IN THIS ISSUE:

* The newest biggest telco in the world: an in-depth look at Tata Communications. Tony Chan talks to the inside players at the firm that now ranks as the world’s largest international voice carrier

* All about the hetnet. Petroc Wilton digs beneath the hype to examine the hetnet concept and how it might revolutionise mobile networks.

* The rise and rise of Aussie satellite upstart Newsat. Geoff Long talks to the firm’s CEO about its audacious plans for the future.

* Behind the Bring Your Own Device trend. David Edwards surveys the latest challenge for enteprise communications managers.

* The IPv4 Squeeze. Tony Chan charts the state of the historic migration to the IPv6 protocol and find that not all are as urgent as they might be about the journey.

* plus more

DOWNLOAD THE PDF AT THE LINK BELOW (22Mb file)

commsdaymagazineaprmay2012

Or read it online at Issuu.com

Email Sally Lloyd at Sally@commsday.com.au to receive PDF copies of presentations from the event.

As exclusively reported by CommsDay last Friday, the Australian government is proposing a strict risk assessment and reporting regime over telco use of foreign suppliers and personnel. The proposed regime would not only cover infrastructure but also the handling of network customer and usage data by foreign outsourcing providers, potentially leading to an obligation to onshore such data.

It could also impact use of network suppliers from sensitive countries such as China and Israel. Operators sourcing equipment from vendors from such locations would be likely required to subject their builds to national security “risk assessment” and clearance tests.

While there has been much publicity attached to the “ban” on Huawei supplying NBN Co as part of this new security push, CommsDay understands that Israeli companies may also be affected as a result of government fears regarding cyber-espionage. One such firm, Amdocs, noted last October that it had failed to pass the first round of NBN Co OSS tenders even though it believed it was the best resourced vendor in Australia for the task. As we went to press, CommsDay was unable to confirm if there is an official ban on Israeli vendor supply of the NBN.

Under the proposals, operators who breached the national security rules could face financial penalties and bans on their rights to offer services under subsection 581(3) of the Telecommunications Act.

Representatives from the Defence Signals Directorate, ASIO and the Australian Federal Police, working under co-ordination with the Attorney-General’s Department, have been engaged in secret talks with representatives from major Australian telcos including Telstra, Optus and NBN Co about the proposals, which remain at consultation stage and do not yet constitute government policy. Government representatives specifically requested that operators not discuss the proposals in the public domain, hence the lack of detail regarding what is proposed and what carriers think about it. However, the make-up of the agencies behind the new regime has led some to compare it to the US “Team Telecom” initiative where a committee composed of representatives from the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Defense assesses the use of foreign suppliers to telco infrastructure such as submarine cables and satellites deployed in US territory.

TWO CONCERNS: CommsDay understands that operators share two major concerns: that the cost of compliance with the scheme could be prohibitive and that the proposed regime seems to only apply to traditional telco operators while omitting major players in the Australian information industry such as Google, Skype and Facebook from its remit.

One source noted that although the official ban on use of Huawei for NBN supply does not extend to other operators, an effect of the new regime could be to chill the use of suppliers from countries that are deemed to be security risks. “Any lawyer or adviser to an operator would recommend against use of suppliers from countries such as China or Israel if it was thought that would expose one to a risk of being compelled to comply with and potentially breach the new rules, with all the implications for potential fines and restrictions on offering offending services,” said the source.

One issue with the proposals is the extent to which they might impact on such activities as the proposed Huawei supply of 4G mobile network infrastructure and ZTE’s bid to join Alcatel Lucent as a supplier to Telstra’s DSL “top-hat” programme.

The proposals were first floated in February in a confidential paper issued by the Attorney-General’s Department titled “Proposed regulatory scheme to enhance the security, integrity and resilience of Australia’s telecommunications infrastructure”. Under the proposals, all carriers and carriage service providers would be subject to a legislated obligation to protect their networks and data from national security violations. Carriers with network infrastructure would be required to notify the government, in “writing, of proposed significant changes to their infrastructure, procurement or other business arrangements, including offshore and outsourced services.”

This notification regime would cover foreign suppliers, personnel and even interconnection agreements. The proposals have set off alarm bells with some, who are concerned by the cost of compliance as well a plan to retrospectively apply the compliance regime to existing infrastructure once it is bedded down for new infrastructure purchases.

The confidential paper says “The legislation will require all carriers and carriage service providers to comply with the security requirements.  In some instances this will require the application of mitigation measures to existing infrastructure.  The security requirements will apply to existing and proposed infrastructure including infrastructure for which procurement processes are in train.”

For its part, the government says in its paper that “there will be a cost to industry and the government wishes to understand these. Full industry compliance costs for the proposed framework will be sought through this consultation process and further considered in the development of a comprehensive Regulatory Impact Statement.”

The government frames its proposals as leading to a partnership with industry. “To assist in this process government may also produce guidelines and brief (carriers and carriage service providers) on the types of mitigation strategies industry can undertake to minimise national security risks when developing infrastructure and services plans. By doing this, C/CSPs will be better placed to understand the importance of their infrastructure to Australia’s ongoing security and prosperity and emerging risks that should be taken into account as part of their decision making processes. Industry can expect sufficient detail on the risks so that threats and risks may be identified early, minimising costs.”

 Grahame Lynch

News of Epstein’s appointment comes just as Optus parent Singtel executes its planned restructure into its new Digital Life, ICT and Consumer groups. Joining the telco from 23 April, Epstein will be based in Sydney, reporting Paul O’Sullivan – previously Optus CEO, now Australian country chief officer and Singtel Group Consumer CEO. He will also work directly with Consumer Australia CEO Kevin Russell.

In taking on the mantle of director of corporate and regulatory affairs, Epstein replaces Maha Krishnapillai who, as first reported by CommsDay, left Optus last November to head up Australia Post’s new push into the comms space. Epstein will take responsibility for Optus’ legal, media, government and regulatory functions. The most notable change from Krishnapillai’s stint in the portfolio is that Epstein will have Optus’ legal team reporting into him, as well as the regulatory function; however, he will not take on Krishnapillai’s corporate and social responsibility or sponsorship reports, or his specific state-level duties in Victoria.

Epstein himself brings to bear a formidable regulatory, industry and government background. In addition to his work for the Rudd administration and for two other federal governments, he served as group head of public affairs at mining giant BHP Billiton until last October, a role which also involved government relations work; before that he was the group executive for government and corporate affairs at Qantas Airways. He is also a Director of Opera Australia and the European Australian Business Council, as well as a participant in the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue.

O’Sullivan, who has been one of industry’s most vocal commentators on the need for strong regulatory controls during the move to the NBN, drew particular attention to the timing of the appointment. “David’s experience working at the highest levels of government, plus his advocacy on behalf of some of Australia’s most high profile companies, make him an outstanding addition to the Optus team,” he said. “[He] joins Optus at an exciting time for our industry. While we have achieved a great deal from a regulatory perspective over the last few years, there is still much work to be done in ensuring we have the correct regulatory settings in place as we move to a new era of convergence.”

“I’m looking forward to rejoining the telco industry and working with a competitive consumer brand like Optus, which places a high value on its external relationships,” said Epstein. “This is a very exciting time with Optus setting new benchmarks for customer experience, the roll-out of 4G and the National Broadband Network moving ahead. I’m keen to start working with Paul, Kevin and the Optus team on the great opportunities that lie ahead.”

Petroc Wilton

While vendors including market leaders Alcatel Lucent and Huawei have a much bigger share of the DSLAM market globally, Ericsson has been an important supplier of the equipment in Australia, particularly in the networks of iiNet and its new subsidiary Internode. However, globally and in Australia the market for DSLAMs has begun to slow markedly as service providers turn to fibre equipment. Research firm Ovum said recently that DSL growth had slowed or turned negative in some countries, with DSL links replaced by FTTB or FTTH connections. In contrast, the market for PON equipment has grown rapidly, particularly in China.

Internode MD Simon Hackett told CommsDay that both his company and parent company iiNet had been informed of Ericsson’s decision to exit the market for DSLAM gear and said the two companies have a variety of alternative vendors if they require more DSLAM ports. However, he also noted that it may not be necessary to source more ports as it moves to the NBN. A number of carriers in Australia including the likes of Optus and NEC wholesale provider Nextep have recently indicated that they would be unlikely to invest in more DSL in future.

The decision by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to declare wholesale DSL services is also seen by many in the industry as making further DSLAM investments unlikely. Internode and iiNet had previously announced that they were moving towards combining their DSL infrastructure and Hackett said that the companies are currently determining how large their final order for Ericsson DSLAM hardware will be to cover current expansion and contingency needs.

“We expect that order will cover our requirements until some point in mid 2013,” he said. “We have a variety of alternative DSLAM vendors if we reach a point beyond that time where we require more DSLAM ports and where Ericsson are no longer in a position to supply them,” he said, adding that the move to the NBN could make that unnecessary. “As copper line networks start to become progressively decommissioned in favour of the NBN, we expect to reach a point where we are shutting down and removing DSLAM ports in NBN-enabled areas at a rate higher than the rate at which we require additional DSLAM port installations in non-NBN-enable areas,” Hackett said.

South Australian ISP Adam Internet also uses Ericsson DSLAMs, however the country’s largest telco, Telstra, uses Alcatel Lucent and NEC as its primary vendors, while both Optus and TPG are also not Ericsson customers for DSLAM gear.

CommsDay was waiting for official confirmation of the move from Ericsson headquarters in Sweden but had not received information by press time.

Geoff Long 

CommsDay also understands that the government is highly concerned by the offshore dissemination of Australian citizens’ private data and calling information for use by customer service centres in locations such as India, Sri Lanka and the Philippines. This could lead to a requirement for all data to be housed onshore.

The recent discussions likely explain the timing of the revelation last Saturday that Huawei Technologies would effectively be barred from supplying the National Broadband Network.

In recent weeks, representatives of major Australian operators were called to a confidential roundtable meeting with government officials from the Departments of Attorney-General and Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy to discuss the proposed measures. These include a notification process of infrastructure purchase decisions and upgrade or modifications to networks which may have national security implications. Infrastructure builds would potentially be subject to scrutiny or what is termed “risk assessment” under the arrangements with a key focus on details regarding suppliers. Existing infrastructure may also be subject to the reporting process.

An aim of the notification process would be to identify specific points of vulnerability on networks. Breaches of the arrangements could result in financial penalties for carriers.

Attendees at the roundtable were specifically told to keep discussions confidential and not discuss them in the public domain.

CommsDay understands that Australia is moving towards the American “Team Telecom” approach of evaluating the national security implications of carrier infrastructure investments. Team Telecom is the nickname given to an inter-departmental committee comprised of representatives from Defense, Homeland Security and Justice. Proposed foreign investments in areas such as satellite and undersea cable deployments are subject to a rigorous testing process looking at ownership and foreign affiliations, details on location of facilities and type of equipment deployed and major customer contracts. Lawyers advising telcos embarking on this process are understood to informally recommend that applicants avoid use of Chinese sourced-network equipment, CommsDay has learned.

Australian departments and agencies believed to be involved in the local telecom network security discussions include the Australian Federal Police, ASIO, the Defence Signals Directorate and DBCDE. Carriers would be required to meet with government representatives to discuss the security arrangements on sensitive network upgrades both prior to, during and after the deployment process. As a last most drastic recourse, government could actually direct a carrier to withdraw a service from the market deemed as being prejudicial to national security and impose punitive financial penalties under the proposals.

In 2008 the Australian government legislated to compile a database of network infrastructure information but this was ostensibly designed to help bidders for the NBN Mark 1 process and was criticised at the time from some quarters such as Telstra and Pipe Networks for actually putting national security at risk. The latest round of activity, including the Huawei ban, demonstrates a new seriousness at government level about national information infrastructure protections. One source told CommsDay that it was significant, in this light, that responsibility for cybersecurity was shifted from the Attorney-General’s department to the Prime Minister & Cabinet department in late 2011.

A specific area of concern, according to CommsDay sources, is the extensive use of offshoring in support of the customer service functions of Australian telcos. This sees detailed private data on Australian citizens and their calling patterns made available to outsourced operations across Asia and Africa creating a potential information security vulnerability. Nearly all Australian operators now make use of outsourcing in support of customer service functions. The government suggests that it may require carriers to keep all their customer data onshore or at the very least, require carriers to report full details of all their outsourcing and offshoring activities.

 Grahame Lynch

Grahame Lynch 

It would seem the AG’s department is taking its cues from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The received wisdom in Washington is that Huawei’s CEO is an ex-PLA officer, its chairwoman a former employee of the communications department of the Ministry of State Security. It apparently provides training and gear to the PLA and happily supplies network equipment to US enemies, such as the former Hussein regime of Iraq and the current regime of Iran. It also apparently indirectly benefits from R&D collaborations with state institutes that are directly funded by the PLA.

At the same time, Chinese cyber espionage activities—believed to be largely officially sanctioned and promoted—have reached an all time high. The risk of allowing a Chinese company—even one that is privately owned and with no obvious links to the establishment— to build “critical” national infrastructure is apparently way too high.

But wait a minute. The NBN is planned as a residential and small business access Layer 1/2 infrastructure. It will not be used for the mission critical functions of defence, law enforcement, national security intelligence or the inner core functions of government. In essence, its primary function is to act as a conduit for consumer video transmission. It is no more critical to the nation than say the networks of Optus or Vodafone-Hutchison, both of which have no obvious issue using Huawei kit, or for that matter, the planned new Australia-NZ cable which Huawei is contracted to build.

Indeed the objections made about Huawei could easily be made about Hutchison, which has long been an active participant in paging and mobile network investment in Australia.  The all-powerful Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States blocked Hutchison’s bid for Global Crossing in 2002 due to the presence of Chinese government officials on its share register and chairman Li Ka-Shing’s presence on Chinese government company boards. As far as I can tell, Hutchison is entirely welcome in Australia.

Australia is one of five members of the 1948 UKUSA agreement with New Zealand, Canada, the US and the UK—probably the world’s clubbiest alliance of signals intelligence sharing. This alliance is forged on a strong and underlying trust between participants and presumably extends to a common set of shared assumptions about who friends and foes are.

On the subject of Huawei though members of this alliance have mixed views. Huawei is perceived as a threat in the US and Australia, but in the UK and New Zealand it is welcome with open arms as a supplier of national fibre infrastructure. This is despite all four nations having access to the exact same set of signals and other forms of intelligence about the nature of any Chinese security threats.

Further complicating matters is the fact that buying kit from a company that is nominally French or American or Scandinavian in ownership doesn’t mean that the kit itself isn’t Chinese in origin. NBN lead supplier Alcatel-Lucent is regionally headquartered in Shanghai, China and my understanding is that a considerable proportion of its global manufacturing takes place there. The allegation against Huawei is that while it may be nominally privately owned and independent of Chinese government influence, there are sufficient informal linkages to raise security concerns.

But has there been appropriate investigation as to whether the largely Chinese managed and staffed manufacturing operations of global multinationals are immune to the same potential informal linkages and influences? And given that some of the vendors that are supplying the NBN have been pinged abroad for corrupt activities such as the bribery of government officials or trading with countries subject to UN or US trade bans, shouldn’t they also be subject to more scrutiny?

An additional complication comes from the fact that Huawei Australia’s board boasts as members no less than Australia’s longest serving foreign minister Alexander Downer and retired Navy rear admiral John Lord. When the Soviets were intent on spreading Communism across the world last century, legend has it that Lenin described fellow Communist travellers in the West as “useful idiots.” Can we plausibly place Downer and Lord in this category? After all, presumably both have done their due diligence and would possess knowledge of the genuine threats to national security unrivalled by us mere mortals on the outside of the inner sanctums of power.

Then there is the issue of free trade and compliance with universal norms of process. Even in the US the prohibitions against Huawei have been forged in the context of a Congressional committee, which hears evidence and demonstrates some form of transparency in how it arrives at its decisions.

Similarly, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission publishes its findings and conducts public seminars on its work. In Australia, by contrast, vendor board directors get called in for private chats with departmental officials which are only revealed months later by agenda-driven media leaks. It doesn’t look very good or, indeed, very first world, especially when both diplomatic relations and public funds are involved.

Finally I would note that the worst security violations at Australian government level are probably unavoidable results of human nature. Two years ago at a CommsDay conference in Sydney, Stephen Conroy delivered a speech and then immediately made moves to leave, inadvertently leaving his unattended iPhone on a table. Luckily I was the first to spot it. I chased him through the hotel foyer to return it to him before it was potentially nicked. Given human nature, any decent espionage efforts would simply follow their targets around enough hotels and restaurants and inevitably strike pay dirt before too long.

Grahame Lynch 

• FIVE great new ideas that are revolutionising networks
• An interview with Australia’s convergence regulation architect
• The threat solar storms pose to networks
• From America to Iceland & Portugal via Ireland
• Another sub cable bubble?
• Where is the Internet?
• Equinix eyes mobile networks
• Tata the winner from voice consolidation
• The drive for low latency nets

BROWSE THE ISSUE ONLINE HERE

OR DOWNLOAD AN 8MB PDF HERE

O’Sullivan will head up SingTel’s Group Consumer division, and will also shift to the position of chief country officer for Australia – continuing to represent Optus in fora such as regulatory debates. Current SingTel Singapore CEO Allen Lew will take charge of the newly created Group Digital Life division and will also be acting head of the Group ICT unit, which will focus on business clients, until a suitable candidate is found.

The restructure will mean that each of the unit chiefs in Australia will now report to their respective global organisations in addition to running the Optus business. Current Optus COO Kevin Russell becomes Consumer Australia CEO and will report to O’Sullivan. “Kevin now runs a significant part of the Australian operation, and I’ll be partnering very closely with him on many activities,” O’Sullivan told CommsDay. Meanwhile, Optus Digital Media director Austin Bryan will report to Group Digital Life CEO Lew; Optus Business MD John Paitaridis will report to Lew in the interim, and then to the eventual head of Global ICT once the position is filled.

In addition, three other Australian executives will each take on a group position: Optus CFO Murray King will add Regional Group Consumer CFO to his existing role; Optus HR director Vaughan Paul will become the Group Consumer director of HR; and Optus technology and products MD Andrew Buay will assume the SingTel Group acting CIO position.

SingTel Group CEO Chua Sock Koong said the restructure was an acknowledgement that the company had moved on from being just “a telephone company.” “I think with changing technology and the needs of customers, we see ourselves developing… into a key player in the multimedia space, and certainly involvement in content and services way beyond just communications,” she said.

“That change will continue, and even in the ICT space… [we’ll be] going beyond providing [for] communications need [to] providing a total solution… that will include desktops, system integration, datacentres, etc.”

For example, the newly created Digital Life division is focused on creating “new digital growth engines to delight customers and disrupt adjacent industries.” Lew flagged media, financial services and education as a few examples of industries SingTel could look to capitalise on. In addition, SingTel will use its global scale to enable mobile advertising firm Amobee – which the group has acquired for US$321 million – to push into the Asian market, having identified mobile marketing as a high growth opportunity.

Chua added that Australia would remain an important and distinct part of the group’s business into the future. “I would expect that we would always have a country chief officer, who would be the key liaison person with the various external stakeholders in Australia,” she said. On the local front, O’Sullivan said SingTel’s regional restructure would boost Optus’ competitive position in Australia while leveraging the group’s global scale. Some potential benefits would include operational/capital expenditure savings and increased global capabilities in areas such as customer analytics and knowledge management.

“There’s also the opportunity to get all of our affiliates at our Singapore and Australian businesses at the forefront of using the products [developed] in Digital Life… and providing apps and content to our consumers,” said O’Sullivan. “The world is changing very rapidly, and you’re seeing the industry change accordingly. Two good examples in both Australia and Singapore [are] the arrival of [the respective] NBNs into most homes, which will lead to an explosion in areas like applications and content… and the arrival of the OTT players – a lot of those over-the-top players are global in their reach… SingTel is setting itself up to be ready to compete on a global scale.”

Meanwhile, the group is in the process of working out the details of how it will report financially by segment, but will remain obliged to also report on a geographical basis in Australia. “Any revenues and costs arising out of the Australian operation will continue to be consolidated as Optus’ legal entity reporting,” said SingTel Group CFO Jeann Low. “We may improve on our disclosure in [that] we will communicate better to our stakeholders on how our Consumer, Digital Life, ICT groups are doing within Australia as well as at a group level.”

OVUM APPLAUDS RESTRUCTURE: Ovum senior analyst for telco strategy Nicole McCormick welcomed SingTel’s move to streamline and integrate the group, adding it makes “much more sense than piecemeal efforts scattered across country markets.”

However, she warned that executing pan-group management across a large and diverse portfolio would be a difficult task. “Country differences will need to be taken into account, and SingTel must successfully integrate its new regional strategy with its country strategies. SingTel’s minority stake in many of its subsidiaries will complicate this. Mobile advertising will also be a slow game,” she said.

David Edwards

Sometimes I think this obscures the real reasons that we are having a telecommunications revolution in broadband and mobility. We owe very little to the decisions of capital city bureaucrats, national politicians and the CEOs of, what are frankly, minor and provincial telcos in world terms and a lot more to the seismic shifts in global technology innovation and supply that have enabled such massive increases in the functionality and utility of telecommunications.

And the foremost characteristic of that, to my mind, in recent years has been the “Sinofication” of global telecommunications: essentially the transfer of the global manufacturing base for telecom equipment to China and other parts of East Asia and the commensurate rise of local champions such as Huawei, ZTE and HTC.

Indeed, it is a most profound development in the history of world economic progress and change.

Huawei Technologies is an obvious case in point. Back in late 1997 I was, I believe, the first Western journalist to visit their campus in Shenzhen. Their international expansion plans at the time were embryonic– the firm was an aspiring telecom maker with a legacy PBX business—and I recall sharing experiences with other Westerners making their first excursions to see the company: one advertising type recounted, with obvious salivations regarding the opportunities, how Huawei’s then marketing department wasn’t clear on the difference between a logo and a brand.

Some advertorial marketing copy prepared by my then employer was submitted by Huawei to an Chinese English language academic who scoured the copy for split infinitives. They really did come from another world.

SHAKEN: 15 years on, how things have changed. Huawei and other Chinese companies have shaken the global telecom industry to the core. The metrics are incredible. Huawei has over 140,000 employees and around $30 billion of annual revenues. It sells kit in 140 countries and to 45 of the top 50 operators. ZTE isn’t far behind.

Currently ranked the 6th largest telecom manufacturer in the world, ZTE has set its sights on overtaking Cisco, Alcatel Lucent and Nokia Siemens to rise to 3rd in the world after Huawei and Ericsson. NSN’s recent intimations that it wants to shed its fixed line business will assist ZTE in that task.

Now, course, Huawei and ZTE don’t have things all their own way. While their Chinese characteristics work for them in many places, they also work against them. Western manufacturers have long sought to undermine the rise of the Chinese, decrying their access to cheap labour, apparent lack of interest in compliance and intellectual property, access to cheap capital and even their alleged links to the Chinese military and pariah regimes. Look at the push back from the US and Indian security establishments for example. But for a company that was still grappling with what a “brand” was 15 years ago, Huawei seems to have come along way in understanding the barriers it still faces in achieving world domination.

A case in point is a highly significant, but barely reported, speech given by Huawei Technologies founder and CEO Ren Zhengfei last month at the European Competition Forum in Brussels.

As far as I am aware it was his first international speech but what was notable was its content in which he made a sophisticated pitch for a balance between competition and collaboration in global telecom policy, using as an example the GSM ecosystem which encouraged diversity in manufacturing and development while adhering to a rules-based standards and intellectual property licensing regime. He said he was optimistic a similar ecosystem would develop for cloud computing.

Most interestingly he also defined what made Huawei different to other Chinese companies—at the same time, issuing a veiled warning to the West not to emulate the cosy protectionism that still characterises much of the China state capitalism sector.

“When we look at the other industries in China launched during the same timeframe as Huawei, we find that heavily protected industries are not inherently competitive and are unable to prosper in the global market, while industries with open competition or less protection develop strong competitiveness and thrive globally. The “superstar” companies under state auspices and subsidies that have no competitors in the home market, very often end up with no ability to compete internationally,” Ren said.

“As we have learned from the growth of our own company, with economic globalisation, competition in any industry will eventually become global. Companies that are favored at home are prone to failure as they cannot stand the storm when they expand outwards. Therefore in the long run, open competition is the best way to inspire development – for nations, for industry sectors, and for individual companies. A company that cannot continuously improve and innovate through fair competition in its home market can hardly be globally competitive.”

DIRECTED AT US: Of course, this was a message directed at the US as much as Europe. Two weeks after the speech, Huawei caused a small stir when it pointed out that it was generating US$6 billion of business for just three Californian companies, namely Qualcomm, Broadcom and Avago. Chen Lifang, a senior executive of Huawei was quoted stating, “The US holds the leading position in the ICT industry, and when coupled with Huawei’s long-term dedication to innovation in the US market, the result is a strategic collaboration to develop a more diversified, balanced and healthier global ICT ecosystem.”

Domestically, Huawei has enjoyed better market access than it has in the US or India, but notably, it has failed to gain much traction with the two dominant industry investors, Telstra and NBN Co. But as in Europe and the US, it is not accepting this as its long term destiny. NBN Co is very much an American and European shop to date, awarding contracts to the likes of Alcatel Lucent, Corning, Ericsson and NSN. Telstra has been similarly loyal to traditional vendors.

Huawei is working to change this situation: notably by appointing two political stalwarts from both sides of politics, Alexander Downer and John Brumby, to its local board. With federal politics in a state of flux and every chance that the NBN will be massively rebooted with a view to achieving both cost economies and a compressed deployment schedule should the Coalition come to power, Downer could become a very important figure in Australian telecommunications. To this end, there is extensive anticipation of what he will say when he makes his debut public speech as a Huawei director at CommsDay Summit in Sydney on 17 April.

But that is very much a local angle to an amazing global story. The telecommunications revolution is one of the most profound developments in human history. The ITU estimates that 79% of all people in the developing world use a mobile phone—not far off the global figure of 87%. Some one third of the world’s population use the Internet. Some 1.2 billion people use mobile broadband, with 600m on fixed broadband.

Obviously none of this would have happened without the US development of the Internet or the European development of GSM. But it is the embrace of East Asian manufacturing disciplines and production techniques that has enabled mass telecommunications to become so affordable and globally pervasive. Indeed, not one section of the telecoms sector—switching, transmission, submarine cables, base stations, mobile handsets—has remained untouched by the rise and triumph of east Asian smarts.

Grahame Lynch