US Set To Give Huawei Another 90 Days To Buy From American Suppliers (reuters.com) 18
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The U.S. Commerce Department is expected to extend a reprieve given to Huawei Technologies that permits the Chinese firm to buy supplies from U.S. companies so that it can service existing customers, two sources familiar with the situation said. The "temporary general license" will be extended for Huawei for 90 days, the sources said.
Commerce initially allowed Huawei to purchase some American-made goods in May shortly after blacklisting the company in a move aimed at minimizing disruption for its customers, many of which operate networks in rural America. An extension will renew an agreement set to lapse on August 19, continuing the Chinese company's ability to maintain existing telecommunications networks and provide software updates to Huawei handsets. The situation surrounding the license, which has become a key bargaining chip for the United States in its trade negotiations with China, remains fluid and the decision to continue the Huawei reprieve could change ahead of the Monday deadline, the sources said.
Commerce initially allowed Huawei to purchase some American-made goods in May shortly after blacklisting the company in a move aimed at minimizing disruption for its customers, many of which operate networks in rural America. An extension will renew an agreement set to lapse on August 19, continuing the Chinese company's ability to maintain existing telecommunications networks and provide software updates to Huawei handsets. The situation surrounding the license, which has become a key bargaining chip for the United States in its trade negotiations with China, remains fluid and the decision to continue the Huawei reprieve could change ahead of the Monday deadline, the sources said.
Finally a TFS worth its salt (Score:5, Informative)
From TFS:
"Commerce initially allowed Huawei to purchase some American-made goods in May shortly after blacklisting the company in a move aimed at minimizing disruption for its customers, many of which operate networks in rural America." (emphasis mine)
You see, of Huawei's revenue's:
About 50% comes from telco gear/services (Think 2g/3g/4g/5g base stations, DWDM gear, Big ass telco routers, NGN switches, DSLAMS, GPON OLTs, microwave backhaul, etc. and connected services),
20% comes from what they call "Enterprise" (storage arrays, Servers, and connected SW and services).
And only about 30% comes from "Terminals" (ADSL modems, (10)GPON ONTs, Satellite TV receivers, dumphones, Smartphones).
So, while most of the press seems fixated on "android and smartphones", the crux of the matter is not the smartphones, but the chips and technology for telco gear and servers...
How politics changes (Score:3, Interesting)
Only a few years ago, no Republicans and very few Democrats supported policies of this sort, because we generally believed in free trade. Strange that it's come to this.
Trump just listened (Score:4, Insightful)
Those voters were promised new high paying jobs in Biotech (I was there remembering the promises) and computers. The politicians knew that was bullshit. You don't teach a plant lineman how to be a research tech. They wouldn't have been doing factory work if they had the chops for that. And nobody was going to pay for them to try and get a 4 year college degree, never mind that we just don't need that many.
Trump's people noticed that Hilary was ignoring the rust belt (mostly the now forgotten Paul Manafort, Trump sure does take care of his people). That's what this is all about.
Trump's chief campaign promise was: 'What do you have to lose?'. Now, if you're paying attention you know the answer is "A lot". That's because companies, unable to raise prices due to decades of low wages, are going to start counteracting the tariffs with mass layoffs and mandatory unpaid overtime to boost profits. But there's a 50/50 chance that won't hit until Trump's second term.
Meanwhile Hilary, had she been elected, at best would have kept things as-is. But then again for a lot of those voters living paycheck to paycheck they were on the verge of collapse either way. So they rolled the dice.
Re: (Score:2)
An excellent summary of TFS and analysis of same.
Trump unintentionally won.
Not by millions from the NRA (now almost bankrupt), not by his white supremacy core, not by his hatred of immigrants (the English translation is "Mexicans"), not by his hatred for Muslims, not be his faux support for coal, not by way of pushing fossil fuel, not because he regressed regulations and not because he's a climate change denier.
Nope. He won the election because America did not want Obama 2.0. Clinton had a lot of baggage an
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
I realized that Trump might win when I saw this video:
A woman complain to Hillary that she and her husband were paying $1,000 a month for health insurance, and even with Obamacare, they just couldn't afford it.
Hillary said that she might get a better deal if she "shopped around." She realized how it sounded but it was too late.
Health care, education, housing -- all the necessities of life -- have become unaffordable, and when people complain, the Democrats say, "Vote for me and I'll give you an incr
Americans would have settled for Obama 2.0 (Score:3)
Now, Trump has turned
Re: (Score:2)
I second this very concise and accurate summary.
Intentional or not, Trump managed to tag Hillary with all the economic angst to get critical votes where it counted. The problem she faced was not whether she was culpable or not in those ills, but that the voter base was by and large not even capable of understanding the problems well enough to make that determination. She had answers but too few people cared to read them. So Trump's easy-to-digest (even though you shouldn't eat it) message of whatdoyou
Re: (Score:2)
The best analogy of Trump is well, what he eats. He's into fast food. It's tasty, it's fast, and it's easy. Clinton was more like a slow dinner - it's also good, but it's not quick and you'll spend a lot of time there.
No big surprise, people like the quick and easy. Of course, like fast food, it's not terribly healthy, which is we are now. The only hope
Re: (Score:3)
It's more scary than strange. The globe itself is moving toward a major shift in nationalism, survival of the one, protectionism, and exploitation.
No one country has all the ingredients needed to produce goods that sell domestically and certainly globally.
In a time when we need to negotiate a global economy that supports sharing resources in a collaborative effort to make money, with side effects of decreasing the move to conflicts, countries are siloistic and using their economic strengths to hold other co
Re: (Score:2)
Not any more perhaps, not in the age of "everything is made in China" but before that countries seemed to get along pretty well all on their own. I'm talking a couple hundred years ago, but back then trade wasn't a matter of necessity, it was a matter of luxury. Silk and spices from the Orient are not NEEDED, they are WANTED type thing. Sure some countries lack major resources like oil and metals
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think most voters had much of an opinion one way or another about trade liberalization. The reason the Democrats tended to be a little more against it was because the remains of the old labor unions were against it; Republican universally favored it because management wanted access to cheaper labor.
It's a shame there wasn't more public controversy, because it turns out both sides were fairly accurate in their predictions. Free trade made stunningly cheap goods available to everyone, but destroyed i
\o/ (Score:1)
Closing down sale. Everything Must Go (within the next 90 days) !!!
Geeks, tell me: are the security threats bullshit? (Score:3)
Sometimes Trump says we would import and export Huawei stuff if they would only give us a better trade deal.
Other times Trump says we can't import and export Huawei stuff because they are a security threat. It may just look like a router, but it's actually HAL scraping our manufacturing secrets.
Which is it?
Is Huawei equipment really a realistic security threat? Any more than domestic equipment (if there is any left?)
Or is this just a fantasy spun by Bolton, Pompeo, and the "security experts" who got us into Iraq?
Re: Geeks, tell me: are the security threats bulls (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with the UK assessment of it. There's no evidence that there are intentional backdoors for spying, but the code is so damn sloppy that it's probably still a security risk to use their gear. Also, the way they deal with bug reports makes Cisco look good. If you've had to deal with Cisco, you'll know that's really saying something.