Last week President Klaus Iohannis promulgated the so-called “anti-Huawei 5G law”, which marked the end of a rather long but also rather technical process. Romanian Dispatch spoke with Tiberiu Gîndu, Executive Director of the National Association of Internet Providers in Romania (ANISP).
What has been dubbed the “5G law” is really the “5G security law”, isn’t it?
Gîndu: Yes. The official name is “Law 163/2021 on adopting measures regarding national-interest level ICT infrastructures and conditions for 5G networks implementation” and its first article states: “The purpose of this law is to adopt measures for authorising manufacturers of technologies, equipment and software used in information and communication infrastructures of national interest, as well as used in electronic communications networks through which 5G services are provided, hereinafter referred to as 5G networks, in order to prevent, counter and eliminate risks, threats and vulnerabilities to national security and defense”.
Technical versus political considerations? Romania, being a loyal US ally, already indicated in 2019 that it would ban Huawei…
Gîndu: Some manufacturers, including members of ANISP, do insist on a pure technical regulation. The association as a whole did not express a point of view on this topic. ANISP’s position was focused on maintaining a competitive market as excluding certain manufacturers can alter competition, hence pricing and quality. We also wanted to avoid that 5G mix technologies that are not necessary to regulate were included in the law. And avoid unnecessary bureaucracy.
What are the consequences of the law? For infrastructure, companies, consumers?
Gîndu: The consequence of the law should be increased national-interest level networks security, but this comes at a cost. Such costs might include a less competitive market (e.g. higher costs for future 5G deployments). But also costs for operators — for replacing the non-compliant equipment, at the end of the grace period (5 or 7 years, respectively). And increased bureaucracy, that is, new barriers in developing electronic communications networks.
All the above might increase the costs borne by electronic communications providers, which – if such an increase shall happen – will obviously be transferred to the consumers, to the end users. I underline “might”, since there is no certainty at this point if such will happen and/or to what extent it will happen.
How does Romania compare with other countries?
Gîndu: I am not very sure of each country position in such respect. However, an ANISP member pointed to Germany and Finland as examples of pure-technical security regulation. It seems the eastern-most countries of the E.U. (also NATO members) are more likely to align their policy to that of the United States, as the U.S. are perceived as providing the real security guarantees. Meantime, countries in the West or in the middle of the continent – feeling secure enough from a military standpoint and having significant economic interests in areas which might be excluded as communication equipment providers if legal and/or political criteria are taken into consideration – tend to focus only on technical criteria.