Update re: Wireless Cellular Service of Any “G”

Adapted from an article by Oram Miller | Mar 23, 2022 | Original article here

On Aug 13, 2021 the Wireless World Irrevocably Changed, Based on the Ruling in Case 20-1025, CHD/EHT v FCC

Anyone Can Cite the Following Data and Place it — By Reference — Into Their Local City/County/State Public Records

On Aug 13, 2021, the US Courts of Appeals, DC Circuit ruled in Case 20-1025, Environmental Health Trust, et al. v FCC — a lawsuit that challenged the legality of the FCC’s attempted de facto rule-making, a sneaky maneuver that tried to extend its current RF microwave radiation exposure guidelines to frequencies above 6,000 MHz, without any reasoned decision-making. The judges caught the FCC and remanded FCC Order 19-126 back to the FCC, invalidating the Order.

The DC Circuit judges ruled the following in Case 20-1025:

“. . . we grant the petitions in part and remand to the Commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radio-frequency [microwave] radiation. It must, in particular,

  • (i) provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines,
  • (ii) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and
  • (iii) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.”

Wireless radio frequency microwave radiation is bioactive and is currently being insufficiently regulated. Therefore, each state or locality can regulate the maximum power output of microwave radiation from wireless infrastructure antennas that reaches any areas that are accessible to human beings and other living organisms, consistent with the 11,000+ pages of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense and others plaintiffs placed in the FCC’s public record: Vol-1, Vol-2, Vol-3, Vol-4, Vol-5, Vol-6, Vol-7 Vol-8, Vol-9, Vol-10, Vol-11, Vol-12, Vol-13, Vol-14, Vol-15, Vol-16, Vol-17, Vol-18, Vol-19, Vol-20, Vol-21, Vol-22, Vol-23, Vol-24, Vol-25, Vol-26 and Vol-27.

Additional Relevant Evidence

  • The New Hampshire Commission to study the environmental and health effects of [4G/5G Wireless microwave radiation transmissions] concluded on November 1, 2020, after reviewing thousands of peer reviewed studies and listening to months of testimony from experts, that there is a significant public health risk associated with the [total dose] of radio frequency [microwave] radiation exposures which is growing every day with the proliferation of [unnecessarily dense deployment of 4G/5G cellular [infrastructure antennas].

  • The Federal Communication Commission has used a specific absorption rate [(SAR)] limit [since August 1996] to manage the risks associated with wireless [microwave radiation exposures and] emissions, [but this SAR limit only applies to frequencies up to 6,000 MHz, which means there is no FCC microwave radiation MPE regulation upon which any locality can rely in 2022 — UNTIL the FCC completes its court-mandated environmental review for the proposed addition of 800,000 to 1,200,000 additional cell towers projected to be constructed to build the proposed dense 4G/5G Wireless infrastructure grid hyped under the Wireless Industry FCC propaganda slogan of “Winning the Race to 5G” (see https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-126A1.pdf)]

  • Please, understand the following relevant facts re: FCC Order 19-26:

On Page 3, the FCC attempted the following:

Para 3. . . . based on our existing limits, we revise our implementing rules to reflect modern technology and today’s uses. We streamline our criteria for determining when a licensee is exempt from our RF exposure evaluation criteria, replacing our prior regime of service-based exemptions with a set of formulas for situations in which the risk of excessive RF exposure is minimal. For those licensees who do not qualify for an exemption, we provide more flexibility for licensees to establish compliance with our RF exposure limits. And we specify methods that RF equipment operators can use to mitigate the risk of excess exposure, both to members of the public and trained workers (such as training, supervision, and signage).

Para 4. . . . we notice further targeted proposals on the application of our RF emission exposure limits for future uses of wireless technologies. Specifically, we propose to formalize an additional limit for localized RF exposure and the associated methodology for compliance for portable devices operating at high frequencies (gigahertz (GHz) frequencies) on top of our already existing limits that apply at these frequencies, and propose to extend this to terahertz (THz) frequencies as well4 We also propose to allow wireless power transfer (WPT) equipment under Parts 15 and 18 of the Commission’s rules and propose specific exposure limits for such operations.

From page 3, footnote 4:

Footnote 4. “The standards for localized specific absorption rate (SAR) that are normally applied for testing compliance of consumer devices operating below 6 GHz were derived from the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) whole body limits that extend up to 100 GHz. The Commission currently employs a similar derivation to apply localized limits where appropriate for testing consumer devices operating above 6 GHz, and we propose in this item to formalize that approach.”

Wire America: Regarding the text cited from FCC 19-126, above, whatever the FCC attempted in FCC 19-126, was ruled on Aug 13, 2021 by the US Court of Appeals DC Circuit to be arbitrary and capricious and was remanded back to the FCC for further consideration — SO THIS ATTEMPT FAILED.

Also, the FCC falsely states things in reverse-order in footnote 4. The regulations were actually established in the opposite order: the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) whole body limits were derived from SAR. If there is no relevant SAR, then there is no MPE.

Read this NCPR Report No. 86 → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/1986-NCRP-86-OCR.pdf. . . These facts are very germane to any locality.

Dense 4G/5G Wireless Update: March 23, 2022

Several important changes have happened in the Big Wireless agenda since the last update of this article in October, 2020:

  • 5G is a marketing term that offers three shortcuts as flavors of 5G:
    • Low-band 5G (600 to 1000 MHz),
    • Mid-band 5G (1000 MHz to 6000 MHz)
    • High-band 5G, otherwise known as the millimeter Wave (mmWave) — technically mmWave starts at 30,000 MHz but this marketing term/flavor often include frequencies as low as 20,000 MHz.
  • Verizon, AT&T and others started offering new C-band Wireless at frequencies around 3450-3700 MHz in January, 2022 with upgrades to existing Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) expected to continue over the next few years; the BIG LIE has been fully exposed — the lie that alleged that 4G/5G so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) needed to be installed on utility poles in front of homes can now be ignored.
  • T-Mobile, in addition to its much-hyped 600MHz service, has expanded its 5G mid-band service at frequencies around 2500 MHz — spectrum bandwidth that it acquired from Sprint when the companies merged in 2020. None of the infrastructure antennas for these frequencies need to be installed on on utility poles in front of homes, either.
  • All three cellular carriers are attempting to still expand their mmWave antenna infrastructure, but cities that know how to skate to where the puck will be are shutting down such hazardous WTF applications to deliver actual public safety to their residents.
  • Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are attempting to expand their mmWave service beyond a few convention centers, stadiums, arenas, airports and similar areas with concentrated foot traffic, but it is an open question whether they will ever be able to do so; localities do not have to allow this at all.
  • These carriers are also attempting to expand their mmWave antennas into buildings to reach customers when they are indoors in public places (shopping malls, office buildings), but building owners do not have to allow this at all.
  • All three U.S. carriers have repurposed 3G/4G frequencies for their low-band and mid-band so-called “5G Nationwide” service, which is anything but. All speed tests to date of broadly available service show that actual 4G speeds exceed actual 5G speeds.
  • U.S. carriers also continue to expand and upgrade their 4G LTE networks in the low-band and mid-band frequencies upgrading equipment on existing Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs). This called LTE-Advanced and LTE-Advanced Pro.

It is important to understand that 4G and 5G are terms primarily used by the marketing departments of the world’s cellular carriers. Industry groups such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) also use 5G to a moving target for cellular technologies based upon characteristics such as peak data rate and latency of data transmission. These criteria are set out in the ITU’s 2017 publication, Report IUT-R M.2410, “Minimum requirements related to technical performance for IMT (International Mobile Telecommunications)-2020 radio interface(s),” available here.

Engineers and developers working for these carriers, however, focus on technological features that come from committee work done by members of the Third Generation Partnership Program, or 3GPP, a consortium of the world’s cell carriers that provide guidance on how carriers can implement technological innovations and upgrades into the world’s cellular networks. The 3GPP publishes recommendations in what are known as “Releases,” which are developed and published as a series. The 3GPP and the world’s cell carriers are currently working on Releases 16 through 18.

These releases include integration of advanced features none of which are required by law or covered by preemption of local authority. Localities can refuse infrastructure that does not provide actual telecommunication service (the ability to make an outdoor wireless phone call) .

The following are business goals, not services required by law.

  • Automation of radios at cellular sites for more “edge computing”, thereby cutting down on the time it takes commands to be sent from mobile devices to antenna sites, which are then processed by servers and returned to the end user’s device, providing “Ultra Low Latency”.
  • Carrier aggregation, which allows for signals to be processed by multiple antennas simultaneously, also markedly increasing download and upload speed.
  • Network slicing, which allows the network to allocate slices of its signal to different phones depending upon the customers’ needs.
  • Cell carriers converting from 4G LTE-supported non-standalone (NSA) technology to new, enhanced 5G-supported standalone (SA) technology. Standalone technology is more integrated and operates faster and more seamlessly than non-standalone technology. Standalone technology allows for network slicing. Dish network’s new, fourth cellular network being deployed in the U.S. is built completely on SA technology. This is possible because they do not have a 4G LTE network that they need to integrate into their new 5G network like older, legacy cell carriers, including Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T, do, which need to maintain 4G service for their existing customer base.
  • Incorporation by Verizon and AT&T of Dynamic Spectrum Sharing, or DSS, to allow their phones to use 5G technologies when the user’s device is only near 4G LTE frequencies.
  • Massive MIMO, which allows for many more customers to be connected to the same antenna simultaneously at the same frequency through a process known as “spatial multiplexing.”
  • Verizon uses massive MIMO for their mid-band C-band service, thereby bringing focused, beam-formed signals used primarily in the mmWave band down into their more geographically expanded mid band coverage.
  • T-Mobile has already been using massive MIMO for two to three years for their mid-band 5G 2.5 GHz service that they inherited from Sprint.
  • Conversion by the industry from Non-Open Radio Access Network to Open Radio Access Networks (O-RAN). O-RAN provides for more optimization of the flow of information on the network, using virtualized software and greater interoperability. See a summary here.
  • Moving the cellular industry’s networks onto the Internet. The world’s cell networks are now cloud-based.
  • Expansion of fixed wireless Internet service by all three U.S. major cell carriers in residential neighborhoods.