<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>
stroydex 1/17/2014 | 1:09:18 PM
Re: Huawei is not the classic american vendor Recall that allegations of PRC-funded lowballing were part of the congressional report on Huawei (and ZTE).   Don't expect congress not to notice Huawei's moves in any area, rural included.   The Brits on the other hand never noticed a thing, and are furiously having indigestion.
mendyk 1/17/2014 | 9:20:59 AM
Re: Huawei is not the classic american vendor A lot of companies buried their head in the sand just like this when Huawei first hit the scene. Many of those companies are now completely buried.
Jake Howard 1/17/2014 | 5:04:03 AM
Re: Huawei is not the classic american vendor A few inconsistencies regarding Huawei, if anyone can clarify...,

It was my understanding that Huawei had been banned from the U.S. due to security risks. (Include ZTE, also). 

In December 2013, Huawei's CEO made the following statement, "We are not interested in the US market anymore."

So, how did the 'rural build-out' come to fruition with Huawei as the supplier ?

What other companies were part of the bidding process ? (Did Cisco / Juniper walk away from this because of low margins / profits ?)

Next, I cannot confirm if Huawei equipment has been 'pirated' from other vendors. This is obviously copyright/patent infringement. From what was recently stated by Huawei in their 2013 preliminary results..., "As a global leader in LTE technology, Huawei has been the recipient of multiple prestigious industry awards, including recognition for most innovative network and best commercial network globally. Huawei is also a pioneer in 5G technologies and the company is committed to investing USD 600 million by 2018 in support of research and innovation into 5G mobile network technologies. Huawei's 400G core router technology is one of the most technologically-advanced in the industry worldwide."

It is doubtful Huawei is investing such a large sum, and yet be pirating at the same time. (Not playing 'the babe in the woods routine' here..., patent battles are pervasive - just look at Apple and Samsung).

I cannot verify, nor substantiate whether Huawei intentionally 'low-balls' other bids to get their 'foot in the door' only to return to the same customer stating additional work is required to complete the build-out. I can only surmise that in a rural area, there is to be expected some complications.

Not defending Huawei; just looking at facts as objectively as possible. Again, any clarification would be helpful.






Liz Greenberg 1/16/2014 | 10:06:02 PM
Re: Huawei is not the classic american vendor I am glad to know that you know some good guys there.  My experience has not been the same.  Always 2 sides to every coin.  I hope that the 45 PTTs get everything that they expect and that it functions to whatever their SLAs state.
chechaco 1/16/2014 | 9:23:05 PM
Re: Huawei is not the classic american vendor Personally, I think that 45 PTTs can not all be wrong to use Huawei equipment. Let's give engineers, researchers and managers at Huawei, and with some of them I've worked before, some credit. Actually, I'll give them a lot of credit. But I'm quite determined to win every single fight with them and everyone else for that matter.
Liz Greenberg 1/16/2014 | 8:12:10 PM
Re: Huawei is not the classic american vendor Well said @AmirB52.  Huawei has not really developed a lot of the technology that they deploy (I know much has been taken or reverse engineered).  Companies get what they pay for and if they are foolish enough to somehow think that Huawei can do everything that much cheaper they are foolish indeed.  Let the buyer beware!
brookseven 1/16/2014 | 8:04:58 PM
Re: Huawei is not the classic american vendor Heck that many visitors will fill up the Motel 6 that is 100 miles from the Central Office.


AmirB52 1/16/2014 | 4:51:36 PM
Huawei is not the classic american vendor Based on lessons learned by mid-size EU based operators buying Telco gear from Huawei: first you will get lots of goodies: dozens of chines engineers will come to evaluate the solution and will say "yes we can" to any feature the customer will ask, then they will introduce roadmap and the expected R&D times. After that, they will persuade the customer to start with basic features at very competitive prices. The first and second orders will arrive on time (8-10 weeks) and they will be very helping by promoting fast deployment (basic features based). After that, when the customer finds bugs and non-stable performance, they will be very sorry and will add the fixes to roadmap and show the stretched (much stretched) time line. After that, they will start to be "creative" with new prices for every pips the operator will need. The support contract will turn to be much more expansive then what was predicted. Delivery times will turn to be 16-30 weeks and not all will arrive. The small regional guys that were used to onset vendors, will be missing the days they had with Adtran and all the other American vendors.
mplape 1/16/2014 | 4:26:15 PM
Re: Interesting This looks like the exact same discussion about Level 3/Huawei 5 years ago. The same argument, that its stricly a commercial decision, was proposed. Well, now Level 3 has hundreds of millions of $ of stranded capital and the CEO has "retired." I think that any US carrier, whatever their size, would be crazy to deploy Huawei equipment.
clarkede 1/16/2014 | 3:13:41 PM
Re: Interesting Rural communities are desperate for help to avoid being bypassed on broadband (the 21C equivalent of the railroad). Look at the communities' response to Google Fiber if anyone is in doubt as to how big an issue this is. American consumers are ill served on broadband compared with (say) the UK where we happily deploy Huawei gear. Rural telcos have a duty to their stakeholders and the communities they serve to look hard at the commercial offers from all the players. The security concerns are nonsense and I am surprised that Huawei waited this long to engage the rural communities.
<<   <   Page 2 / 3   >   >>
Sign In