ANNE-FRANÇOISE PELÉ: Anne-Françoise Pelé, en direct de Paris. Vous écoutez EE Times On Air.[This is Anne-Françoise Pelé, reporting from Paris. You’re listening to EE Times on Air.]
ANNE-FRANÇOISE PELÉ: 我是来自巴黎的Anne-FrançoisePelé。您正在收听的是EETimes全球联播。
BRIAN SANTO: And I’m Brian Santo, EE Times Editor in Chief, and this is your briefing for the week ending January 31st.
BRIAN SANTO: 我是EE Times主编Brian Santo，以下是截至1月31日的本周新闻播报。
In this episode.
The Trump Administration has been pressuring economic allies to ban the installation of Huawei 5G network equipment. The United Kingdom just said it will not accede to that demand. But the story is actually a little more complicated than that.
Huawei, Nokia, and Ericsson are the only three large vendors of 5G network infrastructure in the world. The Trump administration is worried that the Chinese government could gain access to traffic carried on Huawei equipment, and has banned the installation of new Huawei equipment in the US. Furthermore, it has been pressuring economic allies to adopt similar bans.
The Trump Administration has only suspicions about Huawei equipment, however. If it has tried to find security leaks in Huawei equipment, it has not made that information public. Among the United States’ economic allies, the United Kingdom has, in fact, conducted such a security review, which means its view on the security risks associated with using Huawei 5G equipment is likely to have some influence.
UK security agencies announced earlier this year that they found no specific security problems with Huawei equipment. The final decision on a ban in the UK, however, rested with the leadership of the UK government. Earlier this week, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the UK would not ban Huawei equipment – with some specific qualifications.
No ban, but qualifications? What does that mean, exactly? Figuring that out was actually a story in itself. Here’s EE Times international editor Junko Yoshida explaining the story behind the story.
不禁止，但设置限定条件？这到底是什么意思？弄清楚来龙去脉就是一个很好的故事。EE Times国际编辑Junko Yoshida解释了故事背后的“故事”。
JUNKO YOSHIDA: The UK government, Tuesday, concluded its 5G telecom supply chain review, and the government issued a guidance on a new set of telecom security requirements. In particular, the government’s focus was placed on how to treat high-risk vendors such as Huawei. When a big announcement like this pops up, we all know that every reporter at every media outlet on earth is off to the race, given that we all have pretty much the same set of documents released by the government, and we all want to report on it as soon as we can. The art of report boils down to two things: 1) how fast your reporter can wade through a whole bunch of documents; 2) can we correctly identify what’s new?
JUNKO YOSHIDA: 英国政府周二结束了对5G电信供应链的审查，并新发布了一系列有关电信安全要求的指南。特别值得关注的是，英国政府将重点放在如何对待诸如华为等高风险供应商上。我们都知道，当这样的重要公告突然发布，全球各家媒体的每位记者都会争相报道，鉴于所有人都能拿到政府发布的文件，而都想以最快速度报道出去。报道技巧可归结为两点：1）记者们需要花多长时间来浏览完这堆文件；2）我们能正确鉴别出“新”闻吗？
I think truth to be told, in the case of the UK government announcement this week, I felt like most media outlets already made up their mind on what the storyline should be. Something along the line of — I think this is what The Verge reported — “UK defies US and refuses to ban Huawei from 5G networks.”
实话说，我认为就本周英国政府宣布的信息而言，大多数媒体已经决定了故事走向。 我觉得《The Verge》报道的内容正是这样——“英国无视美国，拒绝了美国提出的禁止英国5G网络使用华为设备的要求。”
Similarly, The Wall Street Journal headline read, “UK Allows Huawei to Build Parts of 5G Network, Defying Trump.” And CNN also reported, “UK will allow Huawei to help build its 5G network despite US pressure.”
In contrast, though, EE Times London correspondent Nitin Dahad had something different on the original headline of his story that caught my eye. He wrote, “The UK presses on with 5G and Huawei with a 35% cap.” When I first saw this story, my first question was, a cap on what? Right? So I immediately pinged Nitin. I’m here in Madison, Wisconsin. Nitin is in London. But I pinged him on Skype Chat. Thirty-five percent of what, Nitin? So I just want to redo this how our conversation went down yesterday with Nitin.
然而相比之下，EE Times驻伦敦记者Nitin Dahad对该事件的原始报道标题上却有所不同，这引起了我的注意。 Nitin写道：“英国给5G和华为设置了35%限额”。 当我第一次看到这个报道时，第一个疑问就是——对什么设定限额？所以我立即联系了Nitin。我在威斯康星州的麦迪逊市，而Nitin在伦敦。 不过我和他在Skype进行了沟通。Nitin，什么限额的35%？我想重述一下昨天我与Nitin的谈话详情。
We now have Nitin on the phone. Nitin, how are you?
NITIN DAHAD: Hi, Junko. Yes. I’m fine, thank you.
NITIN DAHAD: 嗨，Junko。是的，我很好，谢谢。
JUNKO YOSHIDA: So tell me a bit of the background of how the announcement was made in the UK, but more importantly, a detail about 35% of cap.
JUNKO YOSHIDA: 那么请介绍一下英国宣布这项决定的背景，更重要的是，详细介绍一下这个35％限额。
NITIN DAHAD: So actually, it came out somewhere around mid-day or afternoon yesterday. It popped up on my phone. Sky News first put it up, but I couldn’t find anything. But then a few minutes later, I found everything on the National Cyber Security website, as well as the UK government website. And it was pretty well coordinated, because you obviously had the big meeting chaired by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, then the Digital Minister made the announcement, which was short and sweet. And then you had the National Cyber Security Center put out the… well, it’s actually four documents on the website, but two of them are pretty long. One is a security analysis and one is a blog by Ian Levy explaining it, who’s the Director of the National Cyber Security Center.
NITIN DAHAD: 实际上这个决定是在昨天中午，或是下午某个时间发布的。推送新闻在我的手机上弹出来。Sky News首先进行了报道，但我没能找到更多信息。几分钟后，我在国家网络安全中心(National Cyber Security)网站以及英国政府网站上找到了全部信息。政府协调得很好，首先是首相Boris Johnson主持举行了这场大型会议，然后数字部长宣布了这一决定，简洁而易懂。然后国家网络安全中心也发布了……，实际上是在网站上发布了四个文档，不过其中两个文档很长。一个是安全分析，另一个是Ian Levy撰写的解读文章，他是英国国家网络安全中心的主任。
So, yes. I would say very well coordinated in terms of getting everything out, and I was pretty much able to read the documents almost 10 minutes after I saw the Sky breaking news announcement.
JUNKO YOSHIDA: Why did you decide to focus on cap?
JUNKO YOSHIDA: 你为什么决定着眼于限额？
NITIN DAHAD: I didn’t, actually. I know at EE Times what we try and do is sort of get behind the story. And I’m not really political in what I write, so I didn’t want to follow everybody else. And also because we have very much a sort of technology and sort of business of technology audience, I thought, okay, where is the story here?
NITIN DAHAD: 实际上这不是我的决定。我知道在EE Times，我们尝试和在做的是探索故事背后的故事。而且我的文章并不是政治性的，所以我不想追随其他人的脚步。由于我们拥有非常多的科技和科技相关业务的读者，于是我想，这个故事从哪里切入呢？
I think a lot of people did say about the 35% cap, but they didn’t go into much depth. So that’s why we did. And I think going into that, the crux of it is, in the documents it says, For 5G access networks, what the guidance is saying– and this is guidance at the moment which they want to put into legislation at some point. So this is a telecom security review. The National Cyber Security Center has issued this guidance, but now government wants to put it into some kind of legislation.
So coming to the detail, it says, for 5G access networks, at most 35% of expected network traffic volume on any particular network should pass through a high-risk vendor equipment. And at most, 35% of base station sites nationally on any particular network should be served by equipment from a high-risk vendor.
JUNKO YOSHIDA: So has the UK government done anything similar in terms of placing a cap in terms of the telecom vendors, the base stations or traffic supplied by certain suppliers? This seems… This cap thing’s really new to me. What’s your read on this, Nitin?
JUNKO YOSHIDA: 那么英国政府是否在限制电信供应商、基站或某些主流供应商提供的流量方面做了类似事情？看起来，这个限额对我来说真是个新消息。 Nitin，你对此有何感想？
NITIN DAHAD: So on 4G, when we had 4G, there was definitely sort of guidance on resilience. And so you’re always having two equipment providers. So I think there’s nothing new in that respect. I think what’s new is the figure.
NITIN DAHAD: 关于4G，当我们部署4G时有过关于弹性的指导准则。所以你总是会有两家设备提供商。我认为在这方面没有什么新内容。我觉得新消息是这个限额数字。
And if I look at Ian Levy’s blog, I was trying to figure out how they came at the 35% figure. His is actually quite a good explanation, and he says, The cap at 35% ensures the UK will not become nationally dependent on a high-risk vendor while retaining competition in the market and allowing operators to continue to use two radio access networks. So the calculation of 35%, they’ve been quite subtle about it to make sure that it can’t be easily gamed. For example, somebody might use a high-risk vendor’s base stations in all the cities, and then a non-high-risk vendor’s products in the countryside. So he was quite good at explaining that, and I think it makes sense. Because the others are obviously Ericsson and Nokia. So I suppose 35% is like, Okay, there’s three vendors; let’s make sure all three get a chance. That’s my take.
我阅读了Ian Levy的博文，试图弄清35％这个限额是如何得来的。实际上Ian解释的很好，他说，“将额度上限设置为35％，可确保英国在保持市场竞争力的同时，不会在全国范围内依赖于某一家高风险供应商，并允许运营商继续使用两种不同的无线接入网络。因此对于35％这个数字，他们一直非常谨慎，确保不会影响正当竞争。例如，有人可能会在所有城市地区使用高风险供应商的基站，然后在农村地区使用非高风险供应商的产品。所以Ian对这一点解释得很清楚，我认为这个限额是有道理的。 因为其他竞争供应商显然就是爱立信和诺基亚。 所以我猜想35％就像是说，我们有三个供应商，那就让我们确保这三家都有机会参与。这是我的看法。
JUNKO YOSHIDA: But then, when I think about it, if I’m an operator in the UK, if I’m under this “guidance,” how am I supposed to calculated 35% cap, both of traffic and base station equipment?
JUNKO YOSHIDA: 但是当我考虑到一点，如果我是英国的运营商，并且受此“指导”的约束，那我该如何去计算流量和基站设备的35％限额？
NITIN DAHAD: Base stations is not very difficult. You know how many base stations you’ve got. So it’s a piece of physical hardware.
NITIN DAHAD: 计算基站倒不是很困难。你知道你拥有多少个基站。这只是数算物理硬件的事情。
JUNKO YOSHIDA: That’s true. Yeah.
JUNKO YOSHIDA: 是的，确实是这样。
NITIN DAHAD: In terms of traffic, when you think about it, you’ve got the core network, which is going to be commoditized hardware, so it’s very likely you can measure traffic going through that. And then you’ve got the virtualized network functions on top, and that’s all software. Again, if you look at the analogy would be, for example, with sort of Google Analytics, just as an example, I’m sure there’s ways of measuring what kind of traffic goes through both the core as well as the virtualized network. So I’m guessing there is a way of doing that.
NITIN DAHAD: 在流量计算方面，当你考虑这一点时，核心网将会配置商品化的硬件，因此也可以据此衡量通过的流量。然后是虚拟化网络，这就涉及软件了。重申一下，如果以Google Analytics这样的统计软件作为类比，那么我敢肯定，总会有一种方法可以测量通过核心网和虚拟网的流量。所以我认为总会有一种方法可以做到。
JUNKO YOSHIDA: Right. Okay, so getting back to the original announcement by the UK, can you just do a recap on what they announced in terms of… I just focused on the 35% cap thing, but on a big picture, what did they say about core and non-core networks when it comes to 5G?
JUNKO YOSHIDA: 是的，好吧，现在回到英国最初发布的公告，你可以回顾一下他们在以下方面的公告吗？我只关注到35％的限额，但从总体上看，他们对5G核心和非核心网络发表过什么看法？
NITIN DAHAD: Right. So very importantly — and we’ve gone into detail in our article in EE Times — but in sort of a high level, high-risk vendors will never be allowed on secure parts of the network. So they’ll be excluded from all safety-related and safety-critical networks in critical national infrastructure. They’ll also be excluded from security-critical call functions, which are in a sensitive part of the network.
NITIN DAHAD: 好的。非常重要的是——我们已经在EE Times的文章中进行了详细介绍——从某种程度上讲，绝不允许高风险供应商参与网络安全部分。他们将被排除在国家关键基础架构外，所有与安全相关，且对安全至关重要网络的呼叫功能也将他们排除在外。这些网络是非常敏感的。
Interestingly, I think a lot of media picked up on this: Excluded from sensitive geographic locations such as nuclear sites and military bases. I think somebody commented, Well, isn’t a Chinese contractor building one of the nuclear sites here? So I’m not sure how that plays, but that’s not for us to comment. We’re not political. Then limited to a minority presence of no more than 35% in the periphery of the network known as the “access network,” which connects devices and equipment to mobile phones. So that’s pretty much what it’s saying.
JUNKO YOSHIDA: So after the story was posted yesterday, I heard something about the BBC got in touch with you today. Is that right?
JUNKO YOSHIDA: 我听说，你在昨天发布了这个报道，今天BBC跟你联系，是这样吗？
NITIN DAHAD: Interestingly, yes. The powers of social media. One of the BBC Radio 4 editors this morning Tweeted me, saying, Can you get in touch? We want to talk to you. And that sort of piqued my curiosity. And being the inquisitive person I am, I did. And I responded. And then it developed into a conversation. We had a good chat. And she said, Oh, be on standby. We’ll do a live interview with you with one of our main news programs, which is The World at One on BBC Radio 4. And so I was on standby. She said at 1:15PM UK time. At 1:14, one of the producers called me up, saying, We’ll have to stand you down, because we’ve had some breaking news. And this is normal with mainstream media. As you know, when you have breaking news. The last time I was stood down by breaking news was when Princess Diana started weeping, and one of my slots on BBC One television news from 9 o’clock news got pulled because of that. So my second time being stood up by the BBC.
NITIN DAHAD: 是的，非常有趣，这就是社交媒体的力量。BBC Radio 4的一位编辑今天早上在推特上联系我说：“能与你沟通一下吗？我们想和你谈谈。”这激起了我的好奇心。我是一个好奇的人，所以我回了消息，之后发展成对话。我们聊得很愉快。她说，“噢，准备接受采访吧”。我们将在一档主要新闻节目中与您进行实时采访，这档节目是BBC Radio 4上的《 The World at One 》。所以我保持待命状态。那位编辑说采访预订在英国时间下午1:15。但是在1:14的时候，一位制作人打电话给我说：“我们不得不先撤掉您的采访安排，因为我们有一些突发重大新闻。” 你也知道，当遇到突发新闻时，这对于主流媒体来说是很常见的情况。 我上一次因遇到突发新闻而被取消原定采访的时候是戴安娜王妃开始哭泣，我在BBC One上9点档新闻的一个时段也因此被取消。所以这是我第二次被BBC临时取消安排了。
So they were interested. What she was telling me was the editor saw a piece on EE Times and they wanted to talk to us. Maybe because we had a little bit of a different take on it.
BBC很感兴趣。 那位编辑告诉我，她在EE Times上看到这篇文章之后想与我们交谈。 或许是因为我们对这件事有一些不同的观点。
JUNKO YOSHIDA: That’s an important thing. We try to differentiate our stories from others. But more importantly, I think you got to the intricacy of the set of security requirements that the government agency came up with. I think it’s to be watched how this becomes law and people who run the networks in the UK are all for it. I don’t know if they even have a say in it. But it’s an interesting development to say the least, right?
JUNKO YOSHIDA: 这很重要。我们尝试将我们的故事与其他媒体的故事区分开。更重要的是，我认为你已经了解了政府机构提出的一系列安全要求的复杂性。 我认为这之后它将如何成为法律是值得关注的，在英国运营网络的服务商都为此而努力。我不知道他们是否有发言权。 但至少可以说这是一个有趣的发展，对吗？
NITIN DAHAD: Yes. It certainly is. And I think one of the questions that the BBC wanted to ask me is, How are they going to measure this? In thinking about it and discussing it with you and others, Is it going to be voluntary? Are the network operators going to have to report it, do an audit and provide reports? Just like, for example, in the fabulous business model in the semiconductor industry, when you report royalties, you rely on the manufacturers to report the royalties to the IP vendor. Is it going to be that kind of thing? I actually don’t know enough, and I’d love to maybe learn a lot more about that.
NITIN DAHAD: 是的，那当然。我认为BBC想问我的一个问题是，政府如何衡量这个限额？在考虑它并与你和其他人讨论时，这是否是自愿的？网络运营商是否需要报告，进行审核并提供报告？ 就像在半导体行业杰出的商业模式那样，当你报告授权使用费时，你将依靠制造商向IP供应商报告的授权使用费。会是像类似那样的吗？实际上我对此事的了解还不够，我想学习更多与此有关的知识。
JUNKO YOSHIDA: We’ll stay on top of the news. Thank you so much, Nitin!
JUNKO YOSHIDA: 我们会跟进最新情况。非常感谢Nitin！
NITIN DAHAD: Thank you, Junko.
NITIN DAHAD: 谢谢你，Junko。
BRIAN SANTO: Earlier I noted that since the UK actually performed a security review on Huawei equipment, the UK’s decision on whether or not to accede to U.S. demands for a Huawei ban would have some influence with other economic allies.
BRIAN SANTO: 早些时候我指出，由于英国实际上对华为设备进行了安全审查，因此英国决定是否接受美国对华为禁令的要求将对其他经济盟国产生一定影响。
The UK made its announcement on Tuesday. On Wednesday, the European Union echoed the UK’s decision, recommending to its member states that they should be able to use Huawei equipment, but installations in the network core should be minimized. Note that the EU can only provide guidance; each member country can still make its own final decisions on the matter.
BRIAN SANTO: That’s your Weekly Briefing for the week ending January 31st.This podcast is Produced by AspenCore Studio. It was Engineered by Taylor Marvin and Greg McRae at Coupe Studios. The Segment Producer was Kaitie Huss.The transcript of this podcast can be found on EETimes.com. You can find a new episode every Friday on our website, or through any of the most popular places for podcasts. I’m Brian Santo. See you next week.
BRIAN SANTO: 这是截至1月31日的本周播报。该播客由 AspenCore Studio制作。Coupe Studios的Taylor Marvin和Greg McRae担任设计。Kaitie Huss担任片段制作。 EETimes.com网址上有本播客音频的文字版本。我们的网站会在每周五上传最新一期节目。您也可以通过其他热门播客平台收听我们的节目。我是Brian Santo，我们下周见。