Subscriber Discussion

Huawei Loses Court Appeal To FCC Designation As National Security Threat

U
Undisclosed #1
•Jun 19, 2021
IPVMU Certified

From YahooNews:

Huawei’s court challenge to a Federal Communications Commission order that declared it to be a national security threat and denied it access to federal funding was rejected as the FCC ramps up pressure on the company and seeks to deny all future authorizations to it and similar businesses with links to the Chinese Communist Party.

*** *** ********* ********** ****** *** ZTE ** ******** ******** ******* **** summer, ******* *** *** ********* **** accessing *.*. ********** ********* ** ***** communication **************. *** ********** **** ********** subsidies **** *** $*.* ******* ****** Universal ******* **** “*** ** ****** be **** ** ********, ******, ********, improve, ******, ** ********* ******* *** equipment ** ******** ******** ** ******** by” ******. *** ****** ****** *** Homeland ******** ****** ********* **** ****** was * ******** ******** ******. ***** Huawei ****** * ****** ** *** designation, *** *** ***** ********** ******** that *** ******* “***** * ****** to *** ******** *** ********* ** our ******’* ************** ********.

(1)
JH
John Honovich
•Jun 19, 2021
IPVM

******! **** ***** ***** *******'* **-**** ******* ** why ******'* ******** *** ******, *** ********:

********* ******** ***** ** ******* ******** falls ** *** ***’* **********. *** the ******’* ********* ***** ******** ******** receive ****** ***** **** ***** ****** agencies *** *********. ** *** ********* persuaded ****, ** ******** *** ****, the ****** ********** ***** ****** *** broad ********* ******** **** ** ** regulate **************.

** *** ***** ** ****** *** ZTE ***********, ******* ******* ****************** *******, the *** ***** *** ********** ******, as **** ** ********** ********** ***********, sufficient ** ********* ********* **** *********.

*** *** **** ****** ** ***** consider “*** ********* ******** ** ********* whether ** ****** ***** * ******** security ******.” **. ** *****. **** evidence ***** ******* ******** ** *** Commission, ********, *** *********, ** ***** executive ******** **** ** ****** “***** a ******** ******** ******” ** “***** available ********, . . . **** source ** **********,” ********** **** ** assessment. ****. *** *** **** ** would “**** ** ********* *** **************” with ***** ** ***** ********* ****** agencies *** ******** “[*]**** ***********.” **. at *****–**.

*** ***’* *********** ******** ******** ***** the ****** ******** ******** ** *** a *** **********.** ***, *.*., ******** Tel. **. *. ** *** **** M. ********, *.*. ***’* ********. & Inf. ******: ******** ********* ************ ************, 15 *. & ***’* ***’* ***. 1297, **** (****) (****** *** ***’* authority ** ******** ******* ******** ** communications *** ******* ****, (****** *** review ** “************** ** ******** ********” under ****** ******** ******** ** ******** satellite ******).** *** *******, ** ********** foreign ************* ** *** *.*. ******* market ** *** **** *****, *** FCC *********** ** *********** “******** ********” and “******* ******” ******** **** ******** licenses ***** § ***(*)(*) *** ******* certificates ***** § ***(*), ******* ** would **** ******** ** “****** *********” to ****** ********* ****** ***** ** these ****** **** ***** ****** *** “public ******** ********.”

*** ****** *** ********* *** **** “quality ********” ** ********* ******* ********, so **** ************ ** ******* “******* services” ******** ******** “*** ***** [***] spent ** ****** ******** *** *** . . . ** ********* *** services **** ********* **** ******** ******** security.” ** *** ***. ** *****. In ***** *****, ** *** *** puts **, “********* * ****** ******* is **** ** ********* * ******* service.” **. ** ******** **** ** a ********** ************ ** *** *** to ***** ** ********* *****.

****** ****** ** * ******* ******* after *** ****—*** ****** ******** *** or ***—*****, ** ******, ******** **** Congress ***** *** **** ******** ** grant *** *** *** ********* ******** in *** ****. *** ***** **. 10–11 (********** *** ***). ** ********.

*** ***’* ********** ** ********* ** make ******** ******** ********* **** *** rule *** *** ***’* ************ ** its ********* ** *** ****. ******, the ***’* ******** **** ** ********* or ********, ****** **** ****** *********, reflects ********’* ****** ****** *** **** not ******* ********* *** ***’* ********* in *** *** ****

** ***, ** ******** **** *** FCC ********** *********** *** ********* ***** the ************** *** ** *********** *** USF ****. ************, ** **** *** agency ********** *********** *** ***’* “****** interest” ********** (§ ***(*)(*)(*), ** ************ with § ***(*)), ** ********* ********** of ********* ******* ***** ***** ** the ******’* ******** ** ******* ******** security ********. ** **** **** **** it ********** *********** *** “******* ********” provision ** § ***(*)(*) ** ******* that ********. ** ********* ***** ** the ******’* ************** ***** ******* *** reject ******’* ******** **** *** ****** lacked ********* ********* *** *** ****.

** **** ********* **** “* ******* prohibition” ***** ******* **** ** ************** and **********, * ************* ***** ********* in *** ****** *** *** **** would ***** ********** ** ** *********-***** approach’s ******** ******** *******. **. ** 11449–50.67 ****, ** ******** *** *** did *** **** ** ***** * “reasonable *** ********** *********” ******** ** the ******** ******* ** * *******-*****, rather **** *********-***** ****, ***** ** all *** *** ********

** ***, *** *** *** *** act ************ ** ********** **** ****-********** benefits, **** ** ********** ******** ******* and ****** ****** *** ********** ********* loss ** ****, ***** ****** *** rule’s *****, ***** ** ********** ********** based ** *** ****** ********. *** did *** *** ************ ******** **** excluding ******** ********* ** ******** **** even * ******* ** *** ******’* communications ******** ***** ****** *** ********** of * *********** ********** ** *** digital ******* *** ******* *** ********* of ********* *************.

***** ** ** ****** ******** **** new ********* ***** ** **** *** this ********** ******* ** **** ***** and ********* (*** **** ** **** initial ****** / *** *** ******) could **** **********, **** **** *** a ******** ********** ** **** ** the **** ****** ******** **** *** FCC ******* ******* *********, **** *** NDAA *.

New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions