There is some irony in the Johnson government agreeing a limited involvement of Huawei in Britain’s 5G network (Editorial, 29 January). Without it Britain’s telecoms network would lag behind others, with an impact on the country’s industrial infrastructure.
What are the origins of the crisis? These lie with Johnson’s predecessor Margaret Thatcher, whose governments laid waste to a good deal of British industry, preferring a financial model of profit making, and privatised many public utilities – in this case telecoms, where a case for national investment should have been made. Johnson is now reaping what his predecessor sowed.
• So, the UK government acknowledges the cabinet is “clear-eyed” that Huawei is a “high-risk vendor” with links to the Chinese state, yet it is still allowed to be involved in the building of part of our communications infrastructure. This at a time when the global expansionist aspirations of the Chinese government are well documented (Johnson faces Tory rebellion after allowing Huawei 5G role, 29 January).
How can this possibly be justified on any rational geopolitical basis? Or am I missing something too inscrutable for the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus to understand?
• So Huawei is to be involved in the 5G roll out, allegedly throughout the UK. Here, we’d be happy to have any kind of G, being mobile signal-free as we are. While they’re at it, an improvement on our 1.6MB internet speed would be welcome, as would being able to get the full range of Freeview channels enjoyed by nearly all but not us. Talk about the left-behind, we’re a perfect example.
Neath, West Glamorgan
• Join the debate – email email@example.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition