Huawei responds to the US FCC: The so-called removal and replacement rules are actually not practical at all

　　China News Service, Beijing, July 14 (Reporter Liu Yuying) The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a plan on July 13 local time, appropriating US$1.895 billion, mainly to compensate rural operators in the United States for moving from telecommunications networks. Except for Huawei, ZTE and other Chinese companies that are regarded as national security threats.

　　Huawei responded on the 14th that the so-called removal and replacement rules are not practical at all.

For operators in the most remote and rural areas of the United States, this FCC move will only bring them huge challenges.

　　In March of this year, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) determined that five Chinese companies pose a threat to the national communications security of the United States in accordance with a law promulgated in 2019 to protect the security of US communications networks.

These companies include Huawei, ZTE, Hytera, Hikvision and Dahua.

In June of this year, the FCC voted to pass a ban on the grounds of "national security threats", banning the use of the above-mentioned five Chinese companies' equipment in US telecommunications networks.

　　Huawei issued a statement stating that Huawei is disappointed with the decision of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to approve its "Protection of Communications Supply Chain from National Security Threats through the FCC Plan" (WC Case No. 18-89).

　　According to Huawei, the so-called removal and replacement rule is actually not practical at all, because the rule is designed to repair the damage not caused.

For operators in the most remote and rural areas of the United States, this FCC's move will only bring them a huge challenge, making it difficult to provide customers with the same high level and high-quality service without interrupting service.

The rule will hinder consumers from obtaining broadband connections and disrupt business, education, and emergency response mechanisms.

Doing so is a waste of taxpayers' money, and ultimately will not achieve the core goal of tangibly improving safety.

(Finish)