The Huawei IEEE Scandal: Is Huawei a Buccaneer or a Privateer?
- Marta Beckwith
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
The IEEE is a consensus organization “dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.”[1] And that is how Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) started: with a bunch of dreamers and idealists who wanted to create new technology to make everyone’s life easier. They worked under a set of rules that allowed every individual who came to enough meetings to vote on proposals and required that each of these individuals vote their conscience, rather than voting in a block to protect the interest of their employer. That worked reasonably well back in the old days when Wi-Fi was just starting, cellular technology was floundering in a sea of competing technologies, and IoT was only a futuristic dream. But, as Wi-Fi has become ubiquitous, cellular has become a booming business, and IoT the next big thing, certain companies have aligned to hijack standards promulgated by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) — especially the Wi-Fi standard — for their own gain.
I have been writing about the problems at the IEEE for what seems like a long time now.[2] The latest issue is yet another scandal involving Huawei. At one time, Huawei’s participation in the IEEE was suspended as part of the sanctions against Huawei. But, the ban on Huawei’s participation in the IEEE was lifted over five years ago. Since then, Huawei has sent ever increasing numbers of people to 802.11 meetings, dwarfing the size of all other delegations. Huawei holds the Vice-Chair of the Wi-Fi/802.11 working group and holds a Member-at-Large position, and through its subsidiary Futurewei is the Chair, of the IEEE Standard Associations’ Board of Governors.
Huawei’s large delegation has given it the ability to veto any proposal made by other companies in the 802.11 working group. Perhaps that is how Huawei has became, at least by some counts, the largest patent holder of WiFi 6 SEPs.
And now, a Huawei employee has admitted that Huawei’s numbers include unqualified individuals that are participating in a scheme that could be perceived as “’stuffing the ballot box’ in group voting.”[3] In other words, Huawei came to have a delegation larger than any other company’s through improper and unethical means. Not only are they sending unqualified individuals to “stuff the ballot box,” these individuals are misrepresenting themselves to the other 802.11 working group participants in order to keep attending and voting.
Traditionally, a buccaneer operated lawlessly on their own behalf, hijacking and attacking others for their own personal gain. On the other hand, a privateer had permission and encouragement from their own government to hijack and attack people and entities from other countries.
So is Huawei a buccaneer or a privateer? There have long been suspicions that Huawei is a quasi-Chinese government actor. That is one of the reasons Huawei products were originally banned in the U.S. and Europe. Is Huawei’s ballot stuffing and patent domination of the Wi-Fi 6 standard part of a Chinese plan to hijack the Wi-Fi standard? Or is it a scheme by Huawei alone to dominate two of the world’s largest telecommunications standards (recall they are also the largest 5G SEP holder)?
Whether Huawei is a buccaneer or a privateer, it is plain there are a lot of pirates operating in the IEEE. As previously discussed, Huawei is not the only one. The IEEE’s voting rules allow one vote to every participant who attends a few meetings. The one person - one vote rule was created under the concept that each individual would vote their conscience, rather than as a block in their employer's sole interest. This rule was born out of idealism and geared to a different world order. Unfortunately, it no longer serves its intended function. It is high time that there be a limit on the number of voting members that a single company (and its affiliates) can have.
We do not get a better standard, or increased adoption of that standard, by allowing vote packing by one company or by allowing companies to have an ever-increasing number of voters at each meeting. We do not get a better standard, or increased adoption, by allowing the Nordic — or other — companies to continue to participate in the development of the Wi-Fi standard without requiring them to give positive letters of assurance for their contributions. Nor does it serve humanity's, or the IEEE's needs, to allow pirates to control the IEEE-SA's standardization process by letting them sit on the Board of Governors.
It is high time to stop allowing a handful of companies to hijack one of the world’s most important standards: the behavior of these companies needs to be addressed, and IEEE’s rules need to be reformed to deal with these pirates.
[2] See my series Convergence and Competition Parts 1-6, Convergence and Competition – A Tale of Two Standards Part 1 (the Early Years: Peaceful Co-Existence), Convergence and Competition – A Tale of Two Standards Part 2 (Convergence of Functionality – the Middle Years), Convergence and Competition – A Tale of Two Standards Part 3 (The IoT Market), Convergence and Competition - A Tale of Two Standards Part 4 - Guest Post by Andrew Myles, Convergence and Competition - A Tale of Two Standards Part 5: Huawei and The ISO Holdouts: The "Nordic Companies" and Wi-Fi (Part 6 in Convergence and Competition – A Tale of Two Standards).