Sunil Bharti Mittal, Chairman, Bharti Airtel endorses Huawei in India at World Economic Forum, India Summit

Participants: Piyush Goyal, Minister of Commerce and Industry and Minister of Railways; Wilbur L. Ross, Secretary of Commerce, USA; Sunil Bharti Mittal, Bharti Enterprises; Rahul Kanwal, Anchor – India Today (Moderator);

RK: Mr. Mittal, The United States Government is pressing India hard not to take 5G technology form China, from Huawei. That’s one of the big thrust areas. As a key players in the segment and also from the perspective of India Inc, Sir, do you believe that this is an unfair bargain because the cost at which Huawei can sell India is much cheaper than what you would be buying from say Europeans or American companies. So how do you view America’s very stern pressure on it?

WR: First of all our concerns about Huawei has nothing to do with advancing the cause of American telecom equipment people. We do not have a direct competitor to Huawei. So the notion that our views on Huawei are a function of US protectionism is simply incorrect. There is no US competitor. There is big competitors are people like Ericsson and Nokia, not US. Now there may well have had some sort of US –European consortium, but anybody who thinks we are doing this out of protectionism simply does not know the facts. The reason we are doing this it, we think there are genuine security issues. And 5G is very different form 3G, 4G. 3G and 4G, you are able to separate the peripheral parts from the central parts. 5G, that is not possible. In 5G if there is a penetration, if there is in fact a back door, its gonna infiltrate the whole system. So the proportionality of risk we think is very considerable.

Second thing we think, Huawei is after all very dependent on US technology. So it isn’t that there is some magical thing that Huawei has found that is not available elsewhere in the world. I believe that within a few years, there will be a Western alternative that leapfrogs in technology (over) Huawei. Since 5G is such a revolutionary thing, and it’s going to take quite a while to roll out anyway, our feeling is why jump into it. In most technology things, the first version of the product is not as good as the second and third and fourth version. So while we agree that 5G is important, we do think that there is a genuine security risk. And it is in isn’t just the risk on the front end. That there are constant upgrades, there are constant maintenance things. Every time there is an interaction with a vendor, there is a potential for a security issue to develop. So our concern is based on our desire to hope that our geo-political partner India does not inadvertently subject itself to untoward security risks. That’s the nature of our concern.

At the end of the day, obviously India has to make its own decisions. But our concerns are security, not protectionism

RK: Mr. Mittal, how real are these security concerns in your view?

SBM: Well, I think Secretary Ross has rightly pointed out that it’s an advisory from the US. Of course they will decide for America and I think they have already banned the use of Huawei in at least the government projects for possibly all I infer. In any case for decades, US network have not been buying Chinese equipment, whether ZTE or Huawei. They are relying mostly on Nokia or Ericsson. And now Samsung is coming in their space as well.  

Advisory is well taken from our point of view. I have tracked this industry for 25 years and I am not going into whether IP was compromised. Huawei has, over the last 10-12 years, has become extremely good with their product, to a point where I can safely say today their products, at least in 3G/4G that we have experienced, is significantly superior to Ericsson and Nokia, without a doubt, and I use all three of them. They have actually surprised me on how fast they have been able to take the technology curve to a level where its leading-edge, the power consumption is a fraction of the Europeans, the footprint is very small if you have to put it up on a tower, and there are very powerful leading features where you can split, slice, die the spectrum and use it in a variety of ways. They are clearly leading edge. Now whether they compromise on some American IPs, I don’t know.

And the second part is China will in the next 24-36 months become 100% free from any American components. That they have taken upon themselves as a mission for the country, that in all these high tech equipment they will not have any chipsets, components, active or passive, coming in from the US, because they know the leverage the US has on them is extreme. India will have to decide for themselves their relationship with China on a larger context. And India and China are big trade partners, they are neighbours, they have a huge populations to serve. And all I would say is India will take this advice carefully. But the decision will have to be taken politically.

RK: what’s your view – which side should we lean?

SBM: My view is that they should be allowed to play. I really feel they should be in play. India must use this as leverage. There’s lots of open issue with China as well. And India must take full advantage of that. Unlike opening it to many other western companies in our country, than having very little leverage. I would rather have this leverage because this is an important part. The benefit of American pushback has been that Huawei has now opened up its technology. They are offering it to an American company to take it over and develop on it based on a fee. I am sure they will do the same for an Indian company if a TCS or a Wipro or anybody else would like to manufacture those equipment here. They will gladly open it up. So one thing that they have done is opened up the Chinese technology for accessing back…

RK: So is that a solution? The management of Huawei now offering a full transfer of technology. They have offered it to US. Mittal say push hard enough and they will give it to you as well, given the size of your market.

PG: Well, I will say I will leave it to the concerned Minister. Ravi Shankar Prasad and his team are very competent and capable. Let them handle this issue. I have enough on my plate.  

Participants: Piyush Goyal, Minister of Commerce and Industry and Minister of Railways; Wilbur L. Ross, Secretary of Commerce, USA; Sunil Bharti Mittal, Bharti Enterprises; Rahul Kanwal, Anchor – India Today (Moderator);

RK: Mr. Mittal, The United States Government is pressing India hard not to take 5G technology form China, from Huawei. That’s one of the big thrust areas. As a key players in the segment and also from the perspective of India Inc, Sir, do you believe that this is an unfair bargain because the cost at which Huawei can sell India is much cheaper than what you would be buying from say Europeans or American companies. So how do you view America’s very stern pressure on it?

WR: First of all our concerns about Huawei has nothing to do with advancing the cause of American telecom equipment people. We do not have a direct competitor to Huawei. So the notion that our views on Huawei are a function of US protectionism is simply incorrect. There is no US competitor. There is big competitors are people like Ericsson and Nokia, not US. Now there may well have had some sort of US –European consortium, but anybody who thinks we are doing this out of protectionism simply does not know the facts. The reason we are doing this it, we think there are genuine security issues. And 5G is very different form 3G, 4G. 3G and 4G, you are able to separate the peripheral parts from the central parts. 5G, that is not possible. In 5G if there is a penetration, if there is in fact a back door, its gonna infiltrate the whole system. So the proportionality of risk we think is very considerable.

Second thing we think, Huawei is after all very dependent on US technology. So it isn’t that there is some magical thing that Huawei has found that is not available elsewhere in the world. I believe that within a few years, there will be a Western alternative that leapfrogs in technology (over) Huawei. Since 5G is such a revolutionary thing, and it’s going to take quite a while to roll out anyway, our feeling is why jump into it. In most technology things, the first version of the product is not as good as the second and third and fourth version. So while we agree that 5G is important, we do think that there is a genuine security risk. And it is in isn’t just the risk on the front end. That there are constant upgrades, there are constant maintenance things. Every time there is an interaction with a vendor, there is a potential for a security issue to develop. So our concern is based on our desire to hope that our geo-political partner India does not inadvertently subject itself to untoward security risks. That’s the nature of our concern.

At the end of the day, obviously India has to make its own decisions. But our concerns are security, not protectionism

RK: Mr. Mittal, how real are these security concerns in your view?

SBM: Well, I think Secretary Ross has rightly pointed out that it’s an advisory from the US. Of course they will decide for America and I think they have already banned the use of Huawei in at least the government projects for possibly all I infer. In any case for decades, US network have not been buying Chinese equipment, whether ZTE or Huawei. They are relying mostly on Nokia or Ericsson. And now Samsung is coming in their space as well.  

Advisory is well taken from our point of view. I have tracked this industry for 25 years and I am not going into whether IP was compromised. Huawei has, over the last 10-12 years, has become extremely good with their product, to a point where I can safely say today their products, at least in 3G/4G that we have experienced, is significantly superior to Ericsson and Nokia, without a doubt, and I use all three of them. They have actually surprised me on how fast they have been able to take the technology curve to a level where its leading-edge, the power consumption is a fraction of the Europeans, the footprint is very small if you have to put it up on a tower, and there are very powerful leading features where you can split, slice, die the spectrum and use it in a variety of ways. They are clearly leading edge. Now whether they compromise on some American IPs, I don’t know.

And the second part is China will in the next 24-36 months become 100% free from any American components. That they have taken upon themselves as a mission for the country, that in all these high tech equipment they will not have any chipsets, components, active or passive, coming in from the US, because they know the leverage the US has on them is extreme. India will have to decide for themselves their relationship with China on a larger context. And India and China are big trade partners, they are neighbours, they have a huge populations to serve. And all I would say is India will take this advice carefully. But the decision will have to be taken politically.

RK: what’s your view – which side should we lean?

SBM: My view is that they should be allowed to play. I really feel they should be in play. India must use this as leverage. There’s lots of open issue with China as well. And India must take full advantage of that. Unlike opening it to many other western companies in our country, than having very little leverage. I would rather have this leverage because this is an important part. The benefit of American pushback has been that Huawei has now opened up its technology. They are offering it to an American company to take it over and develop on it based on a fee. I am sure they will do the same for an Indian company if a TCS or a Wipro or anybody else would like to manufacture those equipment here. They will gladly open it up. So one thing that they have done is opened up the Chinese technology for accessing back…

RK: So is that a solution? The management of Huawei now offering a full transfer of technology. They have offered it to US. Mittal say push hard enough and they will give it to you as well, given the size of your market.

PG: Well, I will say I will leave it to the concerned Minister. Ravi Shankar Prasad and his team are very competent and capable. Let them handle this issue. I have enough on my plate.  

Participants: Piyush Goyal, Minister of Commerce and Industry and Minister of Railways; Wilbur L. Ross, Secretary of Commerce, USA; Sunil Bharti Mittal, Bharti Enterprises; Rahul Kanwal, Anchor – India Today (Moderator);

RK: Mr. Mittal, The United States Government is pressing India hard not to take 5G technology form China, from Huawei. That’s one of the big thrust areas. As a key players in the segment and also from the perspective of India Inc, Sir, do you believe that this is an unfair bargain because the cost at which Huawei can sell India is much cheaper than what you would be buying from say Europeans or American companies. So how do you view America’s very stern pressure on it?

WR: First of all our concerns about Huawei has nothing to do with advancing the cause of American telecom equipment people. We do not have a direct competitor to Huawei. So the notion that our views on Huawei are a function of US protectionism is simply incorrect. There is no US competitor. There is big competitors are people like Ericsson and Nokia, not US. Now there may well have had some sort of US –European consortium, but anybody who thinks we are doing this out of protectionism simply does not know the facts. The reason we are doing this it, we think there are genuine security issues. And 5G is very different form 3G, 4G. 3G and 4G, you are able to separate the peripheral parts from the central parts. 5G, that is not possible. In 5G if there is a penetration, if there is in fact a back door, its gonna infiltrate the whole system. So the proportionality of risk we think is very considerable.

Second thing we think, Huawei is after all very dependent on US technology. So it isn’t that there is some magical thing that Huawei has found that is not available elsewhere in the world. I believe that within a few years, there will be a Western alternative that leapfrogs in technology (over) Huawei. Since 5G is such a revolutionary thing, and it’s going to take quite a while to roll out anyway, our feeling is why jump into it. In most technology things, the first version of the product is not as good as the second and third and fourth version. So while we agree that 5G is important, we do think that there is a genuine security risk. And it is in isn’t just the risk on the front end. That there are constant upgrades, there are constant maintenance things. Every time there is an interaction with a vendor, there is a potential for a security issue to develop. So our concern is based on our desire to hope that our geo-political partner India does not inadvertently subject itself to untoward security risks. That’s the nature of our concern.

At the end of the day, obviously India has to make its own decisions. But our concerns are security, not protectionism

RK: Mr. Mittal, how real are these security concerns in your view?

SBM: Well, I think Secretary Ross has rightly pointed out that it’s an advisory from the US. Of course they will decide for America and I think they have already banned the use of Huawei in at least the government projects for possibly all I infer. In any case for decades, US network have not been buying Chinese equipment, whether ZTE or Huawei. They are relying mostly on Nokia or Ericsson. And now Samsung is coming in their space as well.  

Advisory is well taken from our point of view. I have tracked this industry for 25 years and I am not going into whether IP was compromised. Huawei has, over the last 10-12 years, has become extremely good with their product, to a point where I can safely say today their products, at least in 3G/4G that we have experienced, is significantly superior to Ericsson and Nokia, without a doubt, and I use all three of them. They have actually surprised me on how fast they have been able to take the technology curve to a level where its leading-edge, the power consumption is a fraction of the Europeans, the footprint is very small if you have to put it up on a tower, and there are very powerful leading features where you can split, slice, die the spectrum and use it in a variety of ways. They are clearly leading edge. Now whether they compromise on some American IPs, I don’t know.

And the second part is China will in the next 24-36 months become 100% free from any American components. That they have taken upon themselves as a mission for the country, that in all these high tech equipment they will not have any chipsets, components, active or passive, coming in from the US, because they know the leverage the US has on them is extreme. India will have to decide for themselves their relationship with China on a larger context. And India and China are big trade partners, they are neighbours, they have a huge populations to serve. And all I would say is India will take this advice carefully. But the decision will have to be taken politically.

RK: what’s your view – which side should we lean?

SBM: My view is that they should be allowed to play. I really feel they should be in play. India must use this as leverage. There’s lots of open issue with China as well. And India must take full advantage of that. Unlike opening it to many other western companies in our country, than having very little leverage. I would rather have this leverage because this is an important part. The benefit of American pushback has been that Huawei has now opened up its technology. They are offering it to an American company to take it over and develop on it based on a fee. I am sure they will do the same for an Indian company if a TCS or a Wipro or anybody else would like to manufacture those equipment here. They will gladly open it up. So one thing that they have done is opened up the Chinese technology for accessing back…

RK: So is that a solution? The management of Huawei now offering a full transfer of technology. They have offered it to US. Mittal say push hard enough and they will give it to you as well, given the size of your market.

PG: Well, I will say I will leave it to the concerned Minister. Ravi Shankar Prasad and his team are very competent and capable. Let them handle this issue. I have enough on my plate.