FCC Failed To Monitor Chinese Telecoms For Almost 20 Years: Senate Report (arstechnica.com) 38
The Federal Communications Commission and other U.S. agencies have failed to properly oversee Chinese telecom companies that operate in the United States, according to a bipartisan Senate report released today. Ars Technica reports: After a year-long investigation, the staff report by the US Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations "found that the FCC and 'Team Telecom' -- an informal group comprised of officials from the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Defenseâ"have failed to monitor these three Chinese government-owned carriers," a joint announcement by the subcommittee's Republican and Democratic leaders said. The three carriers the subcommittee referred to are China Telecom Americas (CTA), China Unicom Americas (CUA), and ComNet USA. The companies "operated in the U.S. for nearly 20 Years with little to no oversight from the federal government," the senators' announcement said. "The Chinese government engages in cyber and economic espionage efforts against the United States and may use telecommunications carriers operating in the United States to further these efforts," the report said.
The report comes two months after the FCC stepped up its scrutiny of telecom companies controlled by the Chinese government. The FCC issued orders to China Telecom, China Unicom, ComNet, and ComNet owner Pacific Networks, directing them "to explain why the Commission should not start the process of revoking their domestic and international section authorizations enabling them to operate in the United States." But the FCC and other agencies had previously failed to exercise proper oversight of these companies, the Senate report said. The lack of oversight described in the report occurred during both Republican and Democratic administrations. "An FCC spokesman said the commission looks forward to reviewing the Senate report," according to a Reuters article today.
The report comes two months after the FCC stepped up its scrutiny of telecom companies controlled by the Chinese government. The FCC issued orders to China Telecom, China Unicom, ComNet, and ComNet owner Pacific Networks, directing them "to explain why the Commission should not start the process of revoking their domestic and international section authorizations enabling them to operate in the United States." But the FCC and other agencies had previously failed to exercise proper oversight of these companies, the Senate report said. The lack of oversight described in the report occurred during both Republican and Democratic administrations. "An FCC spokesman said the commission looks forward to reviewing the Senate report," according to a Reuters article today.
all in all (Score:1)
This century has been pretty shit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
''then it's because it gets its information from the country less advanced? ''
Not necessarily. But in this case, absolutely. Their complete lack of enforcing illegal production of trademarked product or IP protected processes absolutely demonstrates this without a question.
The rest is suspected with cause.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But the US is starting to decline in technological superiority. Research in companies is less valued than it used to be because of the lack of short term returns, whereas China is definitely on a moonshot stance to increase its global standing in technology. Now it's true, exageration occurs on both sides and a mix of politics, but if the US wants to retain technological superiority then it needs to take more action than accusing rivals of cheating.
Well, they aren't alone... (Score:2)
Well, they aren't alone. Apparently, the Canadians lost Nortel Telecom due to steals from Huawei or at least that's the story going around although I have never done my own in depth research.
.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a common accusation, but Nortel was already in decline before this. Whether Huawei stole anything from them or not would not have changed this outcome. It's always easier to blame someone else for your failings, though.
Re:Well, they aren't alone... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a common accusation, but Nortel was already in decline before this. Whether Huawei stole anything from them or not would not have changed this outcome. It's always easier to blame someone else for your failings, though.
The West: Sitting on my laurels ... sitting on my laurels ... sitting on my laurels .... .... It must be possible to build better laurels than this. ... UNFAIR!!! .... SANCTIONS!
Huawei: Hmmmm
The West: HEY!!! The Chinese built better laurels than ours
I wish the China hawks would just shut up about China, secure and air-gap their systems, hack China right back and out-laurel the Chinese and match them blow by blow when it comes to trade restrictions, state subsidies, bias in the access to the legal and patents system instead of whining about sanctions. The right wing in the UK for example keeps lionising the WTO but for the Chinese the WTO is just another silly little system they can game. The only thing China respects is being gamed right back to the massive disadvantage of their business and political elite. Whining about sanctions and unfairness will do nothing except make the whiner look weak.
Re: (Score:3)
It would also help to fast-forward the rhetoric by 20 years. Huawei got their start by e.g. reverse engineering telecom equipment from the West and selling it to poor provinces within China that none of the western companies cared about (and subsequently, focusing on developing countries that were similarly not very attractive to western companies) - this also predates a lot of the IP reform in China. By the time China started having more money and the margins in the bigger cities started looking more attra
Re:Well, they aren't alone... (Score:4, Interesting)
It would also help to fast-forward the rhetoric by 20 years. Huawei got their start by e.g. reverse engineering telecom equipment from the West and selling it to poor provinces within China that none of the western companies cared about (and subsequently, focusing on developing countries that were similarly not very attractive to western companies) - this also predates a lot of the IP reform in China. By the time China started having more money and the margins in the bigger cities started looking more attractive to the western companies, Huawei had already solidified their domestic market presence. Huawei now and then are completely different companies, and while IP theft may still be a problem, they are also leading in a lot of other areas where western companies are lagging behind (e.g. 5G). It's also indicative of a greater strategic failure by western companies by failing to engage developing countries at a time where there were real infrastructure requirements but not enough funds to make it attractive, or who didn't want to deal with corruption issues in these countries, etc.
I don't really have any problems with the idea that China is a problem. They think hacking systems in other countries and stealing IP is normal (but then again why do US defence contractors, just as an example, think it's OK to keep the design data on the F-35 on a non air gapped system?). The Chinese think it is normal to subsidise their own industry while suing other countries in the WTO for doing the same, they think it is normal for Chinese companies to get fast tracked for patents in China while foreign companies are obliged to wait for years while Chinese competitors copy the heck out of their products and they think it's just wonderful that Chinese companies can enforce their patents outside China much more easily than foreign companies can do in China. The Chinese need to be kicked in the nuts over all of this and it has to happen soon, starting with the way they are exporting unemployment by subsidising industries that don't really need subsidies for anything other than dumping purposes to destroy international competitors. However, a bunch of China hawks sitting around microphone whining about it just makes my ears hurt. Their 1940s vintage ideas about tariffs will do little or nothing to help because that only hurts your own economy. The only realistic way to deal with China and get them to behave is to visit the kind of treatment on them and their companies that they do to foreigners. However, there must also be an equilibrium sooner or later. The goal can't be for a bunch of China hawks to get a high trying to destroy China as an international player. Either there is a level playing field or there isn't and having your cake and eating it is not a realistic policy. This is something China has almost as hard a time understanding as Brexit Britain. Perhaps the two of them could form a support group?
Re: (Score:1)
reverse engineering telecom equipment from the West
You mean stealing Cisco source code? https://www.wsj.com/articles/S... [wsj.com] https://www.mercurynews.com/20... [mercurynews.com]
Re: (Score:1)
The right wing in the UK only likes the WTO because that's the default when crashing out of the EU with no deal. They know it's a terrible idea and that the WTO is dysfunctional but none of that matters if it gets them brexit because that's far more valuable to them in the long run. Wages and standards in the UK are too high in their opinion, they want to turn it into a low wage low regulation island just off the coast of Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
lol. Why do you think the UK joined the EU in the first place? Mass migration of super cheap labour from east European countries. Why do youy think the EU wanted to expand its borders so significantly, even to countries that were economic basket cases (eg Greece).
Many others have told of this before, if you cared to read up on their views. Obviously far-right activists such as Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn.
Re: (Score:3)
Remind me, was the UK joining the EU before or after the fall of the Iron Curtain?
Re: (Score:2)
back in the days when it really was a trading bloc (wasn't it originally the Coal and Steel Community), and not a political superstate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I wish the China hawks would just shut up about China, secure and air-gap their systems ...
Innovating is "not good for business" - especially the quarterly based one, it's easier to sanction and outlaw competition.
Ever heard of "Private Equity & Hedge Funds" and how they're making money [youtube.com]?
Re:So FBI cannot listen to any calls they wanted? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an odd accusation, isn't it? The FCC failed to apply special discriminatory measures to a foreign company from a country we decided we hate since about 4 years ago. Obviously during that time our own companies were benefiting massively from operating in China and we were very glad that the Chinese government didn't decide they needed special close monitoring because that would have been unfair and really hurt their bottom line.
Was Slashdot down overnight? (Score:2, Insightful)
I swear this was the top story before I went to bed last night. And here it still is (again?) with only 5 comments on it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just the pro-China state-sponsored astroturfers should have posted more than that. Something funny is going on.
FCC Failed To Monitor Chinese Telecoms ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:FCC Failed To Monitor Chinese Telecoms ... (Score:4, Informative)
''FCC's role has always been to just sit there, subscribe to government paychecks and do nothing of the sort.''
One of the primary jobs of the FCC is to license allocated spectrum and to assure it's utilized per specification of the license/frequency. Allowing a foreign company to use spectrum in this country without assuring it is being utilized as required, is pretty much a failure.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL yea, I hear ya, comrade. Who knew that the job of the Federal Communications Commission was to monitor and regulate telecommunications?
Re: (Score:2)
The primary service the FCC provides to all telecoms is a farm team of future industry lobbyists. The FCC is where the lawyers that will eventually make great lobbyists are separated from the conscientious and the dullards. Monitoring telecom companies — foreign or otherwise — isn't contributory to building great lobbyists, so it gets neglected.
Guilty until proven innocent? (Score:2)
The FCC issued orders to [companies] directing them "to explain why the Commission should not start the process of revoking their domestic and international section authorizations enabling them to operate in the United States."
Am I the only one to find this statement disturbing?
Borrow arrows with straw boats (Score:2)
I found this strange as well. However, it could be a preliminary tactic for later demanding US telecoms access to the Chinese markets. Every argument these state owned enterprises come up with can be taken as the principled position of the state itself, and therefore the harder they argue for continued access in the US the more they break down the Chinese government's stance against foreign telecom access in mainland China.
Essentially forcing China to argue against itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Not guilty. This is "tell us why we shouldn't investigate what you've been doing". The "process" of revoking authorizations is to demonstrate why the authorizations should be revoked.
Nobody speaks Mandarin (Score:2)
And people who do are suspicious, so why bother?
They only monitor one thing: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality (Score:3)
And how about India? (Score:2)
If they're not monitoring China, why should we expect that they're monitoring our good friend India... source of more than half the robocalls in the US.
Rephrasing this (Score:2)