By B.N. Frank
So far, for the most part, 5G service has received lousy reviews (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). In fact, just last month it was described as a “complete hot mess.” Additionally, opposition to deployment is increasing worldwide due to numerous significant issues associated with it. This has limited, slowed, and/or stopped activation in some locations including again recently near U.S. airports due to unresolved aviation risks. Since 2017 doctors and scientists have asked for moratoriums on Earth and in space (see 1, 2) and the majority of scientists oppose deployment. Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals experiencing symptoms and illnesses after 5G was activated (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Some researchers also assert that activation may be contributing to COVID-19 infections as well as hundreds of thousands if not millions of bird deaths.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is supposed to protect Americans from the telecom industry. Instead it has catered to it for decades (see 1, 2) and this has led to several lawsuits. In 2021, a federal court ruled in favor of organizations and petitioners that sued the agency for NOT adequately protecting Americans from wireless radiation exposure. Despite the ruling as well as other confirmed safety risks associated with 5G, the FCC (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) as well as other government and state agencies and committees (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) have continued to promote and fund its and other wireless deployment and densification throughout the U.S instead of safer and more secure hard-wired broadband options. This being the case, the FCC could eventually provide the CTA with exactly what it wants.
From Inside Towers:
CTA Tries to Stave Off 5G Receiver Mandates
Big Tech companies are trying to head off any FCC effort to establish what they say would be “one-size-fits-all” standards for 5G receivers that would work against the agency’s goals of an innovative 5G environment.
The FCC opened an inquiry in April into setting wireless receiver standards, Inside Towers reported. It’s one of several routes the Commission could take to protect frequencies in increasingly crowded spectrum bands. Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said at the time the Commission has historically focused on transmission standards. “We recognize that a variety of approaches may be appropriate, whether through industry-led voluntary measures, Commission policy and guidance, or rule requirements where other approaches would be insufficient,” she said after the FCC approved the Notice of Inquiry (NOI).
At this stage the NOI is only an effort to collect information on how to improve receiver performance and expand the FCC’s focus. The harder work will come when the Commission develops and proposes a new approach. The FCC has tried to address receiver standards in the past without coming up with a new way forward, according to Broadcasting and Cable.
In meetings earlier this month, Consumer Technology Association representatives told advisors to Rosenworcel and other top FCC staffers that Commission-mandated receiver standards were not the way to go, according to agency records. While conceding an increasingly congested environment for RF signals that could only become more congested as the FCC opens up more spectrum for 5G, CTA said that “One-size-fits all mandates on receiver performance” would actually undercut re-allocation efforts and “stifle” the innovation the agency is trying to promote. CTA said industry-led efforts at self-regulation have the most likelihood of success, as it says they’ve been proven “time and time again.”
There seems to be agreement that the Commission’s regulatory philosophy concerning interference protection needs to change with the times. “[W]ireless communications systems involve transmitters and receivers,” Rosenworcel said during the April vote. “It’s a two-way proposition. Both are vital. Both matter. So we need to rethink our approach to spectrum policy and move beyond just transmitters and consider receivers, too.”
Republican Commissioner Nathan Simington also signaled in April that past performance is no guarantee of future returns in a changed spectrum landscape, though he’d prefer industry do the heavy lifting after getting some pushback for his initial push for receiver standards. “It is time that our regulatory approach goes duplex both receivers and transmitters,” he said after voting to approve the NOI. “To proceed with the status quo risks stymying innovative technologies that require intensive use of spectrum adjacent to incumbent commercial allocations,” said Simington.
Simington has in the past taken issue with some of the CTA arguments, according to Broadcasting and Cable. As to stifling innovation, he’s skeptical, saying better standards could put [price] pressure on Chinese manufacturers and make it more feasible for non-Chinese manufacturers. That sounds to him like actually protecting innovation, or at least mitigating some of China’s dominance in the market.
By Leslie Stimson, Inside Towers Washington Bureau Chief
In 2019, telecom executives gave U.S. congressional testimony that they had NO independent scientific evidence that 5G is safe. Of course, research has already determined there are health risks associated with 5G exposure as well as exposure to 4G and other sources of wireless Wi-Fi radiation (see 1, 2) and electromagnetic fields (aka “Electrosmog”). But again, health risks aren’t the only risks that have been associated with 5G activation…
Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other unsafe technology. For more information visit our archives and the following websites.
- Americans for Responsible Technology
- Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
- Environmental Health Trust
- Physicians for Safe Technology
- 5G Free
- 5G Information
- Safe Tech International
- Wireless Information Network
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.