Yes, I said that, and that would mean "The fact that Germany has bad internet is completely unrelated to the manufacturers of equipment that German telcos use."

OP said: > > No one would hesitate to use German communication infrastructure > Maybe they would hesitate to use it because it's embarrassingly bad.

My intention was to note that the fact that German communication infrastructure is bad is not related at all to the manufacturer of ICT equipment, in the context of the quality of German (and European - in general) telco equipment manufacturers.

If Germany has bad infrastructure, and uses XYZ European ICT equipment manufacturer, this cannot be extrapolated to mean that XYZ is bad at making ICT equipment. The same applies to Huawei. The fact that some countries have good or bad infrastructure is not related to what equipment they use (at this point in time).

The end result being that quality of telco infrastructure is not an argument for or against any particular maker of equipment, because those two things are unrelated.

Any to underline why they are unrelated - simply because ISPs are profit-driven businesses and not tech playgrounds, so they will not invest in the latest and greatest equipment that XYZ/Huawei has to offer, instead they will milk the existing equipment and infrastructure dry and then switch to the cheapest new next-gen-access "thing" that exists for the next 20+ years. This does not mean that XYZ/Huawei doesn't have anything better to offer, it just means that the telcos do not want it.