies that are owned by the Chinese government from having access to American infrastructure. China prevents this from happening by other nation. Why is this wrong for America to stop it?

Re:

[WindBourne]

Well, he and trump admin are disasters to America and our allies, but, in this case, I would have to agree with this.
What is so wrong with it?

Re:

[Aighearach]

Alternatives are European and Korean.

Re:

[Xenx]

This isn't about domesticating our vital industries, however. They would still be allowed to purchase from other foreign companies, they're only blocking Huawei and ZTE. This is specifically about targeting China. Take whatever stance you want on that.

Re:

[eaglesrule]

Good. Even if Pai's doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, it's still a benefit to hinder China's growth. Corporations can't and won't make the choices that benefit the national interest unless prodded to.

Re:

[Xenx]

There are two problems. "Right thing for the wrong reasons" reinforces the idea that the reasons weren't wrong in the first place. The other issue is that national interest is a nebulous idea. It's a lot like morality, or democracy. There is usually a lot of overlap, but everyone has their own idea as to what it means and they're all right. You say it's in the nation's interest to lock down on China. I'm not as sure. What are we actually gaining from it? It's not bringing more jobs to the country. We're not

Re:

[eaglesrule]

I can't know Pai's reasons with absolute certainty so that's why there is a qualifier.

We can worry about what our country is doing by externalizing pollution and enriching a future military adversary, which falls under the scope of the national interests. If Chinese jobs are moving to India, that's great, since India is a constitutional democratic republic that closer aligns with our own ideals.

Meanwhile the 7.4 million people of Honk Kong are facing down prisoner organ harvesting, indoctrination camps, soc

Re:

[WindBourne]

good. Blocking a nation that is engaged in an economic war with the west from being able to destroy our infrastructure is NOT a bad thing. I have absolutely NO issue with western nations or other nations that are not engaged in war (cold, economic, or hot) with us.

Not about Huawei

[drinkypoo]

This is about letting the telcos continue to ignore the last mile.

Or . . .

[quonset]

And I'm just spitballing here, we can stop giving subsidies to multi-billion dollar private companies.

If they need the taxpayers to prop them up, perhaps they should be allowed to fail.

And allow them to serve their customers?

[raymorris]

I don't know if you glanced at the summary before commenting, but the money they are talking about is "using money from an $8.5 billion federal fund designed to fund telecommunications service in rural areas". The telcos and their customers in the suburbs pay into the fund, then the fund is used to pay for running a million dollar fiber run across a cow pasture to three families.

The new rule is that when the government forces the telcos to run fiber to places where it doesn't make sense economically, using

So you think we should stop?

[raymorris]

You're suggesting that these programs don't work?
That we should stop having the telcos pay into a fund, letting politics skim off the top, then give them the money back for politically-favored projects? I'm sure the telcos would agree with you.

I'm not sure to what I extent I agree with you, but the telcos certainly do.

I'm good with this

[WindBourne]

Seriously, this is better than China's denying subsidies and putting massive taxes/tariffs on imported EVs so as to destroy foreign companies.
In America's case, it is not about destroying foreign companies, but about making sure that Chinese goverment will not be spying on our nation.