Is 5G Safe?

There are lots of differing opinions, yet the mobile phone industry is actively trying to confuse and mislead consumers about the health risks of 5G. 

Obama Helps to Prevent Cell Phone Bill Shock

Thanks to some hard work by the Obama administration, the FCC will now require carriers to alert customers who are about to exceed data plan or text limits on calling plans. They are also required to inform customers who may be about to incur large roaming charges. The new cell phone billing notification rules would require cellular carriers AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile & Sprint to send text messages or voicemails to users as they approach their plans’ data or voice limits.  These regulations would also apply to international roaming charges. The messages would be automated and occur immediately without the need for a mobile application or opt-in. President Obama praised the industry announcement, saying

“Our phones shouldn’t cost us more than the monthly rent or mortgage. I appreciate the mobile phone companies’ willingness to work with my administration and join us in our overall and ongoing efforts to protect American consumers by making sure financial transactions are fair, honest and transparent.”

Must Have Consumer Electronics for 2011

• 
  Survey Conducted by SmartBrief.com
  
  
  What will be the must-have electronics in 2011?

  Tablet	46.42%
  Streaming video box or app	19.89%
  Smartphone	10.88%
  Not sure	10.08%
  3DTV	9.02%
  E-reader	3.71%

• Primary reason for to connecting device to WiFi or 4G?

  find exact content	41.47%
  no more wires in living room	20.74%
  cheap content	18.89%
  its new	14.75%

Big Money Trying to Squash Cell Phone Boosters

Is Big Money Trying to Squash Cell Phone Boosters?

Are the big carriers "using the FCC as a puppet" to eliminate a problem that doesn't exist?  Why now after more than a decade of growth and when companies like Wilson Electronics and Wi-Ex have built quite small businesses compared to the big carriers.  Do carriers now feel threatened by the "new kid on the block" MagicJack (FemtoJack under development) who has built an incredible franchise in VoIP and not wants to get into the cell phone booster business as well. FCC Could Ban Cell Signal Boosters = Bad Idea.

Reply comments on the Federal Communications Commission’s notice of proposed rulemaking on cellphone signal boosters produced some finger-pointing between carriers and equipment manufacturers as well as renewed calls on both sides for the government agency to take action on the issue. The Federal Communications Commission is considering implementing a law that would make cellphone boosters illegal unless they are deployed by a wireless operator or with the consent of a wireless operator, a move that could impact thousands of end-users already owning such devices. The FCC could care less about consumers based on my recent conversations with them and would rather squash our efforts to provide more transparency to coverage maps.  See our post the FCC Violates our Trademark.

Perhaps one of the angrier responses came from YMax Corp., which is building the magicJack femtocell called the FemtoJack that it says could operate under Part 15 rules of low-power devices. CTIA in its comments before the FCC said devices like the FemtoJack should not be permitted to operate unless they are approved by wireless carriers.
more info at RCR Wireless »

Wilson Electronics of St. George, Utah, contended in a filing that "well-designed and -engineered signal boosters actually benefit not only wireless customers but the carriers as well." To ensure the boosters are well-designed, Wilson asked the FCC to adopt three standards for approving signal boosters during routine certification.  The FCC, Wilson said, should require all signal boosters to feature:

• effective self-oscillation (feedback) detection and automatic shutdown;
• effective cell tower proximity detection and automatic shutdown to prevent cell-site overloads; and
• bi-directional (tower-to-device and device-to-tower) signal amplification.

Walt Brooks from Wilson Electronics contends that feedback detection and automatic shutdown would prevent inaudible RF-noise-generating over-modulation that "can knock a tower down." Proximity detection would prevent ambient noise from being amplified when close to a cell site to such an extent that it drowns out other calls being made through the site, he added. Such an overload reduces a cell site's capacity to handle calls.
more info at Wilson Electronics »

FCC Could Ban Cell Signal Boosters = Bad Idea

People Don’t Seek Solutions Unless There Are Problems!

Comments on the RCR Wireless Article FCC to address cellphone boosters, jammers and is the FCC losing its' authority and credibility based on this court ruling?

The Federal Communications Commission is considering implementing a law that would make cellphone boosters illegal unless they are deployed by a wireless operator (DCZ:  Wireless operates hate signal boosters b/c they are not under their control)  or with the consent of a wireless operator, a move that could impact thousands of end-users already owning such devices.  (DCZ:  What problem are they trying to solve that the network operators have not dealt with for years?)

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking before the FCC addresses an ongoing controversy within the wireless industry and could impact devices like MagicJack (DCZ: this product is not a booster its VoIP.  However, they have a product called FemtoJack under development) and other femtocell solutions, as well as local and state governments that want to be able to use cellphone jammers to prevent prisoners from unauthorized use of cellphones. (DCZ:  Or schools who want their kids paying attention to the teacher)  Depending on whose argument you believe, the eventual ruling could even have an impact on net neutrality rules.  (DCZ:  I don't see how this applies to Net Neutrality)  One proponent of signal boosters and jammers said that making boosters illegal won’t address the products already in the market, nor will it stop the sale of signal boosters.  (DCZ:  There are a handful of big companies and thousands of people employed by them with hundreds of thousands of devices already on the market.)

Wireless industry trade association CTIA in 2007 filed a petition for a declaratory ruling at the FCC, asking that it outlaw the sale and use of any device that can enhance or impair cellphone calls. (DCZ:  Might have worked under the previous corrupt Bush Administration)  The petition was a surprise to some third-party retailers, who called RCR Wireless News at the time and thought the story had to be wrong. Therein lies the crux of the problem: a cellphone booster can enhance coverage for a customer, but also has the potential to interfere with someone else’s signal (DCZ:  How often and how can they prove this?). Yet, cellphone boosters have been marketed to carriers and end-users alike as a way to improve the cellular signal in areas where coverage is less than satisfactory – and the reality remains that cellphone coverage in some locations is spotty.  (DCZ:  Carriers need to get their act together with Femtocells first before they decide to outlaw something like this. Signal boosters provide a lot of value in the car.)

The FCC’s definition of signal boosters is fairly broad as it includes amplifiers, repeaters, boosters, Distributed Antenna Systems, and in-building radiation systems that enhance CMRS signals or Part 90 signals. CTIA is asking that the commission rule that companies must have an FCC license to operate a signal booster or have the consent from an FCC licensee (i.e., operator), and that the sale and marketing of devices to unauthorized parties (i.e., end-users or commercial building owners) is illegal.

CTIA also says that wireless microphones, jammers, and new products like the MagicJack femtocell device also are threats to the network.  (DCZ:  What happened to let entrepreneurs create technology to help the industry progress?)

“Unlike wireless handsets, which are under the control of the wireless licensee’s base station, signal boosters cannot be controlled by wireless licensees. However, it is clear that the commission’s rules require carriers to control and govern the use of signal boosters and amplifiers. In fact, this control contemplated in the commission’s rules exists for very good reasons. Signal boosters, because they are not controlled by the base station, do not operate at the lowest possible power. Rather, these devices are intended to operate at much higher power, which raises the noise floor, harming spectrum efficiency and causing interference that leads to degraded or dropped calls unless the devices are properly installed and overseen by the carrier,” CTIA said in comments on the NPRM.

“To address the harm caused by unauthorized signal booster operation, the commission must affirm its existing requirements, which prohibit the sale or marketing of signal boosters to unauthorized users. Currently, many manufacturers and retailers market and sell these products to end-users with the knowledge that these devices do not and cannot comply with the commission’s licensing and interference control obligations. Under FCC rules, the use of signal boosters is only permitted by licensees or parties authorized by licensees. However, illicit sale and operation of these devices will continue to proliferate – and will be impossible to effectively enforce – if the commission does not take prompt action to affirm these requirements.”

Not everyone agrees. Howard Melamed, CEO of CellAntenna, said a blanket “make them illegal” mandate doesn’t solve the problem. It will just force end-users in need of a solution to buy products overseas. “People don’t go out seeking a solution unless there is a problem.”

Howard said some of his clients are hospitals that have needed coverage but not been able to get satisfactory coverage from the carrier. Instead of a blanket mandate, the FCC should force signal-booster manufacturers to tighten the design specifications. He’s also advocated that a registry be created where people can register their signal booster with the FCC so in the event the signal booster is affecting the network, the carrier can know who or what is causing the problem. Melamed also joked in an interview with RCR Wireless News that he is a “persona non grata” within the wireless carrier community.

Wilson Electronics in its filing with the FCC argued that mobile amplifiers should not be subject to the same rules as larger, traditional fixed power boosters. Wilson also said the mobile boosters, designed for personal use in a car, for example, are an example of net neutrality initiatives at the FCC that are designed to allow any device to attach to the network.

CTIA disagrees with that assessment, as well as comments filed by The DAS Forum that recommend a code of conduct is followed, rather than more regulation.

Both CTIA and Howard agree that poor-quality boosters can cause problems. But Howard argues that not allowing U.S. companies to sell boosters that meet FCC certification standards will only lead people and businesses to buy poorer quality boosters overseas. Signal boosters are sold throughout the rest of the world, he said; the controversy only is occurring in North America.  (DCZ:  Pointing the finger in the wrong direction)

Jammer issues

But cellphone boosters are only half of the FCC’s notice of proposed rulemaking. The commission is also reviewing the sale of cellphone jammers, which block signals. Jammers can only be sold to federal authorities under the way the law reads today. Melamed argues that state and local authorities need to be able to use jammers, especially in a society where cellphones are used to remotely detonate bombs and are the No. 1 device illegally snuck into prisons. However, the FCC may not be the final authority on the use of cellphone jammers at the local and state levels. The Senate in October passed the Safe Prison Act, which allows the director of the federal bureau of prisons or the CEO of a state to seek FCC approval to deploy cellphone jammers in their jurisdictions to block wireless coverage in correctional facilities.