Australia Bars Huawei From Broadband Project

[qwerrty]

two can play this game. just wait when china start blocking foreign tech companies using similar excuse. see who will go ape ****..

 

[Lankan Ranger]

Australia just signed US$30 Billion Deal with China

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...-billion-dollar-currency-swap-deal-china.html

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

two can play this game. just wait when china start blocking foreign tech companies using similar excuse. see who will go ape ****..

they always do. What we need is to strengthen our relationship with New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore.

 

[marshall]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

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.

True, if we barred all companies like that, then not many Western companies would be able to compete.

 

[Bobshouse]

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.

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?
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.

So its pretty much a no-brainer. The NBN will be Australia's new data network rolled out across the country, why, even how remote would somebody spending so much money want to jeopardize the security of it? You wouldnt, you just get somebody else that has zero security concerns.

 

[xdrive]

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].

So let me get this straight.

You are calling the Australian government (which is a left wing socialist party), who has increased trade and business ties with China, who just signed a 30 billion dollar currency swap China, a sinophobe and saying that they have the same mentality as right wing neoconservative Americans because our spy agency (who is independent of the government) made a ruling about a chinese company.

LOL. You are a great source of comedy.

There has never been any proof of any Huawei intelligence/surveillance connections with China's government.

No public proof, and that wasn't exactly the allegation

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

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.

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.

 

[Guest01]

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.

First to address the sensible part of your post:

The swap deal is not so much to Australia's benefit as it is to China's benefit. Aussies cannot buy ziltch outside of China from this swap deal. The Yuan is not an internationally tradeable currency. And put that picture with the trade deficit situation between Australia and China and you will know clearly who will benefit.

Regarding the creation of Aussie jobs: All these jobs in mining are not exactly the kind of jobs that the Aussie government would ideally prefer. Most of them (except for the Mandarin Kevin of course) would like to ensure that the value addition too is happening within Australia and the economy is moving up the ladder in terms of maturity of supplies.

Regarding the troll that you came up with: Aussies do not kill Indians for "sport" or "slaughtered". In fact in general Aussies are most tolerant and fun (if you excuse the straight forwardness-they do not beat around the bush ).The acrimonious situation is limited to the whole situation of the taxi driving!! If you are in Australia then you would know already. But then we can see about that later. And the response from Indians should give you some idea of how much mistrust China has created in Indians too. Time to rethink the problem outsourcing policies??

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.

LoL, over 50% of the students are now Chinese in New Zealand. What other focus do you want to get on with them now? There has been already a successful demographic change!!

 

[Kevrai]

7.30 - ABC

CHRIS UHLMANN, PRESENTER: Cyber espionage is up there with terrorism in the top threats to national security identified by intelligence agencies worldwide, and the usual suspect is China, which the FBI says has an army of 180,000 cyber-spies targeting its friends and foes. Concerns over their activities have caused the Gillard Government to block the Chinese technology giant Huawei from taking part in tenders for the multi-billion-dollar National Broadband Network. The move, which followed security advice from ASIO, has sparked furious denials from the company's Australian board members who include former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. Heather Ewart reports.

HEATHER EWART, REPORTER: The Government's ambitious $36 billion National Broadband Network, unveiled with great fanfare, meant big business for companies keen to get a slice of the action. One of them was the Chinese technology giant Huawei which put in a bid to supply equipment.

JEREMY MITCHELL, CORP. AFFAIRS DIRECTOR, HUAWEI AUST.: Our credentials are second to none in this area. We are the world leader in fibre networks and we believe we have a lot to contribute to the Australian NBN.

HEATHER EWART: That wasn't going to happen. What unfolded was a complicated web going to the heart of national security concerns. The second largest telecommunications company in the world was effectively banned from the NBN and linked to cyber attacks by the Chinese Government with no evidence offered.

ALASTAIR MACGIBBON, CYBER SECURITY EXPERT: The Australian Government is actually doing what many of us would hope it would, which is standing up and saying that security is one of the key considerations that you have to build in at the foundation level of the National Broadband Network.

HUGH WHITE, STRATEGIC & DEFENCE STUDIES CENTRE, ANU: The key question for the Government on this is whether or not the security risks which may well flow from hiring a Chinese company to build a broadband network are so great that they justify the costs that will flow from this kind of very pointed and deliberate exclusion of them.

HEATHER EWART: This is a story that's viewed as a test case for Australia's trade relationship with China, one that's created frictions between government departments; a story that involves intelligence warnings from our own agencies, along with advice from the United States, based on a belief that cyber hacking by the Chinese Government is on the increase.

Huawei was considered a security threat and those on its Australian board, former Victorian Labor Premier John Brumby along with the former Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer, were powerless to do much about it.

ALEXANDER DOWNER, IND. DIRECTOR, HUAWEI AUST.: This sort of whole concept of Huawei being involved in cyber warfare, presumably that would just be based on the fact that the company comes from China and everybody in China is - who's involved with information technology is involved in cyber warfare. This is just completely absurd.

HEATHER EWART: Matters came to a head here at the Attorney-General's Department in Canberra just before Christmas, when Huawei's Australian chairman, retired Rear Admiral General John Lord, was told by the department's deputy secretary not to bother applying for any NBN supply contracts because they'd fail. The company was stunned.

Isn't the game all over for you?

JEREMY MITCHELL: Look, can I address security and our company? I mean, we are and have been delivering the National Broadband Network equivalent in the United Kingdom for the last six years with absolute no problems in our company, in our work, our staff, the ability of our equipment. So, I think that is the greatest calling card for Huawei.

HEATHER EWART: But that calling card was no match for security warnings about Huawei from ASIO, Australia's top intelligence body, to the cabinet security subcommittee last year. One of the first tasks of the new Attorney-General Nicola Roxon when she was sworn in before Christmas was to act on the subcommittee's decision. 7.30 understands advice from the US Government and intelligence agencies was also a key factor.

AVI JORISCH, FORMER US TREASURY DEPT. OFFICIAL: We see you as one of our closest allies and so it certainly stands to reason that our intelligence agencies and our most senior officials have been engaging with yours for quite some time, especially on issues such as this.

HEATHER EWART: Now questions are being asked in diplomatic and trade circles about Washington's motives.

HUGH WHITE: It is true that the United States is getting worried about how close Australia is getting to China. It wouldn't be to me very surprising if that anxiety had been reflected by the - in the United States, perhaps encouraging Australia not to allow China to bid into this very important national project.

HEATHER EWART: Is this something that might've come up in conversations during President Obama's visit here last year?

HUGH WHITE: I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is one of the things that might not have been on President Obama's or his party's talking points when they came.

HEATHER EWART: Whatever happened, it was after President Obama's visit that Huawei officials and consultants on its payroll noted a marked shift in what they felt had been positive relations with the NBN Co and the Government. Some were hauled before ASIO and related departments and told to get a message to China that Australia would not tolerate increased cyber hacking of ministerial offices and departments, which has been going on for years.

HUGH WHITE: As China grows, as it becomes richer, it becomes more technically capable and of course as it more strategically ambitious, it's gonna be doing more of this kind of thing. I don't think we should be surprised by that. That's not to say we shouldn't try and guard against it, but we shouldn't fall down in a dead faint that they're doing what we've always done.

HEATHER EWART: Huawei stood accused of giving the Chinese Government a helping hand or at least being vulnerable to pressure.

ALASTAIR MACGIBBON: Huawei itself as a company I'm sure isn't actively involved in passing information. But would the Chinese Government ask Huawei how to break its technologies? Would the Chinese Government ask its engineers that live in China to come over to the security headquarters and talk about how to break its technology? I suspect that would be the case. In fact I would be really surprised if that wasn't common practice.

ALEXANDER DOWNER: This is it complete nonsense. First of all, for Huawei, it derives over 60 per cent of all of its revenue from outside of China So if it was seen to be a vehicle for cyber warfare, well then of course it would lose all of that business, it would lose it overnight and it would destroy the company, so the company can't afford to be involved in those sorts of activities.

JEREMY MITCHELL: Can I say in all the countries that we operate in, 140 of them, there's only one country that we continually get raised a security question and that is the United States.

HEATHER EWART: Huawei has been frozen out of contracts in the US amid concerns that its chief executive was a member of the People's Liberation Army and that until recently the company was doing big business with Iran.

AVI JORISCH: Huawei up until very late 2011 had a massive operation in Iran and was reported to have helped the Iranian regime track and geospatially locate Iranians during the demonstrations of 2009, which as we all know, the Iranian regime eventually killed many of the opponents.

JEREMY MITCHELL: That is totally false and we deny that totally. We are in Iran. We don't hide that, as is many of our competitors. But we're offering is non-military services.

HEATHER EWART: As Huawei insists it's a private company, the message is having no impacts on the US or Australian governments. Through all of this, you can be sure the Chinese Government is watching closely, especially for any signals coming from the new Foreign Affairs Minister Bob Carr.

HUGH WHITE: Now, there's nothing wrong with irritating Beijing, but we shouldn't expect to be able to do it scot-free. That will contribute to the sense in China that Australia is increasingly trying to distance itself from China on a whole range of security and strategic issues.

ALEXANDER DOWNER: This is about understanding the new China, the new world, the new relationships which are opening up.

JEREMY MITCHELL: The Government is sticking to its guns. In a statement to 7.30 late last week, the Attorney-General said the Government had a responsibility to protect the NBN's integrity. This was consistent with the Government's practice for ensuring the security and resilience of Australia's critical infrastructure more broadly.

But Huawei is ploughing on. After all, there's always the chance of a change of government. Last year it sponsored trips to its China operations for Liberal frontbenchers like Julie Bishop and Andrew Robb. Labor ministers have declined the offer. The Government now braces for the prospect of retaliation from China for putting security concerns before diplomacy and trade.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Political editor Heather Ewart.

 

[Guest01]

two can play this game. just wait when china start blocking foreign tech companies using similar excuse. see who will go ape ****..

Unfortunately for the fanboys (girls ), China WILL NOT BE the other one playing this game. The only way China gets foreign tech is to allow the multinationals to operate in China. Then immediately patent the bloody technology (China patent of course) and send out the copies to Africa before the poor sods are even aware of the original innovation. So a sensible China will never ban the gravy train from coming in

 

[AstanoshKhan]

Huawei owns the world of telecom. They wiped Motorolla, Nokia-Siemens-Networks, Ericsson and Alcatel-Lucent from almost all of Asia, Africa and parts of Europe and America. Even at the Qualcomm Labs. USA they've a fully-capapble 4G network installed by Huawei for testing purposes which is yet to be made public. I don't get it why would Austalia bar it who allowed it in first place where almost all of their Mobile Network are based on Huawei's Systems.

 

[nescafe]

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 world’s largest suppliers of telecommunications equipment.

The Australian plan is the largest infrastructure project in the country’s 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 government’s practice for ensuring the security and resilience of Australia’s critical infrastructure more broadly.”

The network is “a strategic and significant government investment,” the attorney general’s 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 we’ve taken one of those decisions,” she said.

Huawei was founded by its chief executive, Ren Zhengfei, a former officer of the People’s 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 we’re 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 Huawei’s Australian unit, rejected the government’s 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...

some sigh of releif. i have been working over huawei wimax optimization for over 2 years now. the system is not bad, but the chinese are soooooooooooo rigid. they are blunt. not abusive, but, they confuse me always. personally i would like huawei out of all operators.

 

[xdrive]

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.

Australia is hardly a mature market.

 

[marshall]

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?

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.

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

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.