European Union: 5G suppliers should be worldwide
By : Marwa Sakr
The European Commission said that EU countries should take urgent measures to diversify suppliers (5G), as this step would reduce Huawei’s presence in Europe at a time when the United States pressed the bloc to imitate Britain and ban the Chinese company from the fifth generation networks.
The European Union agreed in November of last year to take a tough line against suppliers (5G) to reduce the risks of cyber security for next-generation mobile networks, which are seen as essential to boosting economic growth and competitiveness.
The strategy included reducing the dependence of countries and telecommunications companies on a single supplier.
“There is an urgent need for development in order to reduce the risk of dependence on high-risk suppliers, with the aim of reducing dependencies at the European Union level,” said the Executive Director of the European Union, in a report on the progress made by the 27 member states of the European Union.
Citing lack of interoperability, he added, “Challenges have been identified in designing and enforcing appropriate multi-vendor strategies for mobile operators or at the national level due to technical or operational difficulties.”
The United States notes that China may use the company’s Shenzhen-based equipment to spy, a charge rejected by Huawei.
European Union officials said: The phasing out of high-risk (5G) suppliers and additional costs would not delay the deployment of 5G networks across the European bloc, and that Ericsson and Nokia would be able to handle demand.
“If you look at the situation around the world, Nokia and Ericsson have a large part of the global market in terms of contracts signed all over the world, and the two companies combined have more than 50 percent to 65 percent, and I think that European suppliers can provide what is needed for Europe and much of the world. “
The Commission also urged 13 EU countries to adopt the FDI screening mechanism without delay, a tool that allows EU governments to interfere in cases of FDI in strategic assets, especially if there are companies controlled by the state or funded by the state.