A Challenge to the Chairman...

Ten days ago, I posted on what I called a clever trade barrier, a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) provision associated with the T-Mobile USA acquisition of MetroPCS that would effectively bar China-based telecommunications equipment vendors from bringing innovation, competition and affordable broadband to the U.S. marketplace and consumers.

Today, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that a similar provision had been put in place for Japan's Softbank's acquisition of the majority share of Sprint.

In a subsequent WSJ blog post - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/03/28/sprint-and-softbank-agree-to-forgo-remove-huawei-equipment-lawmaker-says/ - it was reported that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers had weighed-in directly to put pressure on Sprint.

For any number of reasons (personal career preservation among them), I have not blogged in the past on last year's comedic sham of an investigation of my employer Huawei by Chairman Roger's Committee (however, there are a number of chapters devoted to this topic in my draft perhaps-never-to-be-released book "Huidu - Inside Huawei").

But the WSJ blog piece today hit a nerve, and, well, it prompted something unprecedented - I posted a comment on the Journal's site, as follows (read the linked WSJ blog post first):

• William Plummer wrote :

We appear to be at a watershed moment…

The U.S. Government seems poised to implement all-new trade- and market-distorting policy and precedent.

The U.S. House of Representatives’ Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers has either been anointed or has anointed himself as standard-bearer.

The Chairman has made comments that border on corporate defamation – by definition, he has acted “with reckless regard for his statement’s truth or falsity.”

Indeed, over the last year, the Chairman has made multiple claims about China-headquartered Huawei’s integrity. Not once – not once – with a shred of demonstrable substance.

Ours is a nation founded on the concept of due process.

Mr. Rogers should be held accountable for his words, his actions, and their repercussions.

If the Chairman has something to prove, he should prove it.

If the Chairman can factually and substantively explain why Huawei is somehow more susceptible to cyber-penetration than any and every other telecom vendor that relies on common global supply chains and is subject to common cyber challenges and vulnerabilities, then he should do so.

If the Chairman can factually and substantively demonstrate that American networks will somehow be more secure by virtue of blackballing one company based on its flag of heritage, and in the context of the preceding sentence, then he should do so.

If the Chairman is angry with the Chinese government for its hacking activities, then he should propose that the U.S. Government pursue appropriate state-to-state avenues, rather than hold hostage a world-proven and trusted company.

If the Chairman would deprive Americans of world-leading technology, competitive and affordable broadband, jobs and inward investment, then he should justify such sacrifices, with facts, not empty words.

I work for Huawei. I post this comment as an American, without corporate authorization, and at the possible risk of my family’s livelihood.

Enough is enough.

Step up Mr. Chairman. Do you have any facts?

My guess? With all due respect, whatever you might say will quite likely be as empty as the silence you might choose instead.

Bill Plummer

---

Hope I don't get fired....