Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
two can play this game. just wait when china start blocking foreign tech companies using similar excuse. see who will go ape ****..
It's pretty obvious. The reason is that the Australian leadership has the same sort of paranoid sinophobic mentality as right-wing neoconservative Americans. There has never been any proof of any Huawei intelligence/surveillance connections with China's government. It's all based on the founder being a Chinese soldier in his youth. This reasoning only applies to China, and perhaps Russia. For the millions of former soldiers in all other countries, this isn't even an issue, let alone investigated as if it were some sort of criminal record.The full details as to why they were banned has not been released but it should be noted that ASIO doesn't make decisions like this lightly so there almost certainly is a good reason behind it.
I would be interested in knowing the name of this company and assuming they did exactly what you say, the reasons they would create something like this. I find it hard to believe the entire Australian network could be taken down. There is more to this story which I think would be interesting to mention in detail because it might or might not support the Australian government's discrimination against Huawei.Another company working on the Australian National Broadband Network has already been banned because they were found to be creating a backdoor switch that could turn off the network.
It's pretty obvious. The reason is that the Australian leadership has the same sort of paranoid sinophobic mentality as right-wing neoconservative Americans. There has never been any proof of any Huawei intelligence/surveillance connections with China's government. It's all based on the founder being a Chinese soldier in his youth. This reasoning only applies to China because of the millions of former soldiers in all other countries, this isn't even an issue, let alone investigated as if it is some sort of criminal record.
I would be interested in knowing the name of this company and assuming they did exactly what you say, the reasons they would create something like this. I find it hard to believe the entire Australian network could be taken down. There is more to this story which I think would be interesting to mention in detail because it might or might not support the Australian government's discrimination against Huawei.
It's pretty obvious. The reason is that the Australian leadership has the same sort of paranoid sinophobic mentality as right-wing neoconservative Americans. There has never been any proof of any Huawei intelligence/surveillance connections with China's government. It's all based on the founder being a Chinese soldier in his youth. This reasoning only applies to China, and perhaps Russia. For the millions of former soldiers in all other countries, this isn't even an issue, let alone investigated as if it were some sort of criminal record.
It's pretty obvious. The reason is that the Australian leadership has the same sort of paranoid sinophobic mentality as right-wing neoconservative Americans.[/U][/B].
There has never been any proof of any Huawei intelligence/surveillance connections with China's government.
It's pretty obvious. The reason is that the Australian leadership has the same sort of paranoid sinophobic mentality as right-wing neoconservative Americans. There has never been any proof of any Huawei intelligence/surveillance connections with China's government. It's all based on the founder being a Chinese soldier in his youth. This reasoning only applies to China, and perhaps Russia. For the millions of former soldiers in all other countries, this isn't even an issue, let alone investigated as if it were some sort of criminal record.
I would be interested in knowing the name of this company and assuming they did exactly what you say, the reasons they would create something like this. I find it hard to believe the entire Australian network could be taken down. There is more to this story which I think would be interesting to mention in detail because it might or might not support the Australian government's discrimination against Huawei.
Australia benefits tremendously from the trade with China. And the growing China is main reason why Australia could be survived from GFC.Recent news indicates the economic relationship between Australia and China will be even closer in the future.
Check news: Australia's 30 billion dollar currency swap deal with China
This is a national project which the government aims to create Aussie jobs and rewards local companies like Telstra.
So far as I know, killing Indian students is kind of 'sport' for Aussie racists. And it is beyond me why some patriotic' Indian here are so concerned about Aussie national security even though their people were 'slaughtered' there.
Forget it. Australia is a lost cause. We should focus on New Zealand and Indonesia. I see great potential there. Those are the growth markets. Australia is already a mature market.
two can play this game. just wait when china start blocking foreign tech companies using similar excuse. see who will go ape ****..
Australia has blocked Huawei Technologies of China from bidding on contracts in the $38 billion Australian National Broadband Network, citing security concerns, Huawei said Monday.
We were informed by the government that there is no role for Huawei in the network, said Jeremy Mitchell, a spokesman in Australia for Huawei, one of the worlds largest suppliers of telecommunications equipment.
The Australian plan is the largest infrastructure project in the countrys history. It is intended to connect 93 percent of homes and workplaces with fiber-optic cable, providing broadband service in urban and rural areas.
It was announced in 2009 by the Australian government with a committed investment of as much as $38 billion. The network is expected to be ready by 2020.
The Australian Financial Review newspaper said in a report Monday that Huawei had sought to secure a supply contract worth as much as 1 billion Australian dollars, or $1.05 billion, as part of the project, but had been blocked by the Australian attorney general on the basis of advice from the Australian Security Intelligence Organization.
The office of the attorney general said in a news release, This is consistent with the governments practice for ensuring the security and resilience of Australias critical infrastructure more broadly.
The network is a strategic and significant government investment, the attorney generals office told Bloomberg News. We have a responsibility to do our utmost to protect its integrity and that of the information carried on it.
The government declined to comment on its specific discussions with companies, which are confidential, the office said.
The security agency declined to comment on the report.
On the sidelines of a nuclear security summit meeting in South Korea, Prime Minister Julia Gillard of Australia said the government had made the correct decision.
You would expect as a government that we make all of the prudent decisions to make sure that the infrastructure project does what we want it to do, and weve taken one of those decisions, she said.
Huawei was founded by its chief executive, Ren Zhengfei, a former officer of the Peoples Liberation Army in China. That has led to claims that it has too cozy a relationship with the Chinese government.
The company. based in Shenzhen, China, has been struggling to expand its business in the United States, which has blocked its equipment deals, citing national security concerns and allegations that Huawei had violated sanctions by supplying Iran with banned equipment.
While were obviously disappointed by the decision, the company said, referring to the Australian rejection, Huawei will continue to be open and transparent and work to find ways of providing assurance around the security of our technology.
Mr. Mitchell told the Australian Broadcasting Corp.: We have never been told by the Chinese government to do a certain thing. If we would, that would be to our detriment, and we would lose the market share that we have.
A former Australian foreign minister, Alexander Downer, who is an independent director on the board of Huaweis Australian unit, rejected the governments security concerns.
This sort of whole concept of Huawei being involved in cyberwarfare, presumably that would just be based on the fact that the company comes from China, he said on ABC Radio on Monday. This is just completely absurd.
Mr. Mitchell told Bloomberg that the bar is set higher for the company because of where it is from.
He said Huawei was working on eight broadband networks similar to the Australian plan in Benin, Britain, Brunei, Cameroon, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/t...ei-from-broadband-project.html?_r=1&ref=china
Communists...
Forget it. Australia is a lost cause. We should focus on New Zealand and Indonesia. I see great potential there. Those are the growth markets. Australia is already a mature market.
Using that logic, why doesn't the Australian and American governments ban Cisco and other American companies from their own government tenders as well since they also have helped build China's national IT infrastructure? The logic you use is not logical because it basically means any company that has helped build China's IT infrastructure should be banned. It's discrimination plain and simple because it only applies to China. Huawei is a privately held company, it doesn't require nor does it need to release any information for that reason. How many private companies have to voluntarily release information at all? Answer, none but yet this should apply to Huawei on trumped up charges that have never been proven. The fact that Huawei even released any information at all even though no other private companies are discriminated in this same way speaks to it's openness and desire to expand its business in paranoid cultures like Australia and America. These exclusion measures are simply to protect and maintain what remaining competitive advantage existing non-Chinese companies have in the face of overwhelming Chinese business advantages.Nah, replace paranoid with cyber security conscious. No proof of Huawei intelligence/surveillance connections with China's government you say? Who do you think built and run the monitoring equipment currently in China?
There is something not right with Huawei, for such a large company why only 2 years ago did it finally release who its board of directors are? Why the secrecy?
Without knowing which countries you're referring to, I would bet my life that at least the United States, Canada, Australia and India are among them. That says it all doesn't it.I dont think anybody is going to argue the generous subsidies and lines of credit Huawei gets from the state.
There has been a lot of investigations by a number of countries over the last 5 years, many have found some cause for concern