We Have No Reason to Believe That Densified 4G + 5G Is Safe

By Joel M. Moskowitz on Oct 17, 2019 | Original Scientific American Opinion piece here.

Densified 4G + 5G technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks.

The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the negative health consequences of cell phone radiation of "fear mongering" over the advent of wireless industry’s push for Densified 4G + 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the RF-EMR exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to acute RF-EMR exposures.

The FCC adopted these RF-EMR exposure limits based largely on research from the 1980s. Since then, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or negative health consequences from RF-EMR exposures at intensities are too low to cause heating of tissue.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) [and RF-EMR exposures] signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

The FCC’s RF-EMR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of RF-EMR exposures — the modulation which packs data onto the carrier waves. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential factors. Moreover, the FCC’s RF-EMR exposure limits should be based on a biological effectnot on a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to mobile communications RF-EMR exposures increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.

Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RF-EMR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RF-EMR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RF-EMR in the near future.

Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on negative health consequences from RF-EMR exposures, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time, in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave RF-EMR exposures. 5G also employs new technologies such as active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays, and massive inputs and outputs (known as MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

Millimeter waves (30,000 MHz to 300,000 MHz) are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on the negative health consequences of 5G RF-EMR exposures, so we are “flying blind” to quote U.S. Senator Blumenthal (D-CT). However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known about the effects of RF-EMR exposures to 4G — a 10-year-old technology — because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RF-EMR, our overall risk of harm from RF-EMR exposures may increase substantially. Cancer is not the o nly risk as there is considerable evidence that RF-EMR exposures cause neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.

As a society, should we really invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of Densified 4G + 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had more than two million page views since 2013. He is an unpaid advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal and Physicians for Safe Technology.

Planetary Electromagnetic Pollution: It is Time to Assess its Impact

By Priyanka Bandara and David O Carpenter | Original Lancet here.

As the Planetary Health Alliance moves forward after a productive second annual meeting, a discussion on the rapid global proliferation of artificial electromagnetic fields would now be apt. The most notable is the blanket of radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation, largely microwave radiation generated for wireless communication and surveillance technologies, as mounting scientific evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation has serious biological and health effects.

However, public exposure regulations in most countries continue to be based on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection1 and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.2 which were established in the 1990’s on the belief that only acute thermal effects are hazardous. Prevention of tissue heating by radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation is now proven to be ineffective in preventing biochemical and physiological interference. For example, acute non-thermal exposure has been shown to alter human brain metabolism by NIH scientists,3 electrical activity in the brain,4 and systemic immune responses.5

Chronic exposure has been associated with increased oxidative stress and DNA damage 6 7 and cancer risk.8 Laboratory studies, including large rodent studies by the US National Toxicology Program9 and Ramazzini Institute of Italy,10 confirm these biological and health effects in vivo. As we address the threats to human health from the changing environmental conditions due to human activity,11 the increasing exposure to artificial electromagnetic radiation needs to be included in this discussion.

Due to the exponential increase in the use of wireless personal communication devices (eg. mobile or cordless phones and Wi-Fi or Bluetooth-enabled devices) and the infrastructure facilitating them, levels of exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation around the 1 GHz frequency band, which is mostly used for modern wireless communications, have increased from extremely low natural levels by about 1018 times.

Radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation is also used for radar, security scanners, smart meters, and medical equipment (MRI, diathermy, and radio-frequency ablation). It is plausibly the most rapidly increasing anthropogenic environmental exposure since the mid-20th century, and levels will surge considerably again, as technologies like the Internet of Things and 5G add millions more radio-frequency transmitters around us.12 13

Unprecedented human exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation from conception until death has been occurring in the past two decades. Evidence of its effects on the CNS, including altered neurodevelopment14 and increased risk of some neurodegenerative diseases15 is a major concern considering the steady increase in their incidence. Evidence exists for an association between neurodevelopmental or behavioral disorders in children and exposure to wireless devices and experimental evidence, such as the Yale finding, shows that prenatal exposure could cause structural and functional changes in the brain associated with ADHD-like behaviour.16

These findings deserve urgent attention.

At the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, this weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim** that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks** at the currently permitted non-thermal radio-frequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal.

Evidence also exists of the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on flora and fauna. For example, the reported global reduction in bees and other insects is plausibly linked to the increased radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation in the environment.17 Honeybees are among the species that use magnetoreception, which is sensitive to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields, for navigation.

Man-made electromagnetic fields range from extremely low frequency (associated with electricity supplies and electrical appliances) to low, medium, high, and extremely high frequency (mostly associated with wireless communication). The potential effects of these anthropogenic electromagnetic fields on natural electromagnetic fields, such as the Schumann Resonance that controls the weather and climate, have not been properly studied. Similarly, we do not adequately understand the effects of anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on other natural and man-made atmospheric components or the ionosphere. It has been widely claimed that radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation, being non-ionising radiation, does not possess enough photon energy to cause DNA damage.

This has now been proven wrong experimentally. 18 19

Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation causes DNA damage apparently through oxidative stress similar to near-UV radiation, which was also long thought to be harmless. At a time when environmental health scientists tackle serious global issues such as climate change and chemical toxicants in public health, there is an urgent need to address so-called electrosmog. A genuine evidence-based approach to the risk assessment and regulation of anthropogenic electromagnetic fields will help the health of us all, as well as that of our planetary home. Some government health authorities have recently taken steps to reduce public exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation by regulating use of wireless devices by children and recommending preferential use of wired communication devices in general, but this ought to be a coordinated international effort.

We declare no competing interests. We thank Alasdair Philips for assistance with the figure and Victor Leach and Steve Weller for assistance with the ORSAA Database, which has enabled our overview of the scientific evidence in this area of research.

References


  1. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. ICNIRP guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields (up to 300 GHz). Health Phys. 1998; 74: 494-522 

  2. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE C95.7-2014—IEEE recommended practice for radio frequency safety programs, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. IEEE Standards Association, 2014 https://standards.ieee.org/standard/C95_7-2014.html 

  3. Volkow ND, Tomasi D, Wang GJ et al. Effects of cell phone radiofrequency signal exposure on brain glucose metabolism. JAMA. 2011; 305: 808-813 

  4. Schmid MR, Loughran SP, Regel SJ et al. Sleep EEG alterations: effects of different pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields. J Sleep Res. 2012; 21: 50-58 

  5. Kimata H Microwave radiation from cellular phones increases allergen-specific IgE production. Allergy. 2005; 60:838-839 

  6. Zothansiama, Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagn Biol Med. 2017; 36:295-305 

  7. Bandara P, Weller S Biological effects of low-intensity radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation—time for a paradigm shift in regulation of public exposure. Radiat Protect Australas. 2017; 34: 2-6 

  8. Carlberg M, Hardell L Evaluation of mobile phone and cordless phone use and glioma risk using the bradford hill viewpoints from 1965 on association or causation.Biomed Res Int. 2017; 2017: 9218486 

  9. Cell phone radio frequency radiation. National Toxicology Program, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2018 https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html 

  10. Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E et al. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8GHz GSM base station environmental emission.Environ Res. 2018; 165:496-503 

  11. Myers SS, Planetary health: protecting human health on a rapidly changing planet. Lancet. 2018; 390:2860-2868 

  12. Philips A, Lamburn G, Natural and human-activity-generated electromagnetic fields on Earth.Childhood Cancer. 2012; (London; April 24–26, 2012.) 

  13. Raines JK, NASA-CR-166661. Electromagnetic field interactions with the human body: observed effects and theories. NASA Technical Reports Server. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810017132.pdf 

  14. Divan HA, Kheifets L, Obel C, Olsen J Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children. Epidemiology. 2008; 19: 523-529 

  15. Zhang X, Huang WJ, Chen WW, Microwaves and Alzheimer’s disease. Exp Ther Med. 2016; 12: 1969-1972 

  16. Aldad TS, Gan G, Gao XB, Taylor HS Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800–1900 mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Sci Rep. 2012; 2:312 

  17. Taye RR, Deka MK, Rahman A, Bathari M, Effect of electromagnetic radiation of cell phone tower on foraging behaviour of Asiatic honey bee, Apis cerana F. (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J Entomol Zool Stud. 2017; 5:1527-1529 

  18. Smith-Roe SL, Wyde ME, Stout MD, et al. Evaluation of the genotoxicity of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in male and female rats and mice following subchronic exposure. Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics Society Annual Conference; Raleigh, NC, USA; Sept 9–13, 2017. 

  19. Ruediger HW, Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Pathophysiology. 2009; 16:89-102 

Palm Drive Hospital District Residents Claim Tower Outputs Too Much Power

By Andrew Pardiac, Managing Editor, Andrew@sonomawest.com Oct 16, 2019 | Original Sonoma West Times article here.

View of AT&T/Crown Castle Cell Tower from the hospital parking lot.


cell.jpg

Cell tower near Petaluma Avenue Homes has been the focus of health allegations from residents.

Cell Tower Controversy

The Palm Drive Health Care District heard from a slew of residents of Petaluma Avenue Homes, a complex located adjacent to Sonoma Specialty Hospital (SSH). Their grievance: electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) coming from a cell tower owned by Crown Castle and used by AT&T, on the hospital’s campus.

The residents lined up during public comment on non-agenda items at the district’s Oct. 7 meeting at SSH.

Those who spoke wanted the tower either removed or raised. Raising the tower was a suggestion to keep the second- and third-story homes out of the direct line of EMF radiation as they claimed it currently is.

The residents said the tower was responsible for a number of health issues in the complex, from child depression to a 16-pound tumor associated with ovarian cancer.

Residents of Petaluma Avenue Homes have addressed this issue before, including at a Sebastopol City Council meeting Dec. 4, 2018. During that meeting, council said it had no jurisdiction on the matter beyond the use permit, which it had no legal reason to deny. However, council members were willing to try a “good neighbor” approach.

The council made a motion to send a letter to the health care district asking for specific mitigation measures. The changes requested include moving the cell tower 1,500 feet away from apartments and/or raising it 150 feet. The letter also requests that the cell tower be powered off while the process is taking place.

City council had also heard from AT&T and Crown Castle, which both stated the radiation levels were in the acceptable parameters.

. . . but acceptable to who?

The public noted that the cell tower had not been shut off and that there was no remediation taking place. A few also questioned whether the acceptable levels of pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) radiation were being transmitted.

A couple did note that the hospital, now exiting its second bankruptcy, likely needs the cash, and were sympathetic to the need for funds, one saying, “You have some hard choices here.”

Cell phone towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) base stations, are listed as non-ionizing radiation.

Other Non-Agenda Matters

The only other non-agenda comment was from former director Jim Horn, who updated the board on his pursuit of any potential liability the district may have in relation to the Durall drug test scandal that is being investigated in Florida. Durall had also done business with the district’s hospital, then Sonoma West Medical Center. Horn recommended the board receive independent legal council on the issue and said he had been in contact with investigators who appeared to him to be taking the matter seriously.

Measure W

The board is also moving along with its request for proposal for a legal opinion on what it can do with money from Measure W, the ballot measure that was created to keep the doors open at Palm Drive Hospital, now Sonoma Specialty, by replacing the existing district tax with a $155 parcel tax.

Director Richard Power had expressed concerns that the district may not be operating within the scope set forth in the measure and that the district may be open to a lawsuit alleging misuse of taxpayer money.

The deadline was extended to allow one potential lawyer, who was out of town during the application process, to apply. Otherwise, the process is moving along as planned, with interviews being conducted this week.

By Nov. 4, the selection of an attorney to give the opinion will be made, and the opinion itself is scheduled to be written by Dec. 2.

Washington State Enforces Net Neutrality After FCC Court Loss

By Jon Brodkin, Oct 15, 2019 | Original Ars Technica article here.

FCC failure to preempt States keeps the Washington State net neutrality law on the books.

   
The outside of the Washington State Capitol building.

Although the Federal Communications Commission abandoned its regulation of net neutrality, it wouldn’t be accurate to say there are no net neutrality laws anywhere in the United States.

No one enforces net neutrality in Washington, DC, but on the opposite coast, the state of Washington imposed a net neutrality law in June 2018 that remains in effect today. The Washington State law prohibits home and mobile Internet providers from blocking or throttling lawful Internet traffic and from charging online services for prioritization.


Further Reading

  • Link to First state net neutrality law took effect today, countering FCC repeal.
  • Link to Why Ajit Pai’s “unhinged” net neutrality repeal was upheld by judges


The Washington State law cleared its biggest hurdle on October 1 when a federal appeals court vacated the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to preempt all state net neutrality laws. Broadband users in Washington State can file net neutrality complaints against ISPs using this general consumer complaint form, a spokesperson for Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson told Ars. The AG’s office said it wouldn’t comment on whether there are any pending net neutrality investigations.

The text of the Washington law is available on the state’s website here. Violations of the law are punishable under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.

Washington State Stands Alone

Washington is apparently alone when it comes to enforcing a state net neutrality law that applies directly to Internet providers.

"Four states—California, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont—have adopted statutes to regulate broadband providers’ network management practices," Boston College law professor Daniel Lyons wrote this month in an overview of state net neutrality laws.

But California and Vermont aren’t enforcing their laws for now. Both of those states agreed to suspend enforcement until after all appeals in the FCC case are exhausted. Those agreements came in response to lawsuits filed against the states by broadband-industry lobby groups—and the Trump administration, which sued California.

Oregon’s law is still in effect, but it’s less strict than Washington’s. Instead of regulating ISPs directly, Oregon forbids state agencies from purchasing broadband service from ISPs that violate net neutrality principles. (Vermont’s suspended law is similar.) The governors of several other states issued executive orders that also handle net neutrality by imposing requirements on state agencies instead of directly on ISPs.

FCC Lacks "Blanket Authority" to Stop States

For whatever reason, the broadband industry hasn’t sued Washington over its net neutrality law. "We’ve been in the fight for over a year now with no legal challenge," State Rep. Drew Hansen (D-Bainbridge Island), author of Washington’s net neutrality legislation, told Ars earlier this month. Hansen doesn’t know why broadband lobby groups haven’t sued Washington, but he said, "I figured they would take their shot in California and resolve the issue once and for all there."

Broadband providers were also counting on the FCC to wipe out all state net neutrality laws and executive orders in one fell swoop. But that didn’t work. Judges at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the FCC’s repeal of federal net neutrality rules but vacated the FCC’s attempt at a blanket, nationwide preemption.

The FCC can still try to preempt state laws on a case-by-case basis, but it may have trouble doing so because the agency eliminated its own Title II authority to regulate net neutrality. "In any area where the Commission lacks the authority to regulate, it equally lacks the power to preempt state law," the judges’ ruling said.

Hansen and other Washington State officials expressed confidence in keeping their law in force. The appeals court ruling shows that "the FCC does not have blanket authority to stop states like Washington from passing open Internet laws to protect consumers," Gov. Jay Inslee and Ferguson said in a joint statement after the court decision. "Washingtonians will continue to have access to a fair, free, and open Internet, thanks to our first-in-the-nation open Internet access law. This is an important victory for our state."

Hansen, who is a lawyer in addition to being a state lawmaker, said he doesn’t see anything in the circuit court ruling that makes him concerned about Washington’s ability to enforce net neutrality.

"The good news from the DC Circuit opinion is I don’t see how a preemption challenge succeeds," he said. Hansen added that the ruling "clearly gives space for states to act . . . so now you hope as many other states as possible follow Washington’s and California’s lead and enact these protections on a state level, and it becomes a de facto nationwide standard."

Hansen said the bipartisan support for net neutrality shows that no one wants Internet access to be "controlled by a handful of giant cable companies." The Washington State legislation passed both chambers of the legislature by wide margins.

"If this can happen with bipartisan support in Washington State you think well, there’s no reason it couldn’t happen in any other state regardless of which party controls state government," Hansen said.

Overturning The FCC’s Fraudulent Accounting Rules Will Save Consumers Billions and Establish True Competition in Digital Communications

Adapted from a press release by Mark Cooper, Oct. 10, 2019 | Original Consumer Federation of America, Press Release here.

Washington D.C. — In a major analysis published almost three years ago, Consumer Federation of America (CFA) showed that consumers are being overcharged over $70 billion a year for their broadband, wireless and television services.1 One of the key factors behind this overcharging is the decision of the FCC to freeze the collection of network costs, parking two-third of the total at the local (intrastate) level, even though today two-thirds of communications revenue is collected in the interstate jurisdiction.2 Today the IRREGULATORS filed their reply brief to the FCC’s decision to continue its fraudulent accounting rules for another six years.3

Dr. Mark Cooper, CFA’s Director of Research4 says:

“CFA applauds the court case, and looks forward to participating in the new rulemakings that will force the FCC and state commissions to adopt a more realistic, pro-competitive and pro-consumer allocation of costs."

Today, CFA is releasing an issue brief explaining the history of the issue and the huge stake the public has in the case. Here is a link to Why the Case of “The Irregulators V. The FCC” is So Important to Consumers: 20-Years of Broken Accounting Rules Have Caused Immense Pocketbook Harm to Consumers and Undermined Competition and Universal Service.

Continue reading “Overturning The FCC’s Fraudulent Accounting Rules Will Save Consumers Billions and Establish True Competition in Digital Communications”

AT&T and Verizon Don’t Want You To Know Where 5G Really Is

By Karl Bode Oct 10 2019 | Original motherboard article here.

Wireless carriers are fighting back against efforts to better map 5G wireless availability, worried that better data could deflate their 5G marketing hype.

To hear wireless carriers tell it, 5G is just short of magic. As the faster network standard is quickly and broadly deployed, carriers say 5G will result in a “fourth industrial revolution” that will change absolutely everything, resulting in smart cities and even smarter cancer cures.

In reality, carriers have faced widespread criticism for overhyping not only what 5G can do, but where it’s actually available. Verizon’s early 5G launches have been criticized for being fast but barely available. AT&T has been ridiculed for overstating 5G availability by using bogus 5G phone icons. And while 5G coverage will improve over time, it will take many years to do so.

Because it’s been so overhyped, having an accurate map of actual 5G availability is going to be important. But for years, both industry and government broadband availability maps have been criticized for massively overstating real world broadband availability. Carriers have historically lobbied against better broadband mapping, worried that better public data would only highlight America’s significant broadband and competition shortcomings.

Continue reading “AT&T and Verizon Don’t Want You To Know Where 5G Really Is”

AT&T and Other Carriers Wish to Hide Detailed 5G Coverage Maps from FCC and Public

By Jon Brodkin – Oct 10, 2019, 2:17 PM | here

As FCC requires more accurate broadband maps, Wireless Carriers want 5G Coverage to be left out.


Logo for 5Ge is superimposed over lush forest landscape.

AT&T and other mobile carriers are trying to hide detailed 5G maps from the public despite constantly touting the supposed pace and breadth of their 5G rollouts.

With the Federal Communications Commission planning to require carriers to submit more accurate data about broadband deployment, AT&T and the mobile industry’s top lobby group are urging the FCC to exclude 5G from the upgraded data collection.

"There is broad agreement that it is not yet time to require reporting on 5G coverage," AT&T told the FCC in a filing this week.

As evidence of that "broad agreement," AT&T cited comments by CTIA — the mobile industry lobby group that represents AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint. "[A]s CTIA points out, service standards for 5G are still emerging, precluding reporting of service-level coverage for 5G networks (other than the 5G-NR submissions already required)," AT&T wrote.

Continue reading “AT&T and Other Carriers Wish to Hide Detailed 5G Coverage Maps from FCC and Public”

Protests Against 5G Wireless Technology in Switzerland Due to Immediate Health Impacts

By Health Impact News October 10, 2019 | Original Global Research article here.

If you want to get an idea of what will happen in the U.S. when the telecom companies start rolling out 5G networks with new towers in your local neighborhood, take a look at what is happening in Switzerland today, where 90% of the population is now exposed to the new 5G networks.

People are getting sick, and they are marching in the streets to show their opposition to the new networks.

img

As Yahoo News reports on September 21, 2019:

People take part to a nationwide protest against the 5G technology and 5G-compatible antennae deployment in front of the Swiss house of Parliament in Bern, on September 21, 2019.

Thousands of people protested in the Swiss capital Bern Saturday over the roll-out of a 5G wireless technology across the country, which they fear could damage people’s health. The protesters, many carrying placards, gathered in front of the Swiss parliament building, in a bid to stop the construction of more 5G-compatible antennas.

"The fact that so many people turned out today is a strong sign against the uncontrolled introduction of 5G," said Tamlin Schibler Ulmann, co-president of Frequencia, the group that organized the rally.

The tiny principality of Monaco became the first country in Europe to inaugurate a 5G mobile phone network in July based on technology from Chinese firm Huawei, which is seen by the US as a major security risk. But critics in Switzerland argue that the electromagnetic radiation the new system emits poses unprecedented health and environmental risks compared to previous generations of mobile technology.

Online petitions have helped persuade several Swiss cantons — in Geneva, Vaud, Fribourg and Neuchatel — to postpone the construction of antennae as a precaution. The Swiss Federation of Doctors (FMH) has also argued for a cautious approach to the new technology.

Opponents of the new technology are trying to gather the 100,000 signatures they need to force a referendum on imposing a moratorium on the technology until its risks can be properly assessed. In February, Switzerland attributed 5G frequencies to three major operators, Swisscom, Sunrise and Salt, and the operators have been pushing the cutting-edge technology in television advertisements and on billboards.

By early July, 334 Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antennas (CPMRA) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) for 5G were operational across the country, authorities have told AFP. There are several studies on the health impacts of the new technology underway, including one by the World Health Organization, which has told AFP it had begun "conducting a risk assessment of health outcomes from radio-frequency fields exposure".

Continue reading “Protests Against 5G Wireless Technology in Switzerland Due to Immediate Health Impacts”

FCC Officially Returns Rules Allowing Small Cell Historical, Environmental Site Reviews

By John Eggerton Oct 9, 2019 | Broadcasting cable article here

The DC Court of Appeals had vacated that portion of FCC’s deregulatory order, 18-30.

The FCC has officially rescinded the portion of its rules that exempted certain wireless facilities deployments from local environmental and historic preservation reviews.

That came in an order from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, which indicated there had been no need to put the order out for public notice and comment since it was simply implementing a court mandate from which the FCC had no discretion to deviate.

Continue reading “FCC Officially Returns Rules Allowing Small Cell Historical, Environmental Site Reviews”

Podcast: Why IRREGULATORS v FCC is Critical

Adapted from an article by Bruce Kushnick, Oct 8, 2019 | Original Medium article here.

img

Link to the Podcast audio files — hear directly from the experts and lawyers behind Case 19-1085: IRREGULATORS v FCC — a critcally important case about FCC accounting negligience that is proceeding in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

On October 3rd, 2019, the IRREGULATORS discussed why Case 1085, IRREGULATORS v FCC, is critical for America’s communications future:

  • Solving Net Neutrality and the Digital Divide,
  • Lowering Intrastate Telecommunications prices
  • Encouraging real competition in Broadband

NOTE: The IRREGULATORS response to the FCC is due October 10th, 2019.

The IRREGULATORS is an independent consortium of senior telecom experts, analysts, forensic auditors, and lawyers who are former senior staffers from the FCC, state advocate and Attorneys General Office experts and lawyers, as well as former telco consultants. Members of the group have been working together, in different configurations, since 1999.


In the pocasts, the IRREGULATORS discuss that the current 4G + 5G Wireless Densification scheme is a bait-and-switch. Once the accounting is set straight, the roll-out of densified 4G + 5G so-called "Small Cells" would not be profitable. The case also shows that Big Telecom ‘s overhyped story about "Wining the Race to 5G" is misguided and will do America more harm than good.

  • Link to to Case 1085 summary
  • Link to IRREGULATORS v FCC Briefs and other Case Materials
  • Link to profiles of the IRREGULATORS

Listen to these experts:

  • Mark Cooper, Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America: An overview of the case.
  • W. Scott McCollough, Esq, counsel: The reasons we took the case, the potential legal outcomes, the impacts on the states, as well as Net Neutrality and 5G Wireless.
  • Bruce Kushnick, Executive Director, New Networks Institute: The fiber optic history of broadband and internet in America and the mergers that created AT&T, Verizon and CenturyLink
  • Chuck Sherwood: The impacts on municipalities.

Continue reading “Podcast: Why IRREGULATORS v FCC is Critical”