On November 22nd, the FCC approved an order to label Huawei as a national security threat. This move will ban US carriers from using money from the Universal Service Fund to buy Huawei equipment.
美国农村地区的很多用户和小型企业仍未接入移动网络，这一决定将损害他们的利益。
Many people and small businesses in rural America do not have mobile network access. This decision will harm their interests.
The FCC claims that Huawei is a security threat. But the FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, has not provided any evidence. This is a common trend in Washington these days. "Huawei is a Chinese company." That's his only excuse. He has tried to spread fear about Huawei. He uses words like "backdoors" to scare people. But they offer no proof. The other FCC commissioners use the same talking points.
This decision, just like the Entity List decision in May, is based on politics, not security. These politicians ignore an important fact: Huawei has been working with rural US carriers for many years, and our customers trust our equipment. They are experts in the security of their own networks, and they like working with us. Carriers across rural America, in small towns in Montana, Kentucky, and farms in Wyoming… they choose to work with Huawei because they respect the quality and integrity of our equipment. They also respect our services, because other equipment vendors don't care about their needs.
These carriers are often ignored by big vendors, because there's not "enough money" in rural communities. The government should not shut down joint efforts to connect rural communities in the US. In March 2018, the FCC began promoting the ban on Huawei. Many rural carriers objected. So did the US-based Rural Wireless Association.
华为也提交了21轮详细意见，阐述该决定对偏远地区用户和企业的伤害。但FCC却对这些意见视若罔闻。
Huawei also submitted 21 rounds of detailed comments, explaining how the order will harm people and businesses in remote areas. The FCC ignored all of them.
毫无依据的国家安全威胁指控是非常危险的。美国政客称他们非常担心网络安全，我们也有同样的担心。
Empty claims about national security are dangerous. Politicians in the US say they are very concerned about cyber security. And we share these concerns.
The fact is: Banning a company like Huawei, just because we started in China… this does not solve any cyber security challenges. If the FCC is truly worried about the security of the telecom supply chain, then they should understand this: Equipment made in China by any vendor should also have the same risks. So not only Huawei and ZTE, but also Nokia and Ericsson, who also manufacture in China. Replacing one set of equipment made in China for another set that is also made in China… … Politicians and security consultants are smart people. They should know better.
The US government has never presented real evidence to show that Huawei is a national security threat. That's because this evidence does not exist. When pushed for facts, they respond that "disclosing evidence might also undermine US national security." This is complete nonsense.
Just last month, Bill Gates said that "the rule that everything that comes from China is bad… that is one crazy approach." We could not agree more, and we are more than willing to work together with the United States government to prove the security of our products and services.
When passing this decision, the FCC did not offer Huawei due process, or verify the facts. But they very loudly and very publicly labelled our company as a national security threat. The FCC's order violates the Constitution, and we have no choice but to seek legal remedy.
--
Glen Nager, Huawei’s lead counsel for the legal action:
案件首席律师Glen Nager：
Good Morning. I am Glen Nager, outside counsel for Huawei, and a partner at Jones Day.
上午好！我叫Glen Nager，是华为的外部律师和众达律师事务所合伙人。
Our Petition for Review challenges the Order of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) both insofar as it bars use of federal Universal Service Funds to purchase products and services from companies that the Commission deems a threat to U.S. national security, and insofar as it arbitrarily and capriciously designates Huawei as such a company.
The FCC issued its Order through a rulemaking process that supposedly addressed the telecommunications industry in general. But, in reality, at the behest of certain members of Congress, the FCC has simply adopted a standardless rule that, by its own admission, was designed with only Huawei and ZTE in mind; and it has applied that rule to Huawei without fair process and without proper support in evidence or law.
The Order exceeds the FCC’s statutory authority. Nothing in the Universal Service provisions of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to make national security judgments or to restrict use of USF funds based on such judgments. Indeed, the Commission has no national security expertise or authority. And Congress could not constitutionally give the Commission such authority, because it is an independent agency not subject to the direction of the President.
The Commission’s Order is also arbitrary and capricious. The Commission failed to address multiple legal arguments and material facts presented in comments on the proposed rule. And its cost-benefit analysis considered only costs associated with prohibiting the use of USF funds for Huawei and ZTE products and services—a remarkable deficiency that exposes the Rule as simply a vehicle for targeting and burdening these two companies, not a genuine attempt to develop a generally-applicable and fair rule that would seriously protect telecommunications networks and supply chains.
The Rule is also unlawfully vague and inconsistent with Due Process. The Order states no standard or criteria whatsoever for identifying a company as a genuine threat to the integrity of communications networks or supply chains—again revealing that the Commission’s goal in the Order was simply to impose restrictions on Huawei and ZTE, and them alone. Furthermore, the Order fails to give Huawei constitutionally required due process before stigmatizing it as a national security threat, such as an opportunity to confront supposed evidence and witnesses, and a fair and neutral hearing process. This is contrary to all American constitutional traditions.
The Commission’s initial designation of Huawei also lacks legal or factual support. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Chinese law, and on unsound, unreliable, and inadmissible accusations and innuendo, not “evidence.” The designation is simply shameful prejudgment of the worst kind.
The rule of law to which the United States adheres does not permit this kind of arbitrary and unfair action by a government agency. Under the rule of law in the United States, the ends do not suffice to justify such unlawful means. We are confident that the Fifth Circuit will vacate the Commission’s Order.
I still remember the first time I set foot in Scobey, Montana. It’s a small town of around 1,000 residents near the U.S.-Canada border, where I was visiting a client. The CEO greeted me in his office and said one sentence I still remember, “Welcome to No-where.”I understood what he meant. It took me 7 or 8 hours to get there from Dallas, including a flight change in Denver and a 3-hour drive into town. It’s definitely “No-man’s land.”
For years, remote parts of the U.S. had poor connectivity. You couldn’t make a phone call when your car – or your tractor – broke down. If you called for an ambulance on your cell phone, you got no signal.
Today, things are much better – partly because of Huawei. We’ve built networks in places where other vendors would not go. They were too remote, or the terrain was difficult, or there just wasn’t a big enough population.
In the U.S., we sell equipment to 40 small wireless and wireline operators. They connect schools, hospitals, farms, homes, community colleges, and emergency services.
In just a moment, you’ll hear from some of those rural operators. You’ll hear them say how they trusted us, relied on us, and partnered with us, when other vendors had turned their backs on them.
这些小型无线和有线运营商给偏远地区搭建了一条数字生命线，但这条生命线需要依赖通用服务基金才能维持。
These small wireless and wireline operators give their communities a digital lifeline … But that lifeline depends on the Universal Service Fund.
The FCC’s rule would cut off the operators from the fund. It could even force them to rip out equipment they’ve already installed. This would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Some operators say if they have go with the plan, they will probably go bankrupt.
然而，真正令人痛心的是：移除华为设备并不会让美国的网络更安全。
And the really heart-breaking thing is: Ripping out Huawei gear won’t make U.S. networks any safer.
Our competitors make a lot of their equipment in China, some of them even have joint ventures with Chinese state-owned companies. Their equipment is used widely in America. One FCC Commissioner said roughly 40% of all U.S. networks contain equipment that was made in China. Targeting Huawei will not change that situation at all.
因此，除了今天讨论的法律问题，我也想请大家记住：
So, in addition to the legal issues we’re discussing today, please remember this:
Our customers in the US provide the vital connectivity to real people, in real communities. And those people rely on Huawei to stay connected. No one else wanted to work with these communities -- they were too small; too hard to get to; not profitable enough.
只有华为挺身而出。这也是华为一直以来在做的事情。今天，我们正是在争取我们做这件事的权利。
But Huawei came through for them. Because that’s what we do. And that's what we are fighting for today.