2017-12-03 Tossing net neutrality could help 5G spread more quickly

[3G, 4G, 5G – Ajit Pai, FCC – Andrew Adams – Children – Driverless Cars – EHS – EMR – Equifax Inc. – Google Home Mini Smart Speakers – Health Canada Safety Code 6 – Imran Ahmad – Industry Canada – Insurance Liability Risks – IoT M2M – Jessica RosenworcelKiersten Enemark – Legal – Lloyds of London – LTE – Manish NargaiMark McArdleMichael Calabrese – Mignon Clyburn – NTP – Peter Rysavy – Pollution – Privacy – RFR – Shaw Wi-Fi Hotspots – Smart Grid Security – Smart Home Connected Wireless Devices – Studies – Tom Wheeler – WHO Class 2B | Maple Ridge, BC – Toronto, Ontario – Canada – USA]

1) The FCC is now considering  “tossing net neutrality”, an action that many believe will result in slower service for those of us using the internet.  This industry article explains how this will help implement 5G and use of devices such as driverless cars.

(click on photos to enlarge)

FCC’s plan to toss net neutrality is a win for 5G: analyst

“Peter Rysavy, president of Rysavy Research and a FierceWireless contributor, says the proposal put forth by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai will hasten the deployment of 5G network technologies and catalyze wireless network innovations. The proposal will be considered by the full commission at its Dec. 14 open meeting.

“5G will employ sophisticated mechanisms to handle different kinds of traffic flows, enabling 5G to address a wider range of use cases than prior technology generations, such as 3G and 4G,” he said in a statement. “Many of the applications envisioned for 5G are of a control nature, needing minimal delay and high reliability. These applications will depend on traffic prioritization, a capability constrained by current net neutrality rules.””

https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/fcc-s-plan-to-toss-net-neutrality-a-win-for-5g-analyst

2)    Investigative journalists are looking into various aspects of government. This article is about how taxpayers’ money is subsidizing polluters. I bet if these journalists looked into the telecoms, they’d find the same thing. In Toronto, RF meters showed that a significant percentage of areas were exposed to levels significantly above the horrendously high levels allowed by Safety Code 6.  I don’t know what happened, but I have been told by Industry Canada that the companies monitor themselves. If they are found to be lax, they will be expected to reduce their levels. That is reassuring…. !

Pollution’s Dirty Dollars

“A Star investigation found that since 2010 more than $2.6 billion in public money has flowed to dozens of companies that had repeated or significant violations of environmental rules designed to keep the public safe. Those companies in total were fined about $15 million. Critics note that, in effect, taxpayers paid their fines, and in many cases, the companies continued to pollute.”

http://projects.thestar.com/dirty-dollars-pollution/

3)    Another article warning people about the IoT and the vulnerability of their gadgets. Most people seem to be unconcerned about loss of privacy, until it affects them and their wallet directly. I wish that there had been some mention of the smeters, which is the means by which many of these devices will communicate, are the weak link in the electrical grid. Cybersecurity should be more of a concern than it is.

Why you should be ‘suitably paranoid’ about your home devices’ cybersecurity

Security and legal experts warn that machine-to-machine communication is creating a new level of risk — by providing hackers with new vulnerabilities to exploit

“The proliferation of internet-connected home devices such as thermostats, baby monitors and fridges is creating an ever-expanding interconnected web known as the Internet of Things, or IoT. But security and legal experts warn that machine-to-machine communication is creating a new level of risk — by providing hackers with new vulnerabilities to exploit.”

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/are-you-suitably-paranoid-about-your-home-devices-cybersecurity

4)    Below is a letter from Shaw’s “government relations” person who is spouting all of the standard industry stuff about Safety Code 6.  It is infuriating to have this coming from every person in every company. There is a campaign to give these people the same talking points to shut off discussion and not have to respond to excellent letters like the one by X.  I hope this is not allowed to stand unchallenged. The evidence that was provided by X was not considered, and this “relations” person really needs to be educated.

Letters:

From: Kiersten Enemark <Kiersten.Enemark@sjrb.ca>
Date: December 1, 2017
To: X
Cc: mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca

Subject: RE: Proposed Shaw wifi in Maple Ridge public spaces

Hello X

We would like to acknowledge that we received your comments regarding Shaw’s proposal to the City of Maple Ridge to expand WiFi service to civic locations, and we value feedback from residents regarding the proposal. Please know all comments will be shared with the City of Maple Ridge.

We acknowledge in your message below that there is concern with the health and safety of WiFi hotspots. We would like to clarify that all Shaw WiFi installations operate lower than all Health Canada RF safety guidelines. Based on scientific evidence, Health Canada has determined that exposure to low level radiofrequency energy, such as that from Wi-Fi equipment, is not dangerous to the public, including families. Levels of radiofrequency energy emitted from Wi-Fi equipment are typically well below these safety limits. As long as exposure is below these established limits, there is no convincing scientific evidence that this equipment is dangerous to Canadians.

Safety Code 6 is considered by Health Canada to be current and valid for protecting the health and safety of all Canadians. The limits specified in Health Canada’s RF exposure guidelines are based upon review of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies of the health impacts of RF energy. If you have questions regarding the research behind Safety Code 6 regulation, we encourage those in the community to contact Heath Canada at: ccrpb-pcrpcc@hc-sc.gc.ca.

For additional information on Safety Code 6, please see  https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/reports-publications/radiation/fact-sheet-what-safety-code-6.html

Thank you again for participating in the community consultation.

Kind Regards,

Kiersten Enemark
Government Relations Manager
Shaw Communications

= = =

From:  X
Sent: November 22, 2017
To: Kiersten Enemark <Kiersten.Enemark@sjrb.ca>
Cc: mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca

Subject: Proposed Shaw wifi in Maple Ridge public spaces

Dear Kiersten Enemark,

I am writing regarding the proposed Shaw wifi hotspots in Maple Ridge’s public spaces. Our public spaces do not need to have wifi access. There are already many Shaw hotspots in downtown Maple Ridge, and these locations do not need to be expanded.

The downtown core of Maple Ridge already has a significant amount of wireless radiation, and does not need more. I have concerns that if Shaw installs ‘hotspots’ that are exclusive to Shaw customers and a very limited ‘guest’ account, that other wireless companies will compete and install their wireless equipment, to allow those without Shaw accounts to be included in having access to wifi in public spaces. The city already has a wifi network ‘freetown’ available in public spaces, and does not need more networks. More networks is very concerning and problematic for people like me, who are sensitive to wireless radiation (electromagnetic hypersensitivity or EHS). Accessing public services without wireless radiation and having adverse health effects is very important to myself and many others.

The World Health Organization (WHO) classified radio frequency radiation as a 2B possible carcinogen, also in this classification are DDT and lead. Scary, we all know the dangers of those toxins. Studies show that that cell towers can cause cancer, infertility, brain and nervous system problems, biomechanical problems and developmental and learning behaviour problems. It is known that children are at greater risk from exposure to carcinogens, and the younger the child, the higher the risk. Children are more susceptible to wireless energy than adults, due to their developmental physiology – their brain tissues absorb more radiation due to their smaller head size and thinner skulls and they have higher levels of conductivity of brain tissue. Due to these factors, they absorb a greater quantity of radiofrequency energy. Children are at increased risk from radiation emitted from wireless devices, why should we increase the wireless radiation in our public spaces?

The National Toxicology Program released preliminary findings on May 27th, 2016 from 25 million dollar US government funded study that showed that non-thermal levels of wireless energy causes biological effects, including cancer, at sub-chronic exposure (the exposure was 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off for 9 hours a day from before birth to 2 years of age in rodents). This study clearly shows that wireless radiation causes adverse health effects. This type of energy is is allowed under Health Canada’s ‘Safety Code 6’, it is considered ‘safe’. Safe for our families to be exposed to, while enjoying time in public spaces. ’Safety Code 6’ does not protect our families. In testimony before the parliamentary Health Committee, Mr. Andrew Adams of Health Canada admitted there are studies that show harm below Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 needs a serious update to reflect recent studies and protect Canadians.

Children are at greater risk from exposure to carcinogens, and the younger the child,the higher the risk. Children are more susceptible to wireless energy than adults.  Children are at risk due to their developmental physiology. Their brain tissues absorb more radiation due to their smaller head size and thinner skulls. They also have higher conductivity of brain tissue. Why should we put our kids at risk when spending time in public spaces? Public spaces are for families to enjoy, not increase their exposure to carcinogens and experience adverse health effects.

With the adverse health effects, and increased risk of cancer, the benefits of wireless radiation do not outweigh the risks. Most of the population in general are not aware of the risks of wireless radiation. I would assume that if Shaw plans to expose the public to increased wireless radiation, they should be providing information and making the risks for being exposed to wireless radiation known, so that members of the community can make an informed decision of whether to expose themselves and their families or not. Families cannot make an informed decision if the risks are not known.

Will Shaw be held liable for any damages from increasing the wireless radiation in downtown Maple Ridge? Has the issue of liability been discussed with the city? Because these wifi hotspots will be installed on ‘public’ property, the city will also be liable for any damages that arise from these ‘hotspots’. It will be important that the city of Maple Ridge consider the risks, that can include any injuries or damages resulting from the electromagnetic radiation from the proposed ‘hotspots’. It is also important to note that there are no insurance companies in the world that will insure for injuries resulting from radiation, due to the known risks associated with wireless use. In February 2015, Lloyds of London, the world’s specialist insurance and one of the largest insurers in the world, re-iterated it’s long-held policy to exclude any liability coverage for injuries, “Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from, or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, radio waves or noise” (Exclusion 32). Lloyds of London often leads the way in protection, taking on risks that no other companies are willing to take, however, they will not provide insurance for wireless radiation. There are no insurance companies in the world that will offer insurance to protect those leasing space to wireless providers. With this, I would like the city of Maple Ridge to consider liabilities associated with leasing public space to wireless companies. If public spaces are leased to wireless providers, the city will also be liable for any bodily injury, property damage arising out of, resulting from, caused by or contributed by the pathological properties of electromagnetic radiation.

I do not support the proposed Shaw ‘Hotspots’ in Maple Ridge. Public spaces should be a place to enjoy, without increased or added wireless radiation. I hope that the city will not support the proposal to install Shaw hotspots in public spaces. The risks for health concerns are too great, and the liability that will fall on the city of Maple Ridge will also be great. Increasing the wifi ‘hotspots’ in Maple Ridge is not worth the risks.

Sincerely,
X

Sharon Noble
Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters

“We have never had this kind of impending risk to society.”
~ Dr. George Carlo – Author of Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards In The Wireless Age