After British operators said that the plan to dismantle Huawei's 5G equipment will have to be delayed for half a year, local small operators in the United States also said that if the FCC does not give a subsidy of $5.6 billion, they will not be able to replace Huawei's equipment with equipment from other equipment manufacturers, which shows that the current plan in Europe and the United States to replace Huawei with equipment manufacturers such as Ericsson and Nokia is almost bankrupt.
For British operators, who have previously adopted Huawei equipment, they have proved that Huawei's equipment is stable enough and the cost is low, and Huawei's efficient service has also convinced them, and now they have dismantled Huawei's equipment at their request, but they find that Ericsson and Nokia simply cannot provide high-quality and thoughtful services like Huawei.
To this end, the United Kingdom even sent personnel to investigate Huawei's equipment in depth, the results proved that Huawei's equipment has no security problems, which makes the British operators slow down the pace of dismantling Huawei equipment, may be the British operators waiting for changes, hoping that at that time there is no need to dismantle Huawei's equipment, after all, it takes too much cost to do so.
For local small operators in the United States, they have previously adopted Huawei's equipment because Huawei's equipment is cheap and reliable, so the cost has been greatly reduced, which is too important for these weak operators, after all, they have small profits, and they cannot be compared with several major operators in the United States such as Verizon, which is rich and powerful, precisely because Huawei's equipment has advantages, so although Huawei has not been able to officially enter the US market before, But small local carriers in the United States have adopted Huawei's equipment in other ways.
In order to prompt local small operators in the United States to dismantle Huawei's equipment, the U.S. FCC proposed a $1.9 billion subsidy plan, but after spending a lot of time to get approved, they found that $1.9 billion was simply not enough to achieve the replacement plan, because the local small operators used too many Huawei equipment, subsidies need to be increased to $5.6 billion, such a huge subsidy will inevitably be a lot of time, and the time is not known how long.
The above-mentioned operators' practices are enough to show the strong competitiveness of Huawei's equipment in the market, after all, Huawei's entry into the European and American markets is entirely based on its own competitive advantage.
When Huawei entered the European market, Alcatel, Ericsson, Lucent, Nokia-Siemens, etc. occupied most of the market, European operators were generally reluctant to give Huawei the opportunity to enter the new equipment business, and then a small operator put forward a request, that is, Huawei helped develop distributed base stations to help it achieve low-cost deployment of mobile communication networks, Huawei took over and established a reliable network for it.
Then many operators in Europe recognized the advantages of Huawei's distributed base stations, so Huawei quickly opened up the situation in the European market, after Huawei occupied an advantage in the European market, a number of communication equipment manufacturers faced poor management, Alcatel chose to merge with Lucent, Nokia-Siemens became Nokia, and later Alcatel-Lucent was acquired by Nokia, and the market share of Nokia after the merger is still only half of Huawei's market share.
Nowadays, the operators in the United Kingdom and the United States have once again proved that Huawei's equipment is not that they do not want to use the equipment of Equipment Manufacturers such as Ericsson and Nokia, but their prices are too high, and the daily operating costs are also higher than Huawei, resulting in these operators not willing to easily abandon Huawei's equipment, and they have chosen to drag the word.
Compared with operators considering their own economic costs, their practice of forcibly requiring the dismantling of Huawei equipment without considering the economic situation is obviously out of touch with reality, resulting in their estimated demolition costs being much lower than expected, and only when they really push forward did they find that Huawei's equipment was so widely used that they greatly underestimated huawei's equipment competitiveness and are now caught in a dilemma.