News for USA

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 180   Next›  Last» 

Assemblyman Calls for Commission to Study 5G Safety
USA Created: 17 Jun 2020
TRENTON - Assemblyman Jamel Holley (D-20thDist) is calling for the creation of a state commission to study the many unknown health effects of the next generation of wireless technologies, which are steadily expanding throughout New Jersey.

The wireless industry is engaged in the large scale deployment of 5G microwave antennas to dramatically enhance the nation’s broadband infrastructure. Such technology is welcomed, as it eliminates rural internet disparities, enables new forms of automation, and promotes advancements in telemedicine.

However, there are deep concerns about potential health effects within New Jersey communities, Assemblyman Holley said. 5G technology uses existing technology and new applications of microwave radiation to transmit large amounts of data. It requires closer proximity to network users, resulting in dense deployment of antennas near schools, residences, and businesses throughout New Jersey.

“My constituents have expressed some deep concerns about the potential health impacts of these antennas, especially in high-density communities like Elizabeth and Union Township,” Assemblyman Holley said. “We need to analyze the involuntary exposure of citizens to 5G technology, especially without their express knowledge or consent of the potential health impacts.”

Assemblyman Holley noted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not yet conducted long-term testing of 5G technology, and has not updated its wireless radiation human exposure guidelines since 1996.

“Wireless industry leaders have admitted that safety tests have not yet been conducted to determine any possible adverse health effects from the constant exposure to higher frequency wireless radiation,” the assemblyman said. “Meanwhile, there’s a significant body of published, peer-reviewed, independent scientific studies that link exposure to wireless radiation with serious biological harm and increased risk of cancer, reproductive problems, and neurological impairments.”

Assemblyman Holley said the mounting research casts doubt on the theory that low-level exposure to radio-frequency microwave radiation is harmless. There are more than 250 medical and public health professionals who have signed a joint statement urging government officials to consider the latest science on microwave radiation and human health, especially the latest science concerning abnormal brain development in unborn children, Holley said.

“I am not taking a position on 5G until I have more information,” the assemblyman said. “My concern is the overall body of evidence concerning the potential health impacts of wireless radio wave radiation. It is inconclusive and lacking in high-quality research. We need further study and consideration to help shape appropriate regulatory policies that best protect New Jerseyans.”

Assemblyman Holley is calling for the “New Jersey Commission on 5G Health Effects,” which would study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technologies, with a focus on the potential health risks that these technologies pose to vulnerable populations.

The assemblyman suggests the commission comprise 11 members. That includes two members of the General Assembly, two members of the State Senate, one member of the cellphone and wireless technology industry, one member representing the business community, one member of the public with expertise in the biological effects of wireless radiation, the Attorney General (or his appointee), the Commissioner of Health (or her designee), one member of the State Medical Society, and one member representing Rutgers University who is knowledgeable about wireless radiation.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: TapInto Newark, ADAM SAMUEL, 16 Jun 2020

5G won’t be a financial cash cow for wireless carriers, report says
USA Created: 15 Jun 2020
The spread of superfast 5G wireless networks will provide a boon to the economy, although the revenue generated by wireless carriers from the emerging technology could be modest, according to a new report.

Companies in manufacturing, health care, transportation, environmental monitoring, and gaming will get major financial benefits from 5G’s speedier connections, according to consulting firm KPMG. Increased spending on connectivity, hardware, software, and services could drive more than $140 billion of new annual revenue in those sectors worldwide by 2023.

But for telecommunications carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, which are spending tens of billions of dollars to build 5G networks, KPMG’s forecast was less generous. Only about 11% of spending from the introduction of 5G will go to connectivity. “It’s a sobering prospect for telcos,” the report notes. “The dire economic impact of becoming a ‘dumb-pipe’ is real and requires immediate action for those not already positioned to benefit.”

The carriers have already struggled to charge consumers more for 5G, with Verizon eliminating an extra charge for 5G last year and T-Mobile pledging not to charge for the faster service for at least three years as part of its deal to gain approval for merging with rival Sprint.

At the same time, the carriers have also tried to take advantage of 5G, which provides connections that are 10 to 100 times as fast as current 4G LTE, in new ways. With the help of its 2018 acquisition of Time Warner, AT&T will be able to offer video streaming and other entertainment over its 5G network. Meanwhile, Verizon runs a large digital media unit which is designing programming specially for 5G. Verizon is also partnering with Amazon to create small cloud computing data centers to host 5G apps and services. And T-Mobile plans to offer wireless home Internet service nationwide via its 5G network.

Among the five business sectors analyzed in the report, manufacturing will gain the most new revenue as a result of 5G, with robots and other autonomous machines helping factories become more efficient with higher-quality output and reduced maintenance costs. Gaming will also produce considerable additional revenue thanks to 5G, as both virtual reality and cloud-based gaming get a boost, the report noted.

The software industry will also be a big winner from 5G, as manufacturers buy apps that use A.I. to run automated factories, hospitals use programs to gather and analyze wireless sensor data, and video gamers opt for the latest titles to play via streaming, the report noted.

(Correction: This story was updated on June 10, 2020 to correct the percentage of spending on 5G connectivity after KPMG corrected the figure in its report.)
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Fortune, Aaron Pressman, 10 Jun 2020

Jersey City Council postpones 5G utility pole installation
USA Created: 10 May 2020
The Jersey City Council has unanimously tabled an ordinance to approve the upgrade and installation of 72 utility poles which the council says will include 5G technology after members of the public spoke against the ordinance.

The critics cited a lack of transparency, lack of notice, and lack of information as well as data expressing concerns on the possible health ramifications the technology could have on residents despite the Federal Communications Commission’s ruling that the technology is safe.

Resident and registered nurse Lucille Shah said she was against 5G utility pole installation.

“My children’s bedroom faces the street, and they can potentially be sleeping just a few feet away from a 5G tower,” she said, noting that the World Health Organization has yet to issue an opinion on the possible health impacts of the technology.

She said that several European countries have halted their installation until more studies have been concluded.

Resident and former councilman Chris Gadsden said that residents have not been notified that the utility poles would be coming to their neighborhoods.

“I just want to caution and hold up on the installation of these towers because just like how we notify the community of CCTV camera installations, and different construction projects, and street paving, I just think we need to afford the public the same courtesy,” he said, saying that the new towers will primarily be installed in Ward A and Ward F, possibly near senior citizen homes and apartment complexes, without residents being made aware of it.

Resident Esther Wintner also pushed for the council to hold off on the ordinance because people were preoccupied with the current the public health emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nick Strasser of the city’s law department quoted federal law stating, “No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate placement construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent such facilities comply with the commissions regulations concerning such emissions.”

“Simply put, the FCC has reviewed this and deemed the equipment in this ordinance to be safe to the public, and Congress has given the FCC exclusive jurisdiction to determine what is safe and is not and has prevented states and municipalities from individually deciding what is safe and is not from an emissions standpoint on this equipment,” he said.

Several council members voiced their frustration over seemingly having their hands tied. Council President Joyce Watterman asked Strasser whether the council could send a resolution or letter to the federal government to express their concerns.

“It’s always within the Council’s jurisdiction resolution to send a resolution to Congressmen Albio Sires and Donald Payne, and the U.S. Senators from New Jersey, to notify them of your frustration with the state of the federal law, you always have that ability,” Strasser said.

He also explained that the city still has the ability to restrict certain aspects of the installation itself.

“What you can’t do is say it is on the basis of the emissions coming from the equipment, because the FCC has already reviewed that from a safety standpoint and said that it is safe,” said Strasser. “But what the city does have the ability to do is to regulate the fees as it does in here or the engineering review of the individual towers… the city also has the ability to decide where they go from a public safety standpoint” if they are to close to fire hydrant or driveway, for example.

He added that the council can also have a say when it comes to the design of the poles, especially in historic neighborhoods, because they would have to comply with the historic requirements of any historic preservation district.

According to Business Administrator Brian Platt, the vendor will have to notify residents who are within 200 feet of a utility pole instillation site before they are installed.

That notification will include information regarding the technology’s safety.

“Council people spent the last month trying figure out what to do with this, and its bad to think the FCC is in control of what we do here in Jersey City,” said Councilman Jermaine Robinson. “I want to put people first and make sure they know exactly what’s going on here in our city.”

Council President Joyce Watterman urged members of the public to petition and write letters to their state and federal leaders expressing their concerns.

Ultimately, the council decided to table the ordinance to further explore their options after Platt noted that the council has 150 days to make a decision on the ordinance.

The ordinance will return before the council on final reading on May 20th.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Hudson Reporter, Marilyn Baer, 08 May 2020

FCC blocked from dismissing lawsuits
USA Created: 29 Apr 2020
On April 1st, 2020, the FCC finally published its December 4, 2019 “RF Order” (FCC 19-126) in the Federal Register. The Federal Register notice addresses the FCC’s outrageous refusal to update its radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits or reconsider whether outer ears should be treated differently than other extremities since users often place cell phones on the ear (Docket 13-84), the final rule amendments making it easier to prove compliance with the outdated rules (Docket 03-137). The publication in the Federal Register follows Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) motion in its case against the FCC, CHD v FCC, to force the FCC to publish its decision. As a result, the FCC will have no basis to seek dismissal of CHD’s or the Environmental Health Trust’s (EHT) case and will likely prevent the FCC from being able to control venue – where the cases will be heard. The FCC much prefers the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Federal Register is part of the National Archives and Records Administration. It is the official “newspaper” of the federal government. Every decision, order, regulation or law must be published in the Register. The office annually compiles all current regulations into bound volumes of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Most federal agency actions are not effective or final for judicial review purposes until they are published in the Federal Register.

On December 4, 2019 the FCC closed Docket 13-84 and released FCC 19-126. There were 2 relevant actions: a “Resolution of Notice of Inquiry” in ET Docket No. 13-84 regarding “Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits.” The FCC decided there is no evidence of harm from wireless technology and therefore, no need to review the RF safety guidelines. Most appalling was the FCC’s refusal to reconsider the impact on children or take into account that many users still place their cell phones right on their ear, and thereby receive more radiation exposure than the rules contemplate. CHD’s case (Petition for Review) against the FCC, claim the decision is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence based and an abuse of discretion. The FCC also released a “Second Report and Order” and Memorandum Opinion and Order” in ET Docket No. 03-137. This part amended the existing exposure guidelines to allow industry to even more prodigiously inflict harm on an unsuspecting and vulnerable public.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an injured party can sue the FCC within 60 days of the “date of public notice,” which is usually understood to be the date of publication in the Federal Register. However, 60 days after the FCC released its decision, the decision was not published in the Federal Register. To prevent any FCC argument that the window for review petitions closed on the 60th day after the December 4, 2019 release Children’s Health Defense filed a case in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 2, 2020. The Environmental Health Trust filed a case as well, 2 days earlier, in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Under federal law, when cases are submitted in different courts against the same government agency’s decision, the cases are transferred to one court. The venue is typically determined by a multi-jurisdictional panel in what is referred to as the “lottery process.”

The FCC, however, devised a nefarious plan that would allow it to control timing and venue and even perhaps block judicial review. It purposefully delayed publication to prevent the lottery and push venue to the court it prefers – the DC Circuit – and potentially even obtain dismissal or a long delay until it finally got around to publishing notice. The FCC’s efforts to get the case out of the Ninth Circuit and before the DC Circuit strongly indicates FCC thinks it will do better there and would have a harder time defending the decision before the Ninth circuit.

On 2/12/2020 the FCC submitted a Motion to Transfer, asking the Ninth Circuit to transfer CHD’s case to the DC Circuit claiming that because EHT’s submitted the case two days before CHD, EHT has won a “race to the courthouse” and the cases should be heard in the DC Circuit Court. EHT submitted an Amicus Brief in support of the FCC motion to transfer our case to the DC circuit based on the same argument. CHD replied that the “race” never started because the “starting gun” (Federal Register publication) had never sounded, and, indeed, there was not supposed to be a race at all.

Scott McCollough, the attorney who leads CHD’s case together with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., saw through the FCC’s the FCC’s effort to game the rules, and quickly responded. CHD submitted a “Motion for Affirmative Relief and an Opposition to Motion to Transfer” on 2/18/20. CHD’s motion claimed the FCC was purposely withholding publication in the Federal Register. It further explained that under the courts’ procedural rules and statutes once Federal Register publication happens petitioners have a 10 day window to invoke the lottery process. This means that where the cases should be heard should not be based on a “race to the courthouse.” The Motion states:

“The Motion to Transfer is the FCC’s opening move in a game of “gotcha.” If the FCC prevails on its motion the Commission will promptly reverse course, abandon its apparent contention before this Court that the “Order” is presently reviewable, and tell the D.C. Circuit that since there has been no Federal Register publication both cases are “premature” and must be dismissed. If the D.C. Circuit agrees the FCC will succeed in completely immunizing the “Order” from any review whatsoever until the FCC gets around to publishing notice, if it ever does so.”

The FCC obviously realized its gambit would not work, so it finally stopped trying to delay and went forward with publication. CHD’s efforts won the day. We forced the FCC to publish in the Register; prevented the FCC from being able to dismiss the cases claiming they are premature; and ensured that the proper process to set venue is used: a Multi-Jurisdictional panel lottery process (rather than the FCC) should now decide which court will hear CHD’s & EHT’s cases. The 4/1/20 publication means the two review petitions will soon be able to move forward to consideration on the merits.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Childrens Health Defence, Dafna Tachover, 01 Apr 2020

The Lies Must Stop — Disband ICNIRP
USA Created: 11 Apr 2020
Facts Matter, Now More Than Ever.

We’re all frazzled and anxious. The world has changed, seemingly overnight, and we don’t know when and how we will ever go back to normal —whatever that means. One thing we don’t have to worry about is whether 5G radiation is responsible for COVID-19. It’s not. There’s no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.

Yet, there is at least one parallel between how we’ve been struggling with COVID-19 over the last few months and how we have been dealing with electromagnetic radiation for the last few decades in the U.S. and elsewhere: Science has taken a back seat to politics.

The public has been fed lies and half-truths about the health effects of RF/microwave radiation for as long as I have been involved, since the 1970s. The campaign has created a culture of confusion. In this environment, why would anyone be surprised that sensational conspiracy theories about 5G have found a footing?

The Microwave News website is full of articles describing how the public has been misled time and time again. In my latest article, I offer two current examples from those who are supposed to serve as the world’s experts, the members of the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, ICNIRP for short.

Read the full story here:
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/time-clean-house

Louis Slesin, PhD
Editor, Microwave News
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Microwave News, Louis Slesin, 09 Apr 2020

Smartphones Irradiate the Thyroid: Is This a Cancer Risk?
USA Created: 17 Feb 2020
Thyroid cancer among women is skyrocketing all over the world - Incidence is growing faster than for any other cancer.

The reasons why remain elusive.

The prevailing view is that there’s been an “epidemic of diagnosis” —that is, overdiagnosis. But a consensus is growing that lifestyle or environmental risk factors are also at work. Obesity is currently the leading candidate.

Sweden's Michael Carlberg and Lennart Hardell think that smartphones may also be part of the problem. Smartphone antennas are at the bottom of the phone and when holding one up to the ear, the thyroid is directly exposed to RF/microwave radiation.

Newly released cancer statistics add urgency to resolving this question.

Read the full story, out today, in Microwave News.

Louis Slesin, PhD
Editor, Microwave News
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Microwave News, Louis Slesin, 17 Feb 2020

City Council Responds to Community, Adjusts 5G Regulations
USA Created: 13 Feb 2020
Dozens of Californians packed the Costa Mesa City Council chamber Tuesday night with homemade signs. They hugged. They cried. They beseeched the council to beware of potential health risks of 5G technology — which they fear will likely make its way to Costa Mesa once the council had updated its policies on wireless communication facilities.

In October, the council approved a set of changes in design guidelines for wireless technology boxes, and on Tuesday considered more changes to city regulations.

After nearly five hours of discussion, about 30 speakers and an impromptu closed session, the council offered some concessions for the concerned community members.

But for some members of the Costa Mesa Advocacy Group, a grassroots organization that opposes expansive infrastructure for small cell facilities, the allowances weren’t enough.

“We’ve spent hours and hours with our expert attorney to improve this ordinance and make it actually make sense. Staff continues to ignore them and act as a gatekeeper preventing any real material change from happening,” Costa Mesa Advocacy Group leader Alison Burchette said in an email Wednesday morning. “Thus making it so that [the City Council] had to try to bake a dang cake at midnight with a heap of ingredients.”

Most notably, the council, on a 6-1 vote, changed a requirement in the ordinance to make it so that small wireless communication facilities — which typically take the form of small boxes on street poles — must be 750 feet from other communication facilities of the same company. Some community members had asked to increase the originally proposed 500-foot separation to at least 1,000 feet.

The small cells can be 250 feet from facilities of other companies, and even closer in non-residential zones.

The council also changed a requirement that the Planning Commission had added two weeks earlier. Under the new ordinance, residents who opt in may receive an email every time a wireless provider applies to install a new small cell box, or any time a provider asks to swap out 4G technology for 5G. Members of the public had called for all applications to be publicly noticed.

The council kept some other measures that community members lamented, such as that small cells installed near residential properties must maintain a 25-foot distance. That’s not far enough away for many residents, who complained that close proximity to the sites can be harmful for people with electromagnetic sensitivity.

5G is a fifth-generation wireless network that is intended to increase internet speeds and provide more-reliable connections. But many residents in Orange County and throughout the state have expressed concerns with the technology, which activists feel could endanger public health because of the use of higher-frequency radio waves.

Several health professionals joined the Costa Mesa Advocacy Group in warning council members of potentially harmful effects of radio waves.

“Years ago, smoking was the thing to do,” said Charlie Fagenholz, a holistic chiropractic physician. “Looking back, if you knew then what you knew now, would you vote for or against it? We’re in the same boat with [electromagnetic] toxicity.”

Some residents recounted personal stories of struggling with health issues that they attributed to high exposure to electromagnetic frequencies. Some expressed concern about the potential effects of radio frequencies on children. Others thought small cells are ugly and would ruin Costa Mesa’s aesthetics. At several points, Mayor Katrina Foley asked members of the crowd to quiet their applause.

Tim Brown, a government-affairs manager for Crown Castle, a communications infrastructure provider, said small cells are needed to provide bandwidth and capacity that are not possible with current infrastructure.

“The reason why these sites are developed is because people want them to work,” Brown said. “We have to respond to those demands. … The way we do that is by developing the infrastructure we have here.”

Other representatives of telecommunication companies such as AT&T and Verizon thanked the council for their review and reminded the audience that the Federal Communications Commission has not determined that radio frequency emissions from wireless devices adversely affect human health.

“The weight of scientific evidence has not effectively linked exposure to radio frequency energy from mobile devices with any known health problems,” an FCC statement reads, citing research from the Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization.

Council members emphasized that they can only make incremental changes to the ordinance because their hands are tied by the federal government’s regulations.

Many guidelines for the infrastructure of wireless communication facilities are federally mandated, though cities have a little leeway in regulating their aesthetics. Federal law, for instance, prohibits local governments from regulating construction of wireless telecommunication facilities based on perceived health effects.

At the end of the night’s exchange about wireless communications that stretched past midnight, Councilman Allan Mansoor voted against the proposed changes.

“I like the direction that we’re going, but I believe it’s rushed,” Mansoor said. “After midnight, our votes aren’t always the best. … I think we can do better.”

His comment provoked a tense exchange with other council members who challenged him to suggest concrete ways to improve the ordinance.

“Staff has done a really good job of trying to get us through all the land mines and be able to try to balance all the interests of protecting the community and addressing the concerns that were made, as well as addressing the concerns of the telecommunications industry,” Foley said, “and then trying to do something in a space where we really don’t have a lot of jurisdiction given to us at all by the federal government.”

The council will take a second, final vote on the changes at a future meeting.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Governing.com, Faith E. Pinho 07 Feb 2020

Scientists Sue FCC for Dismissing Studies Linking Cell Phone Radiation to Cancer
USA Created: 7 Feb 2020
A Nobel Prize-winning scientist has filed a lawsuit alleging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) failed to update cellular phone and wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation limits and cellular phone testing methods in over two decades. These failures, the plaintiffs contend, ignore “peer-reviewed scientific studies showing that radiation from cell phones and cell phone towers and transmitters is associated with severe health effects in humans, including cancer, DNA damage, damage to the reproductive organs, and brain damage (including memory problems).”

Law&Crime obtained an exclusive copy of the lawsuit from Nobel co-laureate Devra Davis, who currently serves as president of the Environmental Health Trust (EHT), the lead plaintiffs in the action.

”The FCC has for years failed to protect public health by relying on 24-year-old safety tests designed when phones were the size of a shoe and used by few,” Davis told Law&Crime via email. ”We filed this appeal in order to insist that the agency take full measure of the U.S. government and other scientific evidence that cellphone radiation can be harmful.”

Davis continued, noting the FCC’s hands-off approach to cell phone-related regulation over the last three presidential administrations.

”The agency has dismissed hundreds of scientific studies submitted to its inquiry on wireless radiation and the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and others, without providing any rationale for doing so,” she said.

The lawsuit specifically accuses the FCC of violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and is requesting an appeal of the agency’s prior order denying to revisit cellular phone standards. From the filing:

[The FCC] (1) has improperly terminated a Notice of Inquiry begun in 2013 to review, update, and amend its emission exposure limits for radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by telecommunications devices and facilities, including but not limited to cell phones and cell phone towers and transmitters; (2) has improperly revised the criteria for determining when a licensee is exempt from its RF exposure evaluation criteria and the methods that RF equipment operators can use to mitigate the risk of excess exposure to the public and to workers; and (3) has improperly denied a petition for reconsideration of the [FCC’s] finding, and otherwise improperly rejected public comments, that the pinnae (outer ears) should be treated like other extremities for purposes of determining compliance with the RF emission exposure limits.

“The [FCC’s prior] Order exceeds the [FCC’s] statutory authority and poses significant risks to the public health, safety, and security,” the filing continues.

The plaintiffs’ attorney Edward Myers slammed the FCC’s prior decision in comments to Law&Crime.

“The FCC’s order terminated an inquiry into the adequacy of existing health and safety standards for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices and facilities, including cell phones and cell phone towers and transmitters,” he said. “The existing regulations were promulgated in 1996 based on scientific data from 1992 and the FCC had commenced the inquiry in 2013 after the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report finding that the existing standards may be based on outdated science and may need to be updated.”

Myers continued, clarifying the relief sought:

In challenging the FCC’s decision, the petitioners contend that the agency has unlawfully disregarded a large body of evidence in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, among others. This evidence includes numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies showing that radiation from cell phones and cell phone towers and transmitters is associated with severe health effects in humans, including cancer, DNA damage, damage to the reproductive organs, and brain damage (including memory problems). The petitioners are seeking to have the court remand the matter to the FCC so that it can complete the inquiry into its standards based on current science.

Davis went on to compare the lax regulatory environment to the state of affairs between U.S. administrative agencies and the powerhouse automobile industry until a consumer push—and concurrent litigation—led by Ralph Nader led to a series of meaningful reforms in the 1980s.

“Unlike France and Israel, many Americans are ignorant of the fact that phones are two-way microwave radios that are tested while held inches away from the body. Safety advice is also hidden within operating systems about keeping devices away from the abdomen of pregnant women or children,” Davis said. “Just like cars in the 1970s, we need the equivalent of airbags and seatbelts, that have saved millions of lives, to ensure hardware and software operate at the lowest feasible levels and protect billions of children and others using wireless radiating devices that comply with outmoded standards.”

“The FCC is ignoring the recommendation of our nation’s largest organization of children’s doctors—the American Academy of Pediatrics,” EHT Executive Director Theodora Scarato told Law&Crime—noting that the physician-led group “asked the FCC to test phones the way we use them—in positions against the body—and the FCC said it was unnecessary.”

Law&Crime reached out to the FCC for comment and will update this space if we receive one.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Law & Crime, Colin Kalmbacher, 04 Feb 2020

The 'race to 5G' is a myth
USA Created: 7 Feb 2020
Telecommunications providers relentlessly extol the power of fifth-generation (5G) wireless technology. Government officials and policy advocates fret that the winner of the "5G race" will dominate the internet of the future, so America cannot afford to lose out. Pundits declare that 5G will revolutionize the digital world. It all sounds very thrilling. Unfortunately, the hype has gone too far.
5G systems will, over time, replace today's 4G, just as next year's iPhone 12 will improve on this year's 11. 5G networks offer significantly greater transmission capacity. However, despite all the hype, they won't represent a radical break from the current mobile experience.

First of all, the "race to 5G" is a myth. 5G is a marketing term for a family of technologies, which carriers can stretch to cover a variety of networks. The technical standards are still under development, so what counts as "true" 5G is arguable. As with 4G, the 5G rollout will take years, as carriers upgrade their networks with new gear and users buy new phones. Just as they do today, connections will fall back to slower speeds when users aren't near enough to a tower, or if the network is overloaded. There's no magic moment when a carrier, or a nation, "has" 5G.

Even if there was a race, it's over: South Korea and China have already built much more extensive 5G networks than the United States. But that shouldn't be cause for panic. Customers in those countries may have a leg up on faster connections, but that doesn't necessarily create a sustainable strategic advantage. Romania is one of 10 countries with significantly faster average fixed broadband connections than America today, yet no one in Washington seems concerned that will give Romanian firms a dominant advantage. The major tech platforms delivering innovative digital services to the world are still based in the United States and China. There are important concerns about the Chinese networking firm Huawei creating backdoors for surveillance or tilting the carrier equipment market toward Chinese-defined standards. Your 5G user experience, however, won't depend on who makes the gear in the guts of the network.

The overheated rhetoric is based on the misconception that 5G heralds a new era of services for end-users. In reality, the claimed performance — hundreds of megabits or even gigabits per second — is misleading. Averages and ideal numbers mask huge variations depending on distance to an antenna, obstructions, weather and other factors. The fastest speeds require "millimeter wave" spectrum, which doesn't penetrate walls or foliage well, and is generally less reliable than the lower frequencies used today. Millimeter wave requires a much denser network of antennas, which could be cost-prohibitive outside dense urban areas. Even if that hurdle is overcome, a gigabit per second to millions of phones requires a network able to move traffic at that speed end-to-end, which doesn't exist today.

And just what are the applications that need more capacity than 4G offers? We already get crystal-clear video chats, a torrent of TikToks, Pokemon Go augmented reality, and massive Fortnite battles. Yes, every advance in network performance opened up new uses that seemed insignificant before, but the new capabilities of 5G are best suited to non-consumer applications.
If and when fleets of self-driving vehicles communicate constantly with each other or remote robotic surgery is a standard feature in local hospitals, 5G will be a must. But these next-generation "internet of things" scenarios are years in the future, as are the kinds of virtual and augmented reality worlds that appear in science fiction.

The most immediate use of 5G is "network slicing" to rapidly deploy and reconfigure specialized networks for financial, health care and other applications. Enterprises that need quality of service guarantees can access a virtual "slice" of capacity, rather than building a separate network. It's a big deal for carriers and large companies. Not so sexy for ordinary consumers.

When we look back from 2030, the changes in the digital world will be dramatic. The 5G platform will support those changes, just as 2G, 3G, and 4G wireless did in prior decades. However, the heralded innovations of 2019 to 2021 will seem insignificant.
Enjoy your new 5G phone when it arrives. Just don't expect it to bring you to wireless nirvana.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: CNN Business Perspectives, Kevin Werbach, 03 Feb 2020

First 5G Global Protest: Worldwide News Coverage
USA Created: 28 Jan 2020
Go to the source link below to find links to global media coverage of Stop 5G protests.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: SaferEMR, Joel M. Moskowitz, 27 Jan 2020

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 180   Next›  Last» 
 News item: