I do really wonder how Huwaei can erase all this black mark and be able to get into US, Europe and Australian market. I feel sorry for Huawei for their inability to get a chance to bid for such a prestigious project.
Bolaji, I think Huawei has faced similar problems with some of other Asian countries also. Sometimes back I had read an allegation from an agency that, most of the communication and networking equipments from Huawei are embedded with malwares, which can periodically send statics and datas to a preconfigured receiving centre. Its more or less like a spy work.
I believe the US government faced the same dilemma and also said no to Huawei. I believe Huawei appealed the ruling or asked for an investigation. Althuogh the US and Aussie governments are within their rights to make their own decisions, if you operate in an open-market society, you have to play by the rules of an open market. If China were to shut out foreign companies--and they have--it is not as surprising because of historic trade practices. It is a dilemma that Western compnaies and government have brought on themselves. But I agree that Australia is within its right to do what it did.
I share your opinion. Prevension is better than cure. Huawei already works with all of Australia's major operators. If the australian government is preventing the company from applying for the new broadband project, they certainly have a valid reason for that.
"China itself probably wouldn't allow a foreign company to be involved in such a major IT project, but Australia is a democracy, China is not."
Hmm... if China can pretend security concerns to prevent other countries from involving into its "major IT projects", I think that it is fair to accept such stand from those countries as well. As you said, Australia may want its local companies to benefit more, but their argument about "national security concerns" seems to be valid.
rohscompliant, I can just imagine the case before the US Supreme Court if Verizon signs on Huawei to build a $38 billion fiber optic network and the executive branch says "heck no" because of national security concerns! The difference here is that the Australian government is spending its own money and "national security concerns" aside, it can decide who gets a slice of the business. It doesn't even have to say why.
I think the Australian government purposely announced why it denied Huawei a piece of the business because it wanted to send a message to the Chinese government: Stop trying to snoop. We know you want to access our network!
Flyingscot, The Australian government is footing the bill so it may also believe local companies and Western counterparts should benefit more. However, what happens if a local company was investing this capital in its network? Will the government have the right to by fiat insist Huawei cannot participate due to "national security concerns?" I believe Australia definitely is right to be concerned and China itself probably wouldn't allow a foreign company to be involved in such a major IT project, but Australia is a democracy, China is not.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.