Re: US ban is little to do with security
Here's a useful guide to stop you just imagining:
There are other 5G patent portfolios indicating Huawei and other Chinese organisations have around 50%--60% of the portfolio - while true, I believe Ericsson's view of patents is likely to be more representative of key patents that will either be licensed or covered by industry standards and FRAND licenses.
As you can see, the majority of patents fall to the EU/South Korea/China.
While Qualcomm have patents for the US, many are on the handset side and not critical for 5G infrastructure - they will get a portion of FRAND standards (based on this being one of their historical strengths) for infrastructure, but the vast majority of Qualcomms 3G/4G patent revenue comes from handsets and selling chipsets with necessary patents bundled. Because of their dependence on infrastructure to support handsets, Qualcomm are penalised from 5G infrastructure being delayed. Intel also have some patents related to 5G infrastructure but there are questions about the usefulness of these if Intel are unable to produce working components utilising these patents.
Your comments around FRAND miss the point about still having to pay for use - a company contributing to the FRAND patent portfolio gets a share of the FRAND revenue which is effectively a (significant) discount versus competitors with no FRAND patents. Effectively that means the game is weighted towards Ericsson/Huawei/Nokia/Samsung/ZTE - which is why they are predicted to account for around 95+% of the 5G infrastructure market.
Cisco aren't in the 5G game unless they decide to buy Ericsson (rumoured but unlikely...)