Sunday, May 30, 2021

Competing against China

Hating China has become de rigueur in today’s America. Everyone is on the train. Some people are so agitated that you would imagine that they want us to invade Shanghai. And everyone believes that since China is evil, we will inevitably win out in the civilizational clash with China. 

Obviously, the Biden administration has decided that the best way to compete is to spend the country into bankruptcy. And to train our children in anti-racist woke ideology. As everyone with a lick of sense knows, our social justice warriors will never compete against armies of computer engineers. One notes that the American children who can compete against their Asian peers are invariably Asian-Americans. Obviously, the educational establishment is trying to dumb them down, to what end, God only knows.


Then again, we have democracy and democracy is the most superior form of government. And yet, when democracy produces leaders like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you should not be too surprised to see that countries around the world are not emulating the American example. For reasons that remain mysterious they do not want their countries to be run by bug-eyed buffoons. Go figure.


Among those who assesses the facts on the ground is David Goldman. Writing in the Asia Times Goldman occasionally tries to shed the light of reason on the current state of play in the latest clash of civilizations. 


You may know that I have no expertise whatever in 5G technology or the future of semiconductors, but Goldman does. I find his analysis to ring true, especially since the tone is so contrary to the ranting that more often passes for discourse in our declining republic.


You will recall that the Trump administration slapped sanctions on Chinese companies. They want to put those companies out of business. They had the chief financial officer of China’s largest company, Huawei, arrested in Canada. They imposed tariffs and so on, the better to punish China. And then they wonder why China is not more cooperative or why it is forging a closer alliance with Iran.


Anyway, here is Goldman’s assessment of the state of play in 5G:


Chinese manufacturers have installed about 5,000 private 5G networks and will add tens of thousands more this year as 5G broadband enables Fourth Industrial Revolution applications, according to mainland industry leaders.


China already has 70% of the world’s installed 5G base stations and 80% of the world’s 5G smartphone users.


The global chip shortage and US sanctions against Chinese telecom equipment firms such as Huawei and ZTE have slowed China’s 5G buildout to some extent but 5G infrastructure already covers all of China’s major cities. 


China will add between 500,000 to 800,000 new 5G base stations to the 792,000 in place at the end of February, according to industry sources. 5G’s impact on productivity as well as profitability will come from downstream applications, not the network buildout as such. 


“It doesn’t make any sense for the West to pour billions of dollars into alternatives to China’s 5G technology,” one Chinese executive told Asia Times.


“It’s too little too late, and it focuses on the wrong areas. Trying to invent an alternative ecosystem isn’t going to work. I would have expected the United States to say, ‘Let’s transform industry, let’s be more competitive.’


If you are like me, the only thing you know about semiconductors is that there is a worldwide shortage. This is impeding manufacturing and industry. As for the nitty gritty of the problem, Goldman explains aspects of the semiconductor war that others more often ignore:


The speed of further 5G buildout will depend in part on China’s ability to manufacture chips with transistor gateways of 28 nanometers or less, according to a semiconductor industrial executive. Most observers believe that China has mastered 28 nanometer process node production and will be able to fabricate most of its own requirements by the end of 2021.


To emphasize, the end of 2021 is merely a few months away.


Media attention has focused on the newest chips with gateways of 7 nanometers or less, which power high-end smartphones, crypto mining workstations and other high-powered devices. But the workhorse of semiconductor applications is the previous generation of chips in the 14 to 28 nanometer range, which will provide the bulk of chip demand during the next five years, especially for wireless connectivity.


Although US carriers offer what they call 5G service, the American version provides download speeds barely above the older-generation 4G LTE broadband, at around 60 mbits/second. The average speed in China is five times higher, at over 300 mbits/second.


In other words, what passes for 5G in America is vastly slower than what is already installed in China. Put that one in your pipe, and puff on it.


Consider the practical consequences. Consider them in terms of the current supply chain disruptions, in large part a function of the fact that our major ports, especially on the West Coast, are not at all as automated as Shanghai. The latter is run by robots, controlled by a 5G network. Our ports are far slower-- about a fifth as efficient, but then again, they have unionized workers, all of whom will never allow the ports to be automated, their jobs replaced by robots. Obviously, the Biden administration will never invest in such infrastructure:


Private networks support industrial robotics as well as “smart” logistics, including automation of major ports. A 5G network supports the automation of the Shanghai Port, which handles 44 million containers per year, compared to 8 million containers at America’s largest facility in Long Beach, California, where more than twenty ships are waiting offshore to unload.


China opened its first 5G-enabled fully-automated port a year ago in Xiamen, with automated cranes stacking containers on driverless trucks. Shanghai’s Yangshan port began fully automated, 24-hour operations in August 2020.


It’s not just ports.


In late 2020, Shandong Energy Group began operations at an automated coal mine controlled by a 5G network. 


Automated warehouses, autonomous vehicles and drones promise to transform e-commerce, with firms like Alibaba and JD Logistics offering same or next-day delivery from computer-controlled storage facilities where packages are sorted and sent by drones or autonomous vehicles.


JD Logistics’ $3.2 billion IPO launched in Hong Kong this week, promising a new level of productivity in delivery. JD still depends on 200,000 delivery personnel but its warehouse management makes Amazon look primitive.


By contrast, Western companies are still evaluating whether they should install private 5G networks to support factory automation, according to a 2020 report by the Capgemini Research Institute. Some German companies, including Audi and BASF, are testing private networks.


In May 2021, Ericsson installed a private network for Airbus, Europe’s premier manufacturer of civilian aircraft, but the network will run on 4G until the 5G network is launched next year. In Silicon Valley, Hitachi and Ericsson have built a 5G research network.


With few exceptions, Western investment in enterprise 5G networks is tentative and experimental, while China’s factories, mines and ports have put 5G into full operation.


Goldman concludes:


The critical difference between 5G and older broadband isn’t speed, but rather carrying capacity and latency (speed of response). Industrial operations require near-instant response time among machines controlled by the network, and 5G, which reduces response time by a factor of ten, opens up possibilities for industrial automation that formerly were unimaginable. 


If you still believe that diversity is our strength and that we are going to compete more effectively by being more inclusive and more democratic… I have a bridge to sell you.

7 comments:

David Foster said...

"The critical difference between 5G and older broadband isn’t speed, but rather carrying capacity and latency (speed of response)"...not sure what this sentence is supposed to be saying. "Speed" in a communications context generally MEANS carrying capacity (bandwidth) and latency. What else would the term mean?

"Industrial operations require near-instant response time among machines controlled by the network, and 5G, which reduces response time by a factor of ten, opens up possibilities for industrial automation that formerly were unimaginable." An industrial operation may require near-instant response, but this is generally better done via computing resources located IN the machine itself, or adjacent to it. For example, a CNC machine tool needs very fast response from its controller, or the cutting tool will go astray...but the controller is built into the machine itself. Network connection is needed for download of files to make different parts, and perhaps upload of maintenance and performance data, but these don't have the same latency demands as do the instant-by-instant machine operations.

Similarly, an inspection robot (looks at parts for defects and removes them from the line if they are bad) may need considerable computing capacity to do the defect-recognition, but what would you want this capacity to be 2000 feet away or 2000 miles ,away via a network, versus much physically closer? You'll want a network connection for download of part-specification changes and for upload of statistics, but, again, this doesn't have particularly stringent latency demands.

Useful piece from IBM here:

https://developer.ibm.com/depmodels/edge-computing/articles/edge-computing-vs-5g-are-they-the-same-thing/


David Foster said...

Goldman mentions ports. Here's an interesting video on the automation that now exists at the Port of Virginia:

https://www.porttechnology.org/news/made_in_virginia_crane_automation_for_ports_and_terminals/

Freddo said...

Focusing on 5G is a red herring. IMO G5 and its cousin 4K television are mostly an attempt to force the consumer into another planned obsolescence upgrade cycle. But Intel isn't failing its current node shrink because it lacks a 5G network; it is because the best minds are attracted to the large salaries in software engineering, and Intel is poisoning its own well by being fully committed to woke diversity instead of engineering excellence.
Pretending that all degrees are equally valid has saddled the west with an enormous excess of unproductive graduates that are leeching on the public sector. It is not China's fault that IC manufacturing has fled the west; try overly restrictive green industrial policies, powerful unions (esp. in Europe) and corporations opting for low-cost, low-tax environments.

China is chasing an industrial policy where it presents itself as the manufacturer of choice, trying to move up the value chain, while the industrial policy of the West is to get rid of all industry in favor of windmills, solar panels and Youtube cat videos.
China is certainly not playing nice, with vast IP theft, but only Trump was willing to call them out on it. And to some extend I think China could make a case that it had no hand in shaping the current IP laws, and its size makes it possible to not be bullied into accepting the rules of the Davos elite by default.

Sam L. said...

I don't hate China, but I surely do not trust China. Russia, too.

Jeff Brokaw said...

Fascinating stuff — I’ve been trying to understand the hype around 5G and finally it is starting to make sense.

Anonymous said...

But....the reason China i in the position they are, is the same reason corporations such as google are there --- they got the position by stealing intellectual property from others. They know that others will either have no recourse at all or will have to spend millions (impossible for a citizen with a patent or intellectual property to match Big Tech in hiring expensive law firms) to try to protect themselves.

For that reason, PDT took action against China-- the first president we've had brave enough to do so...If he hadn't, it's doubtful that the four years of hellish punishment for him and his supporters -- or the Big Steal -- would have happened at all. Now, of course, globalism is back on track --- the DS is continuing what BO started, with the DC swamp's full cooperation.

It is not that China acts this way because of Trump, it's that Trump took action because of what the CCP was doing to America. If our policy had been from the start, America First (and let others do the same), China never would have been in the position they're in. So we can't go blaming Trump because the Bidens, Ryans, McConnells, Pelosis, and all the rest would rather China benefit (because they don't have to follow rules because of some racist Constitution) than the U.S.

He has the right idea -- and the American people, do, too. It's that we're all under the thumb of the technocracy -- which is our real enemy, not another sovereign nation. China is the model they are using; the idea is to impose their culture on the rest of us. Fighting back is certainly called for and long overdue, not a foolish foreign policy.

We should be commending those fighting for the sovereignty and superiority of our system, not blaming them for China's usual unjust means of "bettering themselves" on the backs of other countries that DO have civil rights -- and frown upon slave labor and authoritarian rule.

Anonymous said...

Heh, just wanted to mention that I wrote the above comment BEFORE reading the one talking about Trump and Davos...

Great minds...