Best Argument: No
Audience Favored: No (79%)
America needs strong competition
While the government could do more to police the requirements for and use of telecom infrastructure, it is up to individuals and companies to take responsibility too. And that means spending time and money - which no one wants to do - to achieve a goal whose returns are difficult to quantify while they impact quarterly results today. How much value does Wall Street place on security spending? Zip, that's what.
Which is why we need a muscular government role in ensuring security. We need a set of ground rules that all competitors have to play by. Will the government do a perfect job? Of course not. But they'll do a better job than individual companies will, just as the FAA has given us much safer airplanes and the FDA has given us safer drugs.
Telecom is now at least as important as airplanes and drugs and deserves the same attention.
No reason to take a chance
Let this be a caution to other predatory companies and nations throughout the world. We welcome competing with international suppliers in the open market based on product and service quality. But if we catch you attempting to harm or spy on our citizens, our industries, or our government facilities, we will respond with all due speed and unity.
And the winner is...
Overall, these rebuttals may have been among our best yet. Robin and David both made points reflecting their sides, but also noted how politics, technology and infrastructure sometimes clash. I think the bottom line is that David's arguments won largely because there's enough Huawei uncertainty to warrant caution. In IT, there's a saying that you'll never get fired for buying IBM, Cisco and other large vendors.
Huawei will have to land some big U.S. accounts then get those customers to evangelize. Huawei may very well be a political punching bag, but IT buyers will ultimately decide whether it makes it in the U.S.