News for USA

 Page 1 of 183   Next›  Last» 

Cancer Survivors Await Outcome of Cell-Phone Warnings Lawsuit
USA Created: 27 Aug 2020
Cancer survivors are speaking out as they await the outcome of several lawsuits concerning radiation and cell phones.

The suits challenge the Federal Communication Commission's radiation guidelines, the radio-frequency or 'RF' levels from cell phones, and safety notices required by the City of Berkeley.

Courtney Kelley, a young mother who has beaten back breast cancer twice, said she used to keep her phone tucked into her bra - but not anymore.

"I use headphones when I talk, or speaker phone," said Kelley. "I don't sleep with my cell phone near me. I never put my cell phone in a pocket or in my bra. I'm even uncomfortable with it in my purse next to my body, I try to keep it far away."

The cellular industry insists its products are safe, although a 2018 study by the National Toxicology Program concluded cell-phone radiation causes brain tumors in rats.

Orange County surgeon Dr. John West, who wrote a book on breast cancer called "Prevent, Survive, Thrive," said he's seen multiple patients -- with no family history or genetic predisposition -- develop tumors near where they usually kept their phone.

55-year-old Cally Pivano had a fast-growing, softball-sized tumor removed from her left leg. Now, it has metastasized to her lungs, back, right leg and her heart. A doctor told her it might have been caused by exposure to radiation.

"And then I had an epiphany," said Pivano. "My laptop! I put that on my left leg, almost every day, for hours. And then, when I searched for the owner's manual for my laptop, there it was in black and white: 'Must be kept a minimum of eight inches away from your body.'"

And 49-year-old Paul Griffiths, a father of two from San Jose, is fighting a brain tumor above the ear where he said he used to squeeze his phone while taking notes on work calls.

"First thing I thought of is, 'I bet you this thing is right above my ear on my right side,' where I always feared," said Griffiths. "And lo and behold, that's exactly where it was."
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Public News Service, 21 Aug 2020

Landmark Medical Conference to Examine Health Risks of Electromagnetic Fields
USA Created: 20 Aug 2020
With mounting scientific evidence confirming health risks associated with electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, expert physicians and scientists from across the globe will convene for the Electromagnetic Fields Medical Conference on January 28-31, 2021. Connecting EMF scientists with health practitioners and EMF assessment professionals, this novel online event will present the latest EMF science and train health care practitioners in preventing, diagnosing, and treating EMF-associated illness.

"In order for health professionals to provide optimal patient care, it is important that we are informed about the latest scientific developments in this critical area," said Hillel Baldwin, MD, Arizona neurosurgeon and co-chair of the Electromagnetic Fields Medical Conference. "I have personally seen the toll that EMF exposure is taking on patients, families, and communities, and I look forward to joining my colleagues as we discuss the peer-reviewed medical science and the clinical findings that will improve patient outcomes."

The conference is being convened by the Electromagnetic Safety Alliance (ESA), an international non-profit advocacy organization that works to raise awareness of the risks of EMF exposure. This conference has been designated for 16.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™.

"The importance of raising global awareness about adverse health effects of EMF exposure is vital," said Elizabeth Kelley, MA, executive producer of the conference and ESA executive director. "While this conference will bring together experts to teach and learn, we hope it serves the broader purpose of informing the public about the dangers of EMF exposure so they can take steps to reduce their exposure should they choose to," she concluded.

More than 30 speakers will address topics ranging from wireless technology and brain health, to microwave radiation and oxidative stress, to electromagnetic hypersensitivity. A public policy panel will also be convened to explore the public health implications of EMF exposure.

A Pre-Conference Course, entitled Electrosmog and Electrotherapeutics 101, will be offered, taught by Magda Havas, PhD, an internationally known EMF expert, on October 23 and 24, 2020. The Pre-Conference Course is designed to prepare and equip conference registrants in advance and offers 4 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™.

For additional information, including details for registration for both the Conference and the Pre-Conference Course, please visit www.EMFConference2021.com.

About the Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, Inc.
Based in Tucson, Arizona USA, the Electromagnetic Safety Alliance (ESA) is a non-profit organization that seeks to "make the invisible, visible." ESA and its advisors have decades of experience working on public health issues, advising both the public and elected leaders of the potential hazards of non-ionizing radiation. ESA's executive director, Elizabeth Kelley, also manages the International Commission on Electromagnetic Safety, a membership organization of scientists worldwide "that promotes research to protect public health from electromagnetic fields and develops the scientific basis and strategies for assessment, prevention, management and communication of risk, based on the precautionary principle." In addition, Ms. Kelley manages the International EMF Scientist Appeal to the United Nations. For more information, please visit www.emsafetyalliance.org

Contact:
Matt Russell
Russell Public Communications
(520) 232-9840
mrussell@russellpublic.com

SOURCE Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, Inc.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, 19 Aug 2020

US consumers fail to register 5G buzz – analyst
USA Created: 12 Aug 2020
Despite there being aggressive marketing campaigns to drive awareness of 5G, Canalys suggests uptake of the devices has been modest best.

While Apple stormed into the number one spot for smartphone shipments across the second quarter of 2020, Samsung struggled to shift its flagship devices, as 5G failed to blossom in a market dominated by COVID-19.

“As the coronavirus pandemic forced consumers to stay at home, 5G adoption in the US failed to take off,” said Analyst Vincent Thielke.

“Store closures and virus fears limited interaction with demonstration models, tight consumer budgets further constrained spending power, and with scarce 5G network coverage in American suburbia, consumers saw plenty of reasons to buy a 4G device instead.”

The impact of COVID-19 is certainly an interesting one for the telecoms industry to contemplate. Firstly, pressure on consumer spending will be heightened over the coming months, perhaps forcing a delay on any big ticket spend. Secondly, societal lockdown certainly slowed down 5G deployment in the US, a market which has always struggle to evenly distribute connectivity on the same trajectory.

Both of these elements add up to a weakened business case for 5G-compatible devices. 2020 was supposed to be the year of 5G, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify the vast expenditure of upgrading. The average selling price of devices during this quarter declined by almost 10%.

According to the estimates, Samsung shipped 59% fewer Galaxy S20 5G series handsets than S10 series models in the same period of 2019. It does appear the case to upgrade is not there just yet, though Samsung’s woes in this market are amplified when put next to the success of Apple. The iPhone SE has proved immensely popular during this period, though it remains to be seen whether this dampens demand for an Apple 5G device which could potentially be launched in September or October.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Telecoms.com, Jamie Davies, 12 Aug 2020

Chip in 40% of smartphones has at least 400 exploitable vulnerabilities
USA Created: 11 Aug 2020
Over 400 vulnerabilities on Qualcomm’s Snapdragon chip threaten mobile phones’ usability worldwide.

With over 3 billion users globally, smartphones are an integral, almost inseparable part of our day-to-day lives.

As the mobile market continues to grow, vendors race to provide new features, new capabilities and better technological innovations in their latest devices. To support this relentless drive for innovation, vendors often rely on third parties to provide the required hardware and software for phones. One of the most common third-party solutions is the Digital Signal Processor unit, commonly known as DSP chips.

In this research dubbed “Achilles” we performed an extensive security review of a DSP chip from one of the leading manufacturers: Qualcomm Technologies. Qualcomm provides a wide variety of chips that are embedded into devices that make up over 40% of the mobile phone market, including high-end phones from Google, Samsung, LG, Xiaomi, OnePlus and more.

More than 400 vulnerable pieces of code were found within the DSP chip we tested, and these vulnerabilities could have the following impact on users of phones with the affected chip:

- Attackers can turn the phone into a perfect spying tool, without any user interaction required – The information that can be exfiltrated from the phone include photos, videos, call-recording, real-time microphone data, GPS and location data, etc.

- Attackers may be able to render the mobile phone constantly unresponsive – Making all the information stored on this phone permanently unavailable – including photos, videos, contact details, etc – in other words, a targeted denial-of-service attack.

- Malware and other malicious code can completely hide their activities and become un-removable.

We disclosed these findings with Qualcomm, who acknowledged them, notified the relevant device vendors and assigned them with the following CVE’s : CVE-2020-11201, CVE-2020-11202, CVE-2020-11206, CVE-2020-11207, CVE-2020-11208 and CVE-2020-11209.

Important note

Check Point Research decided not to publish the full technical details of these vulnerabilities until mobile vendors have a comprehensive solution to mitigate the possible risks described.

However, we decided to publish this blog to raise the awareness to these issues. We have also updated relevant government officials, and relevant mobile vendors we have collaborated with on this research to assist them in making their handsets safer. The full research details were revealed to these stakeholders.

Check Point Research is committed to making technology and products around the world safer and will cooperate with any security vendor that requests for a collaboration. In a proactive move, we have also offered organizations that could have been affected by these risks 20 free SandBlast Mobile licenses for their management mobile devices to protect and prevent any potential damage in the upcoming 6 months from the publication of this research.

What is a DSP anyway?

A DSP (Digital Signal Processor) is a system on a chip that has hardware and software designed to optimize and enable each area of use on the device itself, including:

- Charging abilities (such as “quick charge” features)

- Multimedia experiences e.g. video, HD Capture, advanced AR abilities

- Various Audio features

Simply put, a DSP is a complete computer on a single chip – and almost any modern phone includes at least one of these chips.

A single SoC (Software on Chip) may include features to enable daily mobile usage such as image processing, computer vision, neural network-related calculations, camera streaming, audio and voice data. Additionally vendors can optionally use these “mini computers” to insert their own functionality that will run as dedicated applications on top of the existing framework.
A new attack vector

While DSP chips provide a relatively economical solution that allows mobile phones to provide end users with more functionality and enable innovative features– they do come with a cost. These chips introduce new attack surface and weak points to these mobile devices. DSP chips are much more vulnerable to risks as they are being managed as “Black Boxes” since it can be very complex for anyone other than their manufacturer to review their design, functionality or code.
What did we do?

Check Point Research believes such an ecosystem may be a fertile ground for critical vulnerabilities that might have severe impact on millions of people around the world, and that fixing them requires a long chain of communication between many vendors, manufacturers and resellers. For this reason, we decided to review and perform a deep dive on the security posture of one of the most common chips available today – Qualcomm’s Snapdragon.

Due to the “Black Box” nature of the DSP chips it is very challenging for the mobile vendors to fix these issues, as they need to be first addressed by the chip manufacturer. Using our research methodologies and state-of-the-art fuzz testing technologies, we were able to overcome these issues – gaining us with a rare insight into the internals of the tested DSP chip. This allowed us to effectively review the chip’s security controls and identify its weak points.

We hope this research will help build a better and more secure environments for the DSP chip ecosystem, as well as provide the necessary knowledge and tools for the security community to preform regular security reviews for these chips in order to strengthen the security of mobile devices.

To learn more about this research watch our presentation at the DEFCON virtual conference.

We strongly recommend organizations protect their corporate data on their mobile devices by using mobile security solutions. SandBlast Mobile provides real-time threat intelligence and visibility into the mobile threats that could affect businesses, and provides complete protection against the risks detailed in this blog, associated with the Quallcomm vulnerabilities.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Check Point, 06 Aug 2020

Council Urged to Restrict Location of Wireless Antennas
USA Created: 6 Aug 2020
A non-profit advocacy group is urging the City of White Plains to restrict locating wireless telecommunication facilities in only commercial or industrial zones.

5GAlert Westchester, a group of residents dedicated to educating the public about the risks of 5G antennas and offering solutions to protect communities, is circulating a petition calling on the White Plains Common Council to enact protective amendments to the city’s Wireless Cell Antenna Code.

“It is imperative to act immediately in order ‘o promote the safety of life and property,” the petition states in part. “We are neighbors from across White Plains. We are all seeking a safe place to live and a decent quality of life for ourselves, our children and our community.”
In March, city officials approved the installation of 5G cell antennas in the downtown business area.

However, 5GAlert Westchester members maintain existing code regulations give the telecom industry “free rein” to install wireless antennas in residential neighborhoods, adjacent to houses, apartments, schools and play areas.
“These cell antennas would expose us, involuntarily, to constant wireless radiation, making our homes and schools and the entire City of White Plains unsafe, and would diminish our quality of life,” the petition contends.

Telecom industry experts have long maintained the technology is safe, but 5GAlert Westchester argues, “There is a large body of peer reviewed science that shows significant biological effects from exposure to wireless radiation, including ‘clear evidence’ of cancer, heart abnormalities, neurological, reproductive and cognitive damage.”

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not updated its exposure standards since 1996, which factors thermal effects, but not other biological impacts. Hundreds of medical and public health professionals have called for a moratorium on the 5G wireless technology rollout and for the FCC to develop rigorous standards for wireless devices and infrastructure.
Meanwhile, 5GAlert Westchester is also requesting the Common Council reinstate Citizens to be Heard sessions at meeting currently being conducted on Zoom. The Common Council has obliged, scheduling a session for citizens to speak in the city chambers on Monday, August 3 at 7 p.m.

Attempts to reach to the council about the petition were unsuccessful.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Examiner News, Rick Pezzullo, 21 Jul 2020

FCC Ignoring Evidence Of Wireless Tech Harms, DC Circ. Told
USA Created: 6 Aug 2020
The Federal Communications Commission failed to address scientists' and individuals' health concerns when it concluded its current wireless safety guidelines are still sufficient for the 5G era, two nonprofits told the D.C. Circuit on Wednesday.

In an opening brief, the Children's Health Defense and the Environmental Health Trust argued the agency glossed over crucial evidence when it found in December that its radiofrequency-exposure limits — established in 1996 — still provide adequate protection.

"The FCC received an enormous number of peer-reviewed scientific and medical studies, analyses, and reports demonstrating a consensus of the scientific community that radiofrequency radiation is harmful and sometimes lethal to individuals and the environment," the brief says. "The factual record in this case is strong. Yet the Order gives no consideration to most of the evidence presented to it."

The case, filed in late January, argues that the FCC's rules don't go far enough to protect consumers, especially when those exposed to long-term or multiple sources of radiation. The rules also "do not provide for sensitive or vulnerable populations," according to the brief.

Last year, the FCC revisited its wireless safety standards and found that the current regulations are among the strictest worldwide, making them still effective in protecting people from harmful wireless transmissions.

But according to the lawsuit, the rules don't control for conditions like radiation sickness, which the suit says causes symptoms such as memory loss and fatigue when individuals are exposed to a high volume of invisible radio waves. Prolonged exposure can also impair development in children and is associated with negative environmental impacts, the suit claims.

The sources of such exposure include wireless towers, the proliferation of 5G small-cell nodes in neighborhoods, Wi-Fi signals and cellphones, according to the opening brief.

"The agency simply ignored the ills and challenges faced by individuals who are especially susceptible to Radiation Sickness," the petitioners wrote. "In so doing, the FCC begged the question of whether the agency has a responsibility ... to develop a remedy that would address the ills being visited upon these people."

According to the nonprofits, the D.C. Circuit must force the FCC to revisit its rulemaking that failed to take into account the testimony from individuals and scientists who expressed concerns that ran counter to the FCC's already established wireless safety guidelines.

"There is no meaningful explanation why the scientific and medical evidence regarding harms and risks from current limits was not valid," according to the brief. "The public still has no idea why the FCC decided thousands of studies and hundreds of individual assertions of harm were unworthy of serious discussion."

For its part, an FCC spokesman told Law360 that the agency stands by its decision-making process.

"We are confident that these stringent limits protect the health of the American people and that our decision will withstand judicial review," the statement said.

The petitioners are represented by Edward B. Myers W. of the Law Office of Edward B. Myers; and W. Scott McCollough of the McCollough Law Firm P.C.

The FCC is represented in-house by William J. Scher, Ashley Stocks Boizelle, Jacob M. Lewis and Richard Kiser Welch.

The case is Environmental Health Trust, et al. v. FCC, et al., case number 20-1025, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

--Editing by Peter Rozovsky.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Law360, Kelcee Griffis, 30 Jul 2020

Government and industry combine to downplay the science on cell phone danger
USA Created: 22 Jul 2020
In 2015, the city of Berkeley passed an ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to advise consumers, in a flyer at the point of sale, that keeping a cell phone in their pocket or near their body could expose them to wireless radiation above Federal Communications Commission safety levels. Councilmembers understood that manufacturers deceptively hide this federally mandated information deep within user manuals or in the phone that few ever see. The council also understood that cell phones are allowed to be tested for compliance away from the body— not as used.

A survey of Berkeley residents found overwhelming support for Berkeley’s ordinance. Eight-five percent of residents never saw recommendations from manufacturers about how to best protect against overexposure to cell phone radiation and 82% want this information at the point of sale.

America’s trade association representing the wireless communications industry (CTIA) challenged this ordinance all the way to the United States Supreme Court twice and lost every step of the way. Now this well-funded industry, along with support from the FCC, is again fighting to prevent the public from simple truthful information. Despite losing, the industry has now asked a federal court in California to rehear the case. Industry is repeating its failed argument that the FCC claims cell phones are safe no matter how used. A federal district court hearing is set in San Francisco for Thursday, July 23, on this motion.

FCC regulations mandate consumers be given “conspicuous” information regarding safe use of cell phones. Hiding safe-distance information deep within the phone and their own manuals is hardly conspicuous. We must ask ourselves what other critical information industry and the FCC are hiding from the public.

The FCC’s General Counsel, Thomas Johnson, recently submitted documentation to the court in support of the wireless industry. Johnson, conveniently, formerly worked for Gibson Dunn, the firm representing the wireless industry against Berkeley. The FCC is claiming that the manner in which manufacturers currently disclose the cell phone “safety” information is adequate, thus Berkeley’s ordinance is “over-warning” and therefore federally pre-empted.

This is not so.

Why is a federal agency aggressively defending the billion-dollar industry that it is mandated by Congress to regulate? Why are the FCC and CTIA so adamant about stopping this simple advisory at the point of sale? Berkeley’s ordinance merely alerts consumers that wearing or using a phone in a pocket, or tucked into a bra, may expose them to radiofrequency radiation that could exceed the federal safety limit. Again, this is basic information provided by the industry itself, though in a hidden fashion.

I, Mark Leno, championed a similar bill in the California Senate in 2011, the same year the World Health Organization put wireless radiation in the same category as lead and diesel fuel. They declared this radiation possibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk of brain tumors associated with mobile phone use. My bill would have put minimal safety information at the point of sale. I experienced the intense lobbying and mistruths of this industry. This is corporate special interest at its worst.

This intense legal battle is an abuse of our legal system and exhibits the flagrancy of the FCC and the wireless industry in covering up independent science in regard to public health. The $30 million U.S. National Toxicology Program released results in 2018 stating “clear evidence,” the highest certainly level, that cellphone radiation causes cancer.

Why should we ignore the science?

This industry and the FCC are putting public health at great risk concerning a device used daily by nearly every American including the most vulnerable — our children and grandchildren. Consumers should have the right to know critical information at the point of sale so that they can make informed decisions as to safe use for themselves and their loved ones.

Mark Leno is a former state senator from San Francisco; Ellie Marks is a co-founder of the California Brain Tumor Association.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: San Fransisco Chronicle, Mark Leno and Ellie Marks, 21 Jul 2020

Petition to block 5G gathers 3,200 signatures
USA Created: 19 Jul 2020
A petition set up to block the introduction of 5G mobile phone technology has attracted more than 3,000 signatures.

Camilla MacPherson, of Bermuda Advocates for Safe Technology, said that there were sound scientific reasons to be wary of the dangers of wireless radiation.

Ms MacPherson added: “People who want to discuss the health implications of electromagnetic frequencies are often branded as people with tin foil hats.

“But we have had overwhelming support from the community.”

The petition has been signed by 3,200 people, alongside 32 letters of objection to 5G technology, on the Regulatory Authority of Bermuda’s website.

The petition said: “Our mission is to educate and inform our community and policymakers about the dangers of exposure to unsafe levels of wireless radiation.

“We call on our government and regulatory agencies to make a firm commitment to our health and our children’s health and deny small cell and 5G applications and to create a more protective policy for wireless radiation in our community.”

The campaign group said it was worried by some scientific studies that suggested electromagnetic radiation could make chronic illnesses worse and cause some cancers, such as glioblastomas of the brain.

Ms MacPherson said: “A lot of people have contacted us to express their concern about the issues or feel that towers in their neighbourhoods contributed to their cancer.”

The 5G technology — dubbed the network of the “near future” by supporters — is said to provide quicker downloads and better network reliability.

But the 5G infrastructure has a more limited range than the earlier 4G network and needs more cell towers.

Opponents argued that more cell towers would expose the public to more electromagnetic radiation.

The RA is still in the preliminary report phase of the public-consultation process for integrated communications operating licences.

The Bermuda petition organisers appealed to people with comments or responses to the preliminary report and order to submit them to the RA before the July 20 deadline.

They questioned why Horizon Communications was verified as a qualified applicant for an ICOL in May, when its business proposal was centred around 5G technology.

Ms MacPherson said: “I think it is putting the cart before the horse.”

She questioned if it represented a change in the RA’s decision to hold off on 5G, announced earlier this year.

But Charmaine Burgess, the director of communications and stakeholder engagement at the authority, said there was no alteration in its stance, which it confirmed in April.

She added: “Our process is to first carry out a detailed radio frequency study, which will be conducted in the coming months.”

Ms Burgess highlighted the public’s opportunity to review and comment on the potential grant of multiple licences.

She said: “Therefore, I can confirm that Horizon Communications has not been granted an ICOL licence.”

Gilbert “Artie” Darrell, the founder of Horizon Communications, said: “Unfortunately, with the pending review of 5G in Bermuda by the RA, it would be premature for me to comment.”

The introduction of 5G has sparked worldwide health and safety fears.

Ayesha Peets Talbot, a doctor and director of Ocean Rock Wellness in Paget, said she had seen at least one patient who believed she had suffered harm from electromagnetic radiation.

The patient lived next to a wireless communications company, with equipment 20 to 30ft from her bedroom window.

Dr Peets Talbot said: “She stayed there for years. A few years ago she started to develop multiple cancers. She is in her forties.

“Her cancers were coming on so rapidly she was confusing a lot of the doctors.”

She said the patient’s history suggested it was hard to ignore the radiation exposure she had been subjected to.

Dr Peets Talbot added that Bermuda had to do more to ensure people were protected before it introduced 5G technology.

She said: “I have three young children. I really do think about their EMF exposure. I make sure I turn off the wi-fi at night.

“I make sure they have EMF protection when they are using their tablets and mobile devices. I make sure they sit far away from a flatscreen.”

She also questioned the potential impact on Bermuda’s sensitive ecosystem.

Dr Peets Talbot said: “We are not against technological advancement, but feel safe technology is smart technology. Ootherwise, it’s not really advancing us.

“Some people think you are either all for it or against it, which is not at all the case. We do not wish to turn back the digital clock.”

Switzerland, one of the world’s leaders in the introduction of 5G, in February imposed an open-ended ban on the use of its new network.

An independent panel advised the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2010 that mobile phone and other wireless radio frequency radiation should be classified as a “possible human carcinogen”, based on evidence from studies carried out up to that date.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Royal Gazette, Jessie Moniz Hardy, 13 Jul 2020

In ATT's mobile insurance terms, electromagnetic fields defined as "POLLUTION"
USA Created: 12 Jul 2020
Go to this link and see the PDF of the ATT mobile insurance terms there.:
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/ASATT-531-MI-Terms-web-04.pdf

On page 2, in section "II. EXCLUSIONS", it says:

"F. Loss caused by or resulting from the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of Pollutants".

Now go to page 4, in section "IX. DEFINITIONS.", see paragraph "M" (right column):

"M. “Pollutants” means: Any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acid, alkalis, chemicals, artificially produced electric fields, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, sound waves, microwaves, and all artificially produced ionizing or non-ionizing radiation and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed".

So there you have it. The largest U.S. wireless telecom classes its own emissions as POLLUTION and of course exempts itself from any insurance liability in relation to such exposures.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EHTrust, commentary by H. Eiriksson, 12 Jul 2020

Massive 5G Electricity Costs are in Focus Ahead of the Global Build-out at the Edge
USA Created: 5 Jul 2020
5G remains in the headlines as test cities and clusters are popping up in the western world while parts of Asia are set to pull the trigger on broad-based service as early as next week. As I have talked about in earlier blogs, 5G is a technology that operates in a small cluster unlike the linear, continuous service of 3 and 4G. Once you travel outside of the confines of a 5G cluster, you lose connection to the 5G service and will automatically revert to 3/4G for continuation of service. Yes, this means 5G and 4G, 3G and even 2G will overlap in many deployments.

In terms of scale, significant global coverage in 2/3/4G is in place with about 5 million telco tower base stations in the world with average power draw at about 6 kilowatts (kW) rising to 8-10kW at peak traffic periods. The global footprint is 50GW at peak power! Unfortunately, most of these tower base stations were not conceived with energy efficiency in mind. They operate around a PUE of 1.5 (power in/power of the telco(IT) load), meaning that about half of the power is wasted. When deployed at scale, this power adds up quickly and waste is multiplied by the number of deployments.

For example, as an initial 5G buildout, a Chinese operator recently added 100,000 5G ready base station sites averaging 10kW each – that’s 1 GW of energy! At a PUE of 1.5, this could cost 1.3 B€ ($1.45B) and give off 8,000 tons of CO2 annually (based on U.S. national average CO2 footprint). But if these systems were designed to be extremely energy efficient, PUE could be 1.1, and it would only cost 1B€ ($1.12B) and give off only 6,000 tons of CO2 annually.

These 5G base stations will also support 2/3/4G as well, in as many as seven different bands from 700MHz up to 3.5GHz. These “all the G’s” base stations average 10kW, with 13.7kW during peak periods. With standalone 5G (no 2/3/4G) two or three times as many base station sites will have to be deployed to achieve continuous 5G coverage! But there is some good news: once standalone, continuous 5G coverage is in place, and 5G devices are ubiquitous, the 2, 3, and 4G equipment can be retired with a corresponding energy reduction of around 4kW average and 6kW peak.

However, power draw at these sites will not necessarily get better. In about five years, newer technology 3.5GHz sites using massive MIMO (multiple in, multiple out) with four transmitters and four receivers (so-called 4T4R) are predicted to draw 14kW on average and up to 19kW under peak load. But that’s not all – the power consumption of 5G sites at 3.5GHz, with even larger 64T64R and massive MIMO could require three times the power of a 4T4R site!
A new generation of transformation rolls through telco at the edge

A positive for energy consumption is a shift from traditional telco equipment in the base station to software defined 5G running on standard IT equipment in the form of a MEC (mobile edge computing or multi-access edge computing). The first MEC deployments are a combination of traditional telco and pre5G/5G, but these will gradually move to be more and more IT based servers – see my blog, Powerful Confusion! The Differences Between 4.5G, Pre5G, and 5G Explained. 5G is a software-defined architecture and that means telecoms are setting themselves up for success by deploying a canvas from which they can innovate, easily introduce new services, and deploy applications on the network with location flexibility. This is a very important point, as the 5G standard the industry has been collaborating on – the 3GPP R16 Standard – is delayed and will not be frozen until April 2020, and not be released until July 2020.

As this new generation of transformation rolls through telco at the edge, it is quite clear that energy use is a top of mind topic from a business and societal perspective. The massive scale of deployments dictates that much attention needs to be given to these edge sites. For 5G to succeed, MEC data centers must be: initially designed for maximum efficiency; sealed for low maintenance; easily deployable (connect and start-up); built in a factory to drive down costs and drive up reliability; and managed by next generation DCIM to maximize availability and efficiency. We may need new architectures and technologies, such as liquid cooling, predictive analytics, and AI enabled power optimization, to make this a reality.

This journey is just beginning…
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Schneider Electric blog, Steven Carlini, 11 Nov 2019

 Page 1 of 183   Next›  Last» 
 News item: