Monday, May 8, 2023

5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype

See the bottom of this page for links to recent news stories about 5G hype.



The CTIA, the wireless industry trade association, has launched an advertising campaign entitled, "The Global Race to 5G." The ads claim that unless the U.S. wins this "global race" to become the first nation to deploy the fifth generation of wireless technology or 5G, we will not reap the economic benefits of this technology. 
The CTIA claims that "compared to today's 4G networks, 5G will be up to 100x faster, support 100x more devices, and provide a 5x faster response time." Moreover, the association asserts that the nation's wireless industry is prepared to invest $275 billion in 5G which will yield three million new jobs and $500 billion in economic growth. If we win the global race, the "next-generation of wireless will drive $2.7 trillion of new economic benefits to American families and businesses."

 The CTIA has denied for decades that there are adverse health effects from exposure to wireless radiation. By establishing a revolving door between its leadership and the FCC's, the CTIA ensures that the federal regulatory agency maintains the inadequate, obsolete radio frequency exposure limits which the FCC adopted in 1996.

The FCC and federal health agencies have been oblivious to the health concerns raised by more than 240 scientists from 44 nations who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic or health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.

More than 400 scientists and medical doctors from over 40 countries signed a declaration demanding a moratorium on the planned increase of cell antennas for 5G deployment in the European Union. Concerns over health effects from higher radiation exposure include potential neurological impacts, infertility, and cancer.

The following excerpts were extracted from a 23-page special report from RCR Wireless that cuts through much of the hype surrounding the deployment of 5G. The excerpts are direct quotes from the report. RCR Wireless is a trade publication that has reported on the wireless industry and wireless technology since 1982.

Transitioning to a 5G World

Kelly Hill, RCR Wireless, Nov 2017

Excerpts from the Report
Hype is certainly high for 5G, given that the industry is still technically in a pre-standard phase and that standalone 5G systems are still some time off.
5G is coming even faster than originally expected. In December, the first official specification from the Third Generation Partnership Project is expected to be released; 5G New Radio will finally make its standardized debut – although like Long Term Evolution, 5G will continue to evolve and be refined in the coming years.
“5G will not replace LTE,” Rysavy Research concluded in an August report for the GSMA. “In most deployments, the two technologies will be tightly integrated and co-exist through at least the late-2020s.”
Although the industry is preparing for 5G, LTE [4G] capabilities will continue to improve in LTE Advanced Pro through the rest of the decade,”  Rysavy wrote .... 5G will eventually play an important role, but it must be timed appropriately so that the jump in capability justifies the new investment.
KT, for example, plans to support two different frequencies from the get-go in its 5G network: 3.5 GHz as an anchor with better propagation, complemented by 28 GHz in dense areas. Given that networks are expected to initially be 4G/5G networks, testing will have to continue to support LTE alongside 5G.
Hurtarte of LitePoint noted that although “millimeter wave” tends to be treated as one category, there are significant differences between the components and frequency planning needed at 28 GHz versus 39 GHz. In addition, although some frequencies are widely agreed upon, there are other frequencies that may get the nod for 5G use: 24 GHz in China, possibly 40-43 Ghz and possibly even above 70 GHz.
There are some major challenges to the success of 5G, which are all interrelated: the move to mmwave, the need for ultra-density, and the question of when the economics of 5G will actually work well enough to take off.
Mmwave [millimeter wave] provides the huge bandwidths that are needed for fast speeds and high capacity, but the higher the frequency, the shorter its range and more susceptible it is to being easily blocked and reflected (thus the need for beamforming in order to focus the energy more tightly). Seasonal foliage, energy efficient glass windows with special coatings, and standard housing materials all present effective barriers to mmwave reaching indoors to customer premise equipment, operators and vendors have found in their field testing.
Denisowski pointed out that fixed wireless is one thing, but moving objects are another. Obstruction, not radiating sources of energy, is likely to be the main cause of interference in 5G systems: vehicles driving back and forth, or even wind farms can scatter microwave radiation.
Density of foliage “plays a big role,” said Thadasina of Samsung, which has been working with a number of carriers on 5G trials. “What we found is that for the mmwave signal, as it penetrated through trees, the thickness of the trees matters. Initially the impedence offered by foliage is linear, but beyond a certain density it is no longer linear … it kills the signal.” Building materials are well-known to play a role in transmission from outdoors to indoors, he added, but the angle of incidence does as well. The difference between 30 degrees to 60 degrees to 90 degrees can create additional impedance, Thadasina said, “some of those things make it challenging in terms of closing the link.” Moisture levels play a role as well, he said ....
Fiber is fuel for 5G, and its prevalence is increasing. SNL Kagan found earlier this year that global fiber residential investment increased sharply in 2016, and that fiber is on track to reach 1 billion subscribers by 2021. Meanwhile, in the U.S., Vertical Systems Group reported that 49.6% of multi-tenant and enterprise buildings had access to fiber last year, compared to only 10% in 2004.

Deloitte said earlier this year that it expects to see $130 billion-$150 billion in “deep fiber” investment in the U.S. over 5-7 years, due to a combination of broadband competition, ensuring 5G readiness, and expanding fiber into new areas.

Murphy of Nokia said that operators should expect that, depending on which frequency they deploy in, they will need 2.5 to 10 times as many sites as they have now. That’s a tall order, especially given that small cell sites in cellular frequencies can take 18 to 24 months to get site approvals – scaling small cells has been hard enough in LTE, with the market moving much more slowly than analysts had predicted or carriers would like.
“It’s going to take a long time,” Einbinder said. “Constructing a cell tower is hard. A micro-cell has a lot of the same issues”: power and fiber and access to a site, which a community may be reluctant to grant – California, for instance, recently rejected a measure passed at the state level that would have streamlined processes for small cells.
... Einbinder thinks that some communities will take initiative and want to be 5G economic centers. While that’s encouraging for operators, it may also mean that 5G coverage maps look very different from the familiar red, blue, yellow and magenta maps indicating nationwide coverage. “The resulting coverage maps might have a lot more to do with [communities] than any economic or technological drivers – it’s going to be driven by local preference.”
While early work estimated that as many as 40 to 50 homes could be covered by a single fixed wireless site, according to Rouault of EXFO, that number has turned out to be around five in testing because of the complexity of beamforming necessary to support multiple homes. “It’s not at the point we would say the verdict is out,” Rouault added. “The technology is proven to work, but to make the business case work, the scale is the problem right now.”
So the biggest question is where a breakthrough is going to happen that becomes the point at which 5G becomes a more attractive investment than LTE. “What can 5G do that other systems can’t? This is where there is no clear answer,” said Hemant Minocha, EVP for device and IoT at TEOCO. There is no 5G requirement for IoT [Internet of Things], he points out, and the business case hasn’t yet been proven out for ultra-low latency (not to  mention that LTE is capable of lower latency than it has achieved to this point in networks).
Key Takeaways:
• The industry is moving quickly toward 5G, with momentum in testing and trials. The first official 5G specification from 3GPP is expected in December, with a protocol-focused release coming in the spring of 2018.
• Many features and architectures in LTE, particularly gigabit LTE, will both underpin future 5G networks and provide lessons learned in making 5G systems work. These include dense fiber deployment, higher-order and massive MIMO, network slicing, virtualization, and mobile edge computing.
• The biggest challenge for 5G lies in a millimeter-wave based RAN, with significant challenges ahead for designing and deploying a workable, optimized and profitable mmwave network on a large scale.
The RCR Wireless report, "Transitioning to a 5G World," can be downloaded at https://exfoprodstorage.blob.core.windows.net/media/6431/report_rcrwireless_5g-optimization_nov-2017.pdf.

FCC: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations--Key Testimony

5G Hype: 100+ News Stories (Updated 5/9/2023)



After 5G hangover, there's not much telco love for 6G
Iain Morris, Light Reading, Apr 26, 2023

Bob Frankston, CircleID, Apr 14, 2023

How 5G disappointed 'pretty much everybody'
Tech Xplore, Feb 28, 2023

Doug Dawson, Pots and Pans, Jan 24, 2023

An F for the Gs: 5G discontent surfaces for 2023
Ian Scales, Telecom TV, Jan 19, 2023

Is 5G worth it? Consumer hype is over, and carriers worried, says report
Ben Lovejoy, 9 to 5 Mac, Nov 23, 2022
The 5G iPhone SE will be for carriers, not customers: Apple’s latest 5G upgrade is more marketing than mandatory. Chaim Gartenberg, The Verge, Mar 7, 2022

5G Has Been a $100 Billion Whiff So Far: Big telecom providers still haven’t persuaded consumers to embrace the faster system. Scott Moritz & Rob Golum, Bloomberg Businessweek, Mar 3, 2022
Why 5G is ‘less exciting’ for consumers, analyst explains
Craig Moffett, Yahoo Finance, Jan 26, 2022

CCG Consulting, POTs and PANs, Jan 19, 2022

Tara Sonenshine, The Hill, Dec 27, 2021
Matt Kapko, sdx Central, Dec 26, 2021
Andy Boxall, Digital Trends, Dec 25, 2021

Sascha Segan, PC Magazine, Oct 15, 2021

Washington Post, Sep 24, 2021

Barely anyone is using mmWave 5G in the U.S.
Pranob Mehrotra, XDA, July 15, 2021

Ernest Worthman, Above Ground Level, May 17, 2021

Dear wireless carriers: the 5G hype needs to stop
Allison Johnson, The Verge, Apr 29, 2021

Sascha Segan, PC Magazine (UK), Mar 5, 2021

Miguel Coma, Wall Street International, Jan 23, 2021

Sascha Segan, PC Magazine, Dec 22, 2020

The failure of 5G: 5G was supposed to be a revolution. So far in 2020, it’s not even been a great evolution
Vlad-Gabriel Anghel, DCD, Dec 15, 2020


U.S. vs. China in 5G: The Battle Isn’t Even Close: China is leading the way in the size and consistency of its 5G network
Dan Strumpf, Wall Street Journal, Nov 9, 2020

Poor 5G connectivity disappoints South Korean users: Over 560,000 consumers return to 4G as applications for dispute mediation rise
Sotoro Suzuki, Nikkei Asia, Nov 7, 2020

Better Business Bureau finds T-Mobile to be misleading Americans about 5G in ads
GSMArena, Nov 5, 2020

Study Finds That US 5G Speeds Are Slower Than 14 Other Countries
Jason Cohen, PC, Oct 30, 2020

Doug Dawson, CircleID, Oct 29, 2020

Why the 5G Pushiness? Because $$$. Selling 5G capability is a huge opportunity for phone companies. Be careful.
Shira Ovide, New York Times, Oct 22, 2020

JR Raphael, Computerworld, Oct 22, 2020
Shara Tibken, c|net, Oct 18, 2020

Ignore Phone Companies About 5G. The cellular networks might be life-changing in the future. Not today. 
Shira Ovide, New York Times, Oct 15, 2020

John Xie, The News Lens (Voice of America), Oct 12, 2020

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Computerworld, Sep 17, 2020

The 5G lie: The network of the future is still slow
Geoffrey A. Fowler, Washington Post, Sep 8, 2020

AT&T’s current 5G is slower than 4G in nearly every city tested by PCMag
Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica, Sep 8,2020
Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica, Jul 15, 2020

Clare Duffy, CNN, May 20, 2020

The 5G revolution has been a big fail so far
Philip Michaels, Toms Guide, May 16, 2020

Verizon’s nationwide 5G will only be a “small” upgrade over 4G at first
Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica, May 13, 2020

Could 5G spell trouble for Android flagships?
J.R. Raphael, Computerworld, May 12, 2020
Mary Cuddehe, Columbia Journalism Review, Spring 2020

The 5G of T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T all rank badly for different reasons
Linda Hardesty, Fierce Wireless, Mar 3, 2020

Kevin Werbach, CNN, Feb 3, 2020

Karl Bode, TechDirt, Jan 27, 2020

Noah Kulwin, The Outline, Jan 13, 2020

Alex Sherman, Todd Hazelton, CNBC, Jan 9, 2020

Monica Alleven, Fierce Wireless, Jan 2, 2020

Eun-Young Jeong, Wall Street Journal, Dec 31, 2019

Roger Cheng, c|net, Dec 24, 2019
Jon Brodkin, Ars Technica, Sep 6, 2019
Dhara Singh, c|net, Aug 14, 2019

Jeremy Horwitz, Venture Beat, Aug 7, 2019

The Downside of 5G: Overwhelmed Cities, Torn-Up Streets, a Decade Until Completion
Christopher Mims, Wall Street Journal, Jun 29, 2019

Threat Lab, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Jun 26, 2019

Karl Bode, Vice.com, Jun 14, 2019

Choosing the Wrong Lane in the Race to 5G
Jessica Rosenworcel (FCC Commissioner), Wired, Jun 10, 2019

Wait, why the hell is the ‘race to 5G’ even a race? No one has a good answer to this question.
Nilay Patel, Verge, May 23, 2019
The future of wireless technology holds the promise of total connectivity. But it will also be especially susceptible to cyberattacks and surveillance.
Sue Halpern, The New Yorker, Apr 26, 2019

Millimeter-wave 5G isn’t for widespread coverage, Verizon admits ... 5G's highest speeds will only be for select areas
Jon Brodkin, ars Technica, Apr 23, 2019

 5G is still just hype for AT&T and Verizon
Chaim Gartenberg, The Verge, Apr 5, 2019

 Verizon 5G Home service too expensive to scale, attracts few users
Jeremy Horwitz, Venture Beat, Mar 22, 2019

What is 5G and will it live up to the hype?
Staff, The Week, Mar 17, 2019

Executives Don’t Believe the Hype Around 5G, According to Accenture Study
Patrick Kulp, Adweek, Mar 1, 2019
 Ernesto Falcon, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Feb 11, 2019
Corinne Reichert, ZDNet, Feb 11, 2019
    
5G can't fix America's broadband problems
Don't expect the new generation of wireless tech to replace fiber.... 
Karl Bode, The Verge, Feb 6, 2019

Apple just endorsed AT&T’s fake 5G E network
Chaim Gartenberg, The Verge, Feb 4, 2019

Verizon and AT&T Jumped the Gun on 5G
Sascha Segan, PC Magazine, Jan 31, 2019
Amir Nasr, Slate, Jan 30, 2019

Emily Jackson, Ottawa Citizen, Jan 24, 2019

 Time to move beyond 5G hype
Tom Wheeler, Brookings, Jan 11, 2019

 Beware the 5G Hype: Wireless Rivals Fuel Confusion
Drew FitzGerald, Wall Street Journal, Jan 9, 2019

Verizon and T-Mobile bash AT&T over 'fake 5G'
Marguerite Reardon, c|net, Jan 8, 2019
Isaac Mayer, Techspot, Dec 22, 2018

2018 was the year of 5G hype. The 5G reality is yet to come
Brian Fung, Washington Post, Dec 21, 2018

AT&T will put a fake 5G logo on its 4G LTE phones
Jacob Kastrenakes, The Verge, Dec 21, 2018
Troy Wolverton, Business Insider, Dec 14, 2018

Don’t buy a 5G smartphone—at least, not for a while
Ron Amadeo, Ars Technica, Dec 14, 2018

 Why 5G Hype is Out of Control This Week
Sam Rutherford, Gizmodo, Dec 7, 2018

The first ‘real world’ 5G test was a dud
Sean Hollister, The Verge, Dec 4, 2018

 5G Corporate Grail: Smart cities/dumb people?  
Joyce Nelson. Watershed Sentinel, Nov 5, 2018.

 Do we even need 5G at all?
Jeremy Kaplan, Digital Trends, Oct 26, 2018

Why 5G is out of reach for more people than you think
Shara Tibken, c|net, Oct 25, 2018

 Volkswagen a winner as EU set to favour wifi over 5G: draft
Foo Yun Chee, Reuters, Oct 19, 2018

The 5G hype cycle is about to run into a hard truth: Subsidies needed!
Strategy Analytics, Business Wire, Oct 18, 2018
Dexter Johnson, IEEE Spectrum, Oct 11, 2018

Experts worry 5G can widen digital divide in cities
Ali Breland, The Hill, Sep 30, 2018

Why 5G will disappoint everyone
Mike Elgan, Computerworld, Sep 29, 2018

 Has 5G Hype Outpaced Reality?
Kate Patrick, Government Technology, Sep 28, 2018

 Rural America worries it will miss out on 5G
Ali Breland, The Hill, Sep 26, 2018

 FCC angers cities and towns with $2 billion giveaway to wireless carriers
Kieren McCarthy, The Register, Sep 19, 2018

 The Problem with 5G (PC Magazine censored Dvorak's article and replaced it with another article. The link is to the internet archive.)
John C. Dvorak, PC Magazine, Aug 22, 2018.

Ed Sperling, Semiconductor Engineering. Aug 22, 2018.

The Week In 5G:6/1/2018 – 3GPP Set To Announce Final Phase-1 Standard In June; 5G Sparks Security and Health Concerns Anew
Jof Enriquez, RF Globalnet, June 1, 2018

The ‘Race to 5G’ Is Just Mindless Marketing Bullshit
Karl Bode, Motherboard, May 4, 2018

MWC and the 5G Hype Machine Keep on Giving, and Giving and Giving...
Ernest Worthman, AGL Media Group, Apr 19, 2018
Bruce Kushnick, Medium, Mar 8, 2018

 The 5G Hype Machine Continues to Mislead
Ernest Worthman, Above Ground Level, Feb 1, 2018

Super-fast 5G wireless is coming this year, but it probably won't be cheap
David Lazarus, Los Angeles Times, Jan 9, 2018

Upgrade to 5G Costs $200 Billion a Year, May Not Be Worth It
Olga Kharif and Scott Moritz, Bloomberg, Dec 18, 2017

 Impact of EMF Limits on 5G Network Rollout
Christer Tornevik, ITU Workshop on 5G, EMF and Health, Dec 5, 2017

 Microwave Radiation Coming to a Lamppost near You
Merinda Teller, MPH, PhD, Weston A. Price Foundation, Dec 1, 2017

 5G Is Not the Answer For Rural Broadband
Larry Thompson and Warren Vande Stadt, Broadband Communities. March/April, 2017

 The Next Generation of Wireless -- "5G"-- Is All Hype
Susan Crawford, Wired, Aug 11, 2016
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, May 5, 2023

An Exposé of the FCC: An Agency Captured by the Industries it Regulates

Click on graphic to enlarge. Posted with permission of Einar Flydal.


Environmental Procedures at the FCC: A Case Study in Corporate Capture

Erica Rosenberg (2022). Environmental Procedures at the FCC: A Case Study in Corporate Capture. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 64:5-6, 17-27, DOI: 10.1080/00139157.2022.2131190.

No abstract

"With infrastructure including millions of miles of fiber optic cable and lines, thousands of towers, earth stations and satellites, and hundreds of thousands of small cells, 1 the telecommunications industry leaves a significant environmental footprint: wetlands filled, viewsheds marred, cultural resources damaged, and habitat destroyed. As the agency overseeing telecommunications, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates radio, TV, satellite, cable, and both wireline and wireless communications—and associated entities like Verizon, AT&T, and broadcast and radio corporations. It also plays a critical role in providing universal broadband and telecommunications access, and authorizing facilities associated with wireline and wireless build-outs. Yet the FCC fails to fulfill its mandatory duties under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in multiple and significant ways. 2 ...."

Applicants and licensees submit no documentation of their determination that their project is categorically excluded, and the agency does not track categorically excluded actions. With the applicant conducting the initial environmental review of whether the project is categorically excluded by assessing the list of extraordinary circumstances (i.e., the NEPA checklist), as well as preparing the environmental assessment, the burden falls on the public to learn of the proposed action and to raise a potential effect.

But categorically excluded actions, including authorization of certain towers, do not receive public notice; only applications for towers that require registration (generally taller than 199 feet) are put on notice, and those may or may not have associated environmental assessments. In addition to towers under 200 feet not posing an air hazard, these stealth projects that the agency has no record of include small wireless facilities associated with 4G and 5G.

That the public has no access to this information is particularly problematic in the radio frequency context, where applicants are required to meet radio frequency emissions standards or submit an environmental assessment. If the applicants do analyze the checklist and radio frequency studies at all, they routinely categorically exclude small wireless facilities, despite growing public concern about radio frequency associated with such technologies. Without access to the documented checklist, the public has little to no basis on which to refute or comment on checklist conclusions on radio frequency. And given the streamlined process, citizens often find out about facilities only after they are built...."

"Conclusion: Prospects for a More Accountable FCC

Clearly, the FCC’s NEPA process falls short of what NEPA and Council on Environmental Quality require.

• It ignores major federal actions requiring environmental review, such as its distribution to industry of billions of dollars that support build-outs for updated wireless service, or improperly deems certain major federal actions non-major federal actions to circumvent NEPA.
• Its NEPA rules create an unsupported and overbroad categorical exclusion so that, for example, satellite licensing and submarine cable licensing are excluded from review.
• With little oversight or tracking, it delegates environmental review of NEPA determinations to industry proponents of the project.
• It fails to vigorously enforce its rules so that industry noncompliance is rampant.
• It fails to provide adequate notice and opportunities for public comment.
• It fails to make environmental documents, including radio frequency emissions studies, publicly available or readily accessible.
• It routinely ignores or dismisses public comments and concerns and places an unfair burden of proof on the public when it raises concerns.

These practices serve to facilitate deployment for carriers while ignoring environmental rules and the public. Besides environmental costs, the FCC’s approach bespeaks a lack of transparency and accountability that undermines good governance and erodes democracy. It also bespeaks an agency completely captured by the entities it is tasked with regulating.

Recent Biden-era NEPA implementing rules 60 require agencies to revisit their NEPA rules and procedures by September 2023. 61 They also require that the agencies have the capacity to comply with NEPA, 62 something the FCC has to date lacked. Perhaps when Council on Environmental Quality reviews the FCC’s procedures this time, it will scrutinize the rules more carefully and hold the agency to a higher standard for NEPA compliance."


--

The Corporate Takeover of the Trump-FCC Is in Full Attack Mode

 Bruce Kushnick, HuffPost, Nov 9, 2017   (Part 1 of 2)

 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-corporate-takeover-of-the-trump-fcc-is-in-full_us_5a041fb3e4b055de8d096ab0
The Trump-FCC-AT&T-Et Al. Plan: The Insidious “Wheel of Mis-Fortune”

 Bruce Kushnick, HuffPost, Nov 10, 2017   (Part 2 of 2)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-trump-fcc-att-et-al-plan-the-insidious-wheel_us_5a055a13e4b0ee8ec3694081

 Bruce Kushnick is the Executive Director of New Networks Institute (NNI), which was established in 1992, and a founding member of the IRREGULATORS, and has been a telecommunications analyst and visionary for over 35 years. During his career he has predicted that the addition of new technologies and networks would change the way we used the phone networks and he helped launch numerous interactive information markets and services that have now become commonplace.
http://newnetworks.com/about-bruce-kushnick/ 

 --

 June 26, 2015
Captured agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates

 Alster, Norm. Captured agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is dominated by the industries it presumably regulates. Cambridge, MA:  Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University.  2015. 

PDF: http://bit.ly/FCCcaptured  (free)
Kindle: http://amzn.to/1SQThCU ($0.99 -- check out the book reviews)

Introduction

This exposé provides insight into how the FCC became a victim of regulatory capture by industry and the implications of these corrupting influences for our health and safety, our privacy, and our wallets. 

This book concludes with a series of recommendations by its author, Norm Alster, an investigative journalist, who has written for the New York Times, Forbes, Business Week, and Investor’s Business Daily.  He wrote this book while serving as a journalism fellow with the Investigative Journalism Project at Harvard University.

Following are some excerpts that pertain to the wireless radiation industry and its corrupting influences on the FCC. I encourage you to read Mr. Alster's entire treatise.


Excerpts

A detailed look at FCC actions—and non-actions—shows that over the years the FCC has granted the wireless industry pretty much what it has wanted.

Money—and lots of it—has played a part ... In all, CTIA, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile USA, and Sprint spent roughly $45 million lobbying in 2013. Overall, the Communications/Electronics sector is one of Washington‘s super heavyweight lobbyists, spending nearly $800 million in 2013-2014, according to CRP data.

As a result, consumer safety, health, and privacy, along with consumer wallets, have all been overlooked, sacrificed, or raided due to unchecked industry influence …. Most insidious of all, the wireless industry has been allowed to grow unchecked and virtually unregulated, with fundamental questions on public health impact routinely ignored. Industry control, in the case of wireless health issues, extends beyond Congress and regulators to basic scientific research. And in an obvious echo of the hardball tactics of the tobacco industry, the wireless industry has backed up its economic and political power by stonewalling on public relations and bullying potential threats into submission with its huge standing army of lawyers. In this way, a coddled wireless industry intimidated and silenced the City of San Francisco, while running roughshod over local opponents of its expansionary infrastructure.

… Currently presiding over the FCC is Tom Wheeler, a man who has led the two most powerful industry lobbying groups: CTIA and NCTA. It is Wheeler who once supervised a $25 million industry-funded research effort on wireless health effects. But when handpicked research leader George Carlo concluded that wireless radiation did raise the risk of brain tumors, Wheeler‘s CTIA allegedly rushed to muffle the message. ”You do the science. I‘ll take care of the politics,” Carlo recalls Wheeler saying.

Graphic: The revolving door between the FCC and industry

Tom Wheeler, former Head of CTIA & NCTA, is now FCC Chair.
Meredith Atwell Baker, former FCC Commissioner, is now head of CTIA.
Michael Powell, former FCC Chair, is now head of NCTA.
Jonathan Adelstein, former FCC Commissioner, is now head of PCIA, the Wireless Infrastructure Association.

Graphics: Top House and Senate recipients of cellular industry campaign contributions 

It all begins with passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, legislation once described … as “the most lobbied bill in history.” Late lobbying won the wireless industry enormous concessions from lawmakers, many of them major recipients of industry hard and soft dollar contributions. Congressional staffers who helped lobbyists write the new law did not go unrewarded. Thirteen of fifteen staffers later became lobbyists themselves.

In preempting local zoning authority—along with the public‘s right to guard its own safety and health—Congress unleashed an orgy of infrastructure build-out. Emboldened by the government green light and the vast consumer appetite for wireless technology, industry has had a free hand in installing more than 300,000 sites. Church steeples, schoolyards, school rooftops, even trees can house these facilities.

In a 2010 review of research on the biological effects of exposure to radiation from cell tower base stations, B. Blake Levitt and Henry Lai found that “some research does exist to warrant caution in infrastructure siting” ….

Beyond epidemiological studies, research on a wide range of living things raises further red flags. A 2013 study by the Indian scientists S. Sivani and D. Sudarsanam reports: “Based on current available literature, it is justified to conclude that RF-EMF [electromagnetic fields] radiation exposure can change neurotransmitter functions, blood-brain barrier, morphology, electrophysiology, cellular metabolism, calcium efflux, and gene and protein expression in certain types of cells even at lower intensities.”

… Citing other studies—often industry-funded—that fail to establish health effects, the wireless industry has dismissed such concerns. The FCC has typically echoed that position.

… since the passage of the 1996 law, the very opposite has occurred. Again and again both Congress and the FCC have opted to stiffen—rather than loosen—federal preemption over local zoning authority ….

… would consumers‘ embrace of cell phones and Wi-Fi be quite so ardent if the wireless industry, enabled by its Washington errand boys, hadn‘t so consistently stonewalled on evidence and substituted legal intimidation for honest inquiry?

The FCC in 1997 sent the message it has implicitly endorsed and conveyed ever since: study health effects all you want. It doesn‘t matter what you find. The build-out of wireless cannot be blocked or slowed by health issues.

… federal preemption is granted to pretty much any wireless outfit on just one simple condition: its installations must comply with FCC radiation emission standards. In view of this generous carte blanche to move radiation equipment into neighborhoods, schoolyards and home rooftops, one would think the FCC would at the very least diligently enforce its own emission standards. But that does not appear to be the case.

Indeed, one RF engineer who has worked on more than 3,000 rooftop sites found vast evidence of non-compliance. Marvin Wessel estimates that “10 to 20% exceed allowed radiation standards.” With 30,000 rooftop antenna sites across the U.S. that would mean that as many as 6,000 are emitting radiation in violation of FCC standards. Often, these emissions can be 600% or more of allowed exposure levels, according to Wessel.

The best ally of industry and the FCC on this (and other) issues may be public ignorance.

An online poll conducted for this project asked 202 respondents to rate the likelihood of a series of statements … there was one statement of indisputable fact: “The U.S. Congress forbids local communities from considering health effects when deciding whether to issue zoning permits for wireless antennae,” the statement said.

Though this is a stone cold fact that the wireless industry, the FCC and the courts have all turned into hard and inescapable reality for local authorities, just 1.5% of all poll respondents replied that it was “definitely true.”

… many respondents claim they would change behavior—reduce wireless use, restore landline service, protect their children—if claims on health dangers of wireless are true.

… in May 2015, more than 200 scientists boasting over 2,000 publications on wireless effects called on global institutions to address the health risks posed by this technology.

Some have suggested that the health situation with wireless is analogous to that of tobacco before court decisions finally forced Big Tobacco to admit guilt and pay up.

It seems significant that the responses of wireless and its captured agency—the FCC—feature the same obtuse refusal to examine the evidence. The wireless industry reaction features stonewalling public relations and hyper aggressive legal action. It can also involve undermining the credibility and cutting off the funding for researchers who do not endorse cellular safety. It is these hardball tactics that look a lot like 20th century Big Tobacco tactics. It is these hardball tactics—along with consistently supportive FCC policies—that heighten suspicion the wireless industry does indeed have something to hide.

So how does the FCC handle a scientific split that seems to suggest bias in industry-sponsored research?

In a posting on its Web site that reads like it was written by wireless lobbyists, the FCC chooses strikingly patronizing language to slight and trivialize the many scientists and health and safety experts who‘ve found cause for concern. In a two page Web post titled “Wireless Devices and Health Concerns,” the FCC four times refers to either “some health and safety interest groups,” “some parties,” or “some consumers” before in each case rebutting their presumably groundless concerns about wireless risk. Additionally, the FCC site references the World Health Organization as among those organizations who‘ve found that “the weight of scientific evidence” has not linked exposure to radiofrequency from mobile devices with ”any known health problems.”

Yes, it‘s true that the World Health organization remains bitterly divided on the subject. But it‘s also true that a 30 member unit of the WHO called the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was near unanimous in pronouncing cell phones “possibly carcinogenic” in 2011. How can the FCC omit any reference to such a pronouncement? Even if it finds reason to side with pro-industry scientists, shouldn‘t this government agency also mention that cell phones are currently in the same potential carcinogen class as lead paint?

Cell phones are not the only wireless suspects. Asked what he would do if he had policy-making authority, Dr. Hardell swiftly replied that he would “ban wireless use in schools and pre-schools. You don‘t need Wi-Fi,” he noted.

So what is the FCC doing in response to what at the very least is a troubling chain of clues to cellular danger? As it has done with wireless infrastructure, the FCC has to this point largely relied on industry “self-regulation.” Though it set standards for device radiation emissions back in 1996, the agency doesn‘t generally test devices itself. Despite its responsibility for the safety of cell phones, the FCC relies on manufacturers‘ good-faith efforts to test them. Critics contend that this has allowed manufacturers undue latitude in testing their devices.

The EPA, notably, was once a hub of research on RF effects, employing as many as 35 scientists. However, the research program was cut off in the late 80s during the Regan presidency. [Former EPA Scientist, Carl] Blackman says he was personally “forbidden” to study health effects by his “supervisory structure.”

Blackman is cautious in imputing motives to the high government officials who wanted his work at EPA stopped. But he does say that political pressure has been a factor at both the EPA and FCC: “The FCC people were quite responsive to the biological point of view. But there are also pressures on the FCC from industry.” The FCC, he suggests, may not just be looking at the scientific evidence, “The FCC‘s position—like the EPA‘s—is influenced by political considerations as well.”

Still, the FCC has ultimate regulatory responsibility and cannot indefinitely pass the buck on an issue of fundamental public health. Remarkably, it has not changed course despite the IARC classification of cell phones as possibly carcinogenic, despite the recent studies showing triple the glioma risk for heavy users, despite the floodtide of research showing biological effects, and despite even the recent defection of core industry booster Alex Lerchl. It is the refusal of both industry and the FCC to even acknowledge this cascade of warning signs that seems most incriminating.

This is a very rich industry that does not hesitate to outspend and bully challengers into submission. Meanwhile, amidst the legal smoke and medical confusion, the industry has managed to make the entire world dependent on its products. Even tobacco never had so many hooked users.

Such sustained success in the face of medical doubt has required industry to keep a lid on critics and detractors. Many scientists who‘ve found real or potential risk from the sort of microwave radiation emanating from wireless devices have learned there is a price to be paid for standing up to the industry juggernaut. A few prominent examples …

The FCC‘s network of corruption doesn‘t just shield industry from needed scrutiny and regulation on matters of public health and safety. Sometimes it just puts its hand directly into the public pocket and redistributes that cash to industry supplicants …

The General Accounting Office (GAO) has issued several reports citing fraud, waste and mismanagement, along with inadequate FCC oversight of the subsidy program. Bribery, kickbacks and false documentation can perhaps be expected in a handout program mandated by Congress and only indirectly supervised by the FCC.

 [The "subsidy program," the Universal Service Fund, subsidizes various technology programs at public cost.]

Fraud—as pervasive and troubling as it has been—is just one of the problems with the programs of universal service. It may not even be the fundamental problem. More fundamental issues concern the very aim, logic and efficiency of programs to extend broadband and wireless technology at public expense. Though the aims of extending service to distant impoverished areas seem worthy on the surface, there are many reasons to think the major beneficiaries of these programs are the technology companies that win the contracts.

… the FCC, prodded by an industry ever on the lookout for incremental growth opportunities, is ignoring the health of youngsters to promote expanded Wi-Fi subsidies in schools across the U.S.

As a captured agency, the FCC is a prime example of institutional corruption. Officials in such institutions do not need to receive envelopes bulging with cash. But even their most well-intentioned efforts are often overwhelmed by a system that favors powerful private influences, typically at the expense of public interest.

… the auctions of electromagnetic spectrum, used by all wireless communications companies to send their signals, have yielded nearly $100 billion in recent years. The most recent auction to wireless providers produced the unexpectedly high total of $43 billion. No matter that the sale of spectrum is contributing to a pea soup of electromagnetic "smog" whose health consequences are largely unknown. The government needs money and Congress shows its appreciation with consistently pro-wireless policies.

Science is often the catalyst for meaningful regulation. But what happens when scientists are dependent on industry for research funding? Under pressure from budget cutters and deregulators, government funding for research on RF health effects has dried up. The EPA, which once had 35 investigators in the area, has long since abandoned its efforts.85 Numerous scientists have told me there‘s simply no independent research funding in the U.S. They are left with a simple choice: work on industry-sponsored research or abandon the field.


… an FCC with public interest commissioners is an idea worth consideration. It would at least require party apologists to defend how they so consistently champion the moneyed interests that have purchased disproportionate access and power in Washington.
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)