Supervisors Deny 70 Household Critical Infrastructure

Note:  This letter to The Union Editor was submitted on 30 May 2019

Nevada County supervisors oppose new cell tower read the headline!

“Nevada County Supervisor Ed Scofield said he usually supports new cell towers. However, he wasn’t going to approve one at 13083 Wildlife Lane.
Speaking near the end of a Tuesday hearing for a tower, Scofield said the proposed 110-foot AT&T tower would bring broadband access to only some 70 homes.”
In today’s digital world Broadband access has become critical infrastructure, just like water, power and waste management according to the Brookings Institute, California Public Utilities Commission, the Federal Communication Commission and other future assessing organizations.
Would the Supervisors deny 70 households access to water, power, or waste management? No! So why do they deny 70 homes access to more economic opportunity, better education, and healthcare that is available on this critical infrastructure called broadband?
I have invested 1,000 of hours promoting broadband in Nevada County, mapping broadband deficiencies, working with Congress and the FCC to promote federal investment in rural broadband. Now that it has arrived Supervisor Schofield says, “We do not need that” Really, how clueless to the needs of modern digital society can a Supervisor be?
This kind of leadership is destroying the economic potential of a beautiful County. It would help if Nevada County had a more knowledgeable representative.

Advertisements

T-Mobile Home Internet

Telecompetitor.com has the details:

T-Mobile will begin a limited trial of its LTE-based fixed wireless service, dubbed T-Mobile Home Internet, this week, the company said today. The 50 Mbps service will sell for $50 per month without a data cap – although the company states that during congestion, “Home Internet customers may notice speeds lower than other customers due to data prioritization.”

The offering is by invitation only to existing customers in select “rural and underserved” areas, which the carrier did not specify. The company hopes to connect up to 50,000 homes this year.

In a press release, T-Mobile said the new offering was just the beginning of what the company could accomplish if its merger with Sprint is approved. The merger would bring Sprint’s broad mid-band spectrum holdings into the T-Mobile fold, which according to the release, would give the merged company the capability to offer T-Mobile Home with speeds up to 100 Mbps to more than half of U.S. zip codes by 2024, when the company potentially would serve 9.5 million U.S. households.
T-Mobile Home Internet

T-Mobile first began talking about the possibility of using Sprint spectrum to bring broadband to rural areas last June, when the plans came to light in a filing the company made with the FCC. Several months later, T-Mobile increased the number of homes it said it could reach with fixed wireless, and earlier this month the company previewed today’s news when it said it would be announcing something soon about fixed wireless. At that time, the company said it expected to use a mixture of 4G and 5G technology to support fixed wireless service.

The T-Mobile Home Internet news comes at a time when interest in fixed wireless is booming, although just how broadly it will be deployed remains unclear. A large percentage of the rural broadband funding recently awarded through the Connect America Fund auction will go toward fixed wireless projects. And major carriers, including AT&T and Verizon, have been deploying the technology.

Continue reading HERE. [Emphasis added]

 

Indoors-Outdoors — 5Gs Dirty Little Secret

Mike Murphy, CTO for North America, Nokia Corp has some interesting insights into 5G, which will have some impacts on rural broadband. Eighty (80%) percent of traffic originates indoors and twenty (20%) percent outdoors. However mmWave 5G does not penetrate walls, windows, and trees very well if at all. It is important to remember that 5G is more than a cell phone carrier, it is being marketed as a broadband service, with some mobile phone capacity.

8100

Murphy explains:

. . . there is another dirty secret in the closet. The rule of thumb for capacity, as embedded in the 3GPP channel models, is that 80% of traffic originates indoors and 20% outdoors. Compounding that, there is a seasonal aspect to traffic. During the cold winter months in the north, there is even less traffic outdoors (likewise, in the hot summer months in the south). With LTE, indoor traffic is primarily served by outdoor cell sites, booming signals through walls and windows. This begs the question: What happens when 5G needs to handle that indoor traffic?

In the US, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is planning to auction off Millimeter Wave (mmWave) (24GHz, 28GHz and 39GHz) spectrum over the next two years. But mmWave doesn’t like hard things such as walls, windows and trees. Penetration loss is significant. This means 5G mmWave, practically, will not really be able to service indoor demand from outdoors-in (unlike low band LTE). (For completeness, we should note that T-Mobile US Inc. ‘s 600MHz spectrum and Sprint Corp. (NYSE: S) Band 41 spectrum (2.5GHz) can help in this situation to a degree. However, the number of petabytes needed is very significant, and it is unlikely these solutions alone will suffice.)

So where does this leave us? There are only two options. The first is to use low- or mid-band spectrum outdoors, and blast millimeter wave indoors; the outside-in approach. But in the dense urban case, we are already using that spectrum! So, the only real alternative is new mid-band spectrum. For the moment, none is in sight in the US until about 2020+ when the 3.7-4.2GHz band — or parts of it — become available. The other is to deploy mmWave indoors. The problem with going indoors versus using the outdoors-in approach is that everyone wants to get inside. Imagine Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and all the others showing up at your building and wanting to deploy 5G mmWave inside every room. Perhaps neutral hosting solutions may help.

Before we finish, let’s dismiss one counter argument. Some will say, “But WiFi will fix that.” WiFi, however, has its own growth problems, thank you very much. WiFi demand is also growing, at least at 30% or more, and it too has looming capacity issues, with no significant new spectrum becoming available either.

Cellular demand, meanwhile, is separate, independent and additive. So, there is no getting around it. 5G needs to go and bang on some front doors.

Full Article at Light Reading 5G

Will the 5G providers be banging on the doors in small towns and villages to install mmWave 5G in multiple building after populating the town with small cell towers ever 500 feet. Not likely, as the costs would soon exceed the potential revenue. The mmWave spectrum is not the right technology for rural broadband, whereas LEO satellites seem to have more potential.

The rollout plan for 5G is to serve the dense urban areas and then the suburbs and finally some larger small cities in rural locations. The timeline is about ten years; thus the LEO satellite broadband will be available long before 5G gets anywhere near rural communities in the Sierra and elsewhere. LEO bandwidth should be available by 2020. Go Starlink and OneWeb!

starlink_graphic

C|NET: In Farm Country, Forget Broadband. You Might Not Have Internet At All

5G is around the corner, yet pockets of America still can’t get basic internet access

C|NET BB

 

 

This is part of CNET’s “Crossing the Broadband Divide” series exploring the challenges of getting internet access to everyone.

[…]

This corner of Iowa, where I grew up, isn’t alone. While US carriers are busy promising super-speedy 5G wireless service, pockets of the country still have slow or even no internet. In many rural areas, there are only one or two providers, and the service available is pricey and spotty. Hospitals, schools and other critical groups don’t have fast-enough internet to function. Federal and state governments have provided billions of dollars to companies to build out speedy fiber networks, but outdated and undetailed maps make it tough to identify areas in need.

[…]

Continue reading HERE.

Many of the problems in this article can be applied to rural California Counties.  It is an ROI issue, which is driven by population density.  You can look at the US Census maps and figure out the probability of getting broadband access. The problem is acerbated when considering 5G service as the cell tower coverage is measured in square yards, rather than square miles.  If you do not have broadband now, the probability of getting 5G anytime soon is very low, if not zero.

The ‘Wet Blanket’ Of 5G Wireless and Climate Change

— During Senate Commerce’s Friday field hearing in South Dakota on 5G wireless technology, Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken raised what he called “the wet blanket” of the coming wide-scale deployment: “I feel we also need to address … what health impacts micro millimeter waves have because it’s so new,” TenHaken told Senate Commerce Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.). “I’m going to get asked this 20 times yet this evening about the health ramifications of 5G … . I’m hearing this more and more.” Although TenHaken considers such concern “inflated,” local governments will need “clear direction, talking points, studies” to support the wireless efforts with a “clear conscience,” the mayor argued.

— Thune acknowledged “we hear about it, too,” and turned to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, another witness. The FCC and other federal agencies “reached the determination that these are safe,” Carr affirmed. “That is a determination that is constantly undergoing review.” He also said that given this position, federal law prevents state and local governments from taking these radio frequency concerns into account. The exchange marked a departure from largely unified enthusiasm among witnesses and Thune for the game-changing benefits of 5G. Verizon’s Robert Fisher in particular argued Congress needs to advance Thune’s STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act, S. 3157, to help spur faster deployment of 5G infrastructure.

Source: POLITICO Morning Tech.

The 5G broadband “wet blanket” and Anthropogenic global warming have something in common, there are two points of view on the issue. The global warming issue is driven by two opposite ends of light, the anthropogenic warmers are driven by flawed computer models about events that could happen in future, with the warmers citing the models as evidence. Models are not evidence, they are crude attempts to model the interaction of three powerful forces the wind, the oceans, and the sun. History has shown the models to be seriously flawed, the predicted heat has not arrived, the signature hot spot in the stratosphere over the equator is missing, and sea levels are not accelerating.

The anthropogenic skeptics are data-driven, citing the science of CO2 gas emissions, the solar influence and the historical climate record which demonstrates cyclical climate variance. Using the laws of physic, the skeptics have shown that CO2, a trace gas of less than .004%, is not climate control temperature control for the plant. Yet we have a cult-like belief that humans can control the climate.

There are two sides to the 5G issue also, one side with a cult-like faith that 5G radio transmission are unhealthy and should be constrained or eliminated. This conclusion is drawn from rat studies when rats are exposed to high levels of radio frequency energy, and they develop tumors. Rats in a DYI microwave oven are not a good representation of humans, just as incomplete computer models do not represent the real climate.

Whereas the proponents of 5G are more fact-driven, based on the history of the user so far. When the cell phone as introduced there was claim they would cause brain cancer. The figure below shows cell phone use expanding, while brain cancers are declining slightly. If there were a cell phone brain cancer threat, it would be evident in the medical data.

cellphone_cancer_rates

The 5G wet blanket has the same potential that Anthropogenic global warming did to divide the nation. One one side true believers unable to accept the historical facts and on the other side pragmatic scientists who keep looking for some real world evidence that 5G emissions are a danger to the community.

There is one other connection between the 5G wet blanket promoters and anthropogenic warmers. It is socialism. Both the wet blanket promoters and the anthropogenic warmers want the government to control the climate and access to 5G. Conservatives want the open markets to be the influencers, not government planners.

5G Is Not Going To Microwave Your Brain

With the transition to a new networking technology, some familiar scare stories are reemerging. You might even have seen a few in the comments here. “5G will give you cancer,” “mmWave technology leads to brain tumors,” and “smartphones are microwaving our bodies,” or so the stories go.

It’s all hogwash. Details HERE.

This chart tells the story, cell phone use increased, but cancers did not. This would indicate there is no immediate connection.

cellphone_cancer_rates

Your thoughts?

5G Still Needs to Prove its Worth — GlobalData Report Released

The ‘race to 5G’ has moved beyond the telecoms industry and become a priority for governments around the world, but it remains unclear whether the end result will ultimately be worth the effort, according to GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company.

The company’s latest report, ‘5G – Thematic Research’, states that the hype around 5G has been building for so long now that it can be easy to forget that it will not become widely commercially available, at the earliest, until 2019. Even then, uptake will be minimal — just 0.09 percent of all mobile data traffic will be carried over 5G by the end of 2019, according to GlobalData’s Global Mobile Broadband Forecast.

The last few years have seen significant investment in 5G, both by the telecoms sector and government agencies. However, articulating exactly what 5G will offer the consumer, beyond simply increased download speeds, remains a struggle. The most commonly cited use cases for 5G include enabling autonomous vehicles, the Internet of Things (IoT) and smart cities, but these all require more than just fast, responsive networks if they are to become pervasive.

Ed Thomas, Senior Analyst for Technology Thematic Research at GlobalData, said that plenty of people, inside and outside of the telecoms industry, are continuing to beat the drum for 5G, but dissenting voices are growing in volume. They fear that the positioning of 5G as a revolutionary technology that will enable fundamental shifts in how we live and work has served to raise expectations to such a level that the only possible outcome is disappointment. With 5G services expected to become widely available in some countries next year, the lack of a killer use case could yet have serious implications for demand. The question of what 5G is actually for needs to be answered, and soon, if 5G is to have any chance of living up to the hype.

Source: Sat News.

More details on the Report HERE.

 

Cell Tower Rats

There is growing opposition to cell phones towers as telcos start asking permission to install more 4G towers and 5G small cell tower on about every city block. Here are some examples:

Sebastopol

Palo Alto

Santa Rosa

Danville

The opposition often cites studies showing evident carcinogenicity from cell phone radiation, so we should be concerned. Right. Oh, wait the studies were on rats. What about humans? We can all agree that cell phone usage has increased over time and the introduction of smartphones has increased use by 75%. Below is a chart showing smartphone use in the US.

Smartphones_Are_Taking_Over_n

If cell phone use causes brain cancer, increased use of smartphones should cause an increase in brain cancer. According to the data from 1992 to 2014, there has been a slight decrease in brain cancer.

brain cancer stats
If cell phones cause brain cancer, why have the populations of brain cancer cases remained static or declined slightly as the use of cell phones has increased?  Why?

I am concerned that cell phone cancer studies may be following the same path as anthropogenic global warming. All proven with flawed studies that do not match the real world.  Your thoughts?

“5G” Wireless Is the New Fiber Optic, Bait-and-Switch Scandal

Bruce Kushnick, a Telecom Analyst and New Networks Institute,Executive Director, & Founding Member has a long and rambling discussion of telco bait and switch on Medium, the last third of his article and link to full article is below.  This does not bode well for rural broadband, just a higher tech digital divide. Cities, towns and villages need to build thier own networks and not wait for the telco promisses to be broken again.  Link to full article is HERE.  See the Ft Colins article HERE.

View at Medium.com

History Shows 5G Is Just another “We Will Bring New Tech if You Get Rid of Regulations” Scam.

The 5G frenzy is like any of the previous techno-bait-and-switch schemes — and this one is ironically similar to the super-hyped 1990’s “Info-Highway” when America was supposed to get a fiber optic network that would replace the existing copper wires. The companies, changing the state laws, collected (overcharged) over $400 billion from this hype, and worse, the original rate increases were built into most of the current rates.

In fact, a lawyer came up with Kushnick’s Law:
“A regulated company will always renege on promises to provide public benefits tomorrow in exchange for regulatory and financial benefits today.”

And anyone who thinks this is different should travel back to the techno-hype that was thrown at the public hourly; it was everywhere, it was all pervasive and it was using a ‘new technology’ — the new shiny bauble, as the lure.

Example: It’s the spring of 1993 and the fiber optic Info Bahn is just a few months away. The April 12th, 1993 cover of Time Magazine proclaims: “The Info Highway: Bringing a Revolution in Entertainment, News and Communication: Coming Soon to your TV Screen….”. The story continues: (Click to get/view/purchase/tweet the cover.)

“It’s not here yet, but it’s arriving sooner than you think. Suddenly the brave new world of videophone and smart TVs that futurists have been predicting for decades is not years away but a few months…. We won’t have to wait long. By this time next year, vast new video services will be available at a price to millions of Americans.”

Ironically, America should have started on the path of a fiber optic future 25 years ago.

•  AT&T (Pacific Bell) California claimed it would spend $16 billion from 1993–2000 to complete 5.5 million households with fiber. Never deployed; pocketed the tax breaks and rate increases.

•  Verizon Bell Atlantic claimed it would spend $11 billion from 1993–2000 to have eventually 12 million households wired with fiber. (Most of the East Coast — never deployed; pocketed the tax breaks and rate increases.)

And 25 years later we have little to show for it. AT&T California never deployed the fiber optics in the 1990’s and then pulled a bait-and-switch with U-Verse in 2005, claiming it was ‘fiber-based’ when it is really a copper-to-the-home service. Verizon deployed virtually no residential fiber from 1993–2005, even though they got billions per state. They ended up finally deploying FiOS in 2005, then stopped in 2010–2012, leaving less than ½ of the utility territories covered (and with major gaps). Unfortunately, we know of no state that gave refunds or lowered rates based on the state-based incentives and the removal of ‘barriers to investment’.

Now we know why the previous FCC stats showed that there is little or no competition for high-speed broadband in America — AT&T and Verizon never showed up.
And just to show you how crazy this is, we again face a situation where a new technology is being touted as superior to upgrading the networks to fiber optics, even though 5G doesn’t exist yet as advertised, may never fulfill its projected destiny and requires fiber optics. But now, the FCC is giving companies the ability to dismantle the state utilities and hand them over to an affiliate company — wireless. And there are no commitments of any sort that once they get deregulated they will do what they say.

Based on history… this needs to be stopped. Where are the audits of the financial books? The FCC is now ‘weed-whacking’ them to cover over the cross-subsidies.

And if you think there are no similarities to the fiber promises of the past and the ‘wireless’ promises of today (that ironically require the fiber to be deployed…)

Compare:

Brendan Carr’s 2018 statement about 5G claims that there will be a $500 billion dollar boost to the economy.

“Deploying 5G, the next-generation of wireless service, could mean 3 million new jobs, $275 billion in private sector network investment, and $500 billion added to the GDP.”

To this:

In 2001, when what is now Verizon et al. wanted to prove to America that increasing broadband deployment (their way, of course), could add $500 billion to the US economy, Verizon hired the Brookings Institute to prove the case.

“While the great broadband debate rages on at Capitol Hill, a new study released yesterday said widespread use of high-speed Internet service in the near future could pump as much as $500 billion annually into the U.S. economy.

“The study, conducted by the Brookings Institute in Washington, D.C. and titled ‘The $500 Billion Opportunity: The Potential Economic Benefit of Widespread Diffusion of Broadband Internet Access….”

This 2001 study and others helped to create the Net Neutrality issues. They were used, in part, to convince the Republican FCC (and Congress) our fiber optic future was just a few years away — and we needed to get rid of competitors, including small ISPs. This was done by combining the broadband service and the internet service and calling it broadband-internet.

I note that by the end of 2017, about $500 billion has been overcharged in the name of broadband in the US; ($400 billion extended from 1992 through 2014, and this accounting process started in 1998.) And this is the low number based on our uncovering that the wireline customers have been charged for the wireless deployments.