FCC Acts on CTIA

"Shot Clock" Petition

On November 18,  FCC granted in part the CTIA July 11, 2008 petition on setting "shot clock"-like deadlines for local zoning reviews of cell tower zoning requests.  The FCC said:

On the first issue, we conclude that we should define what constitutes a presumptively “reasonable period of time” beyond which inaction on a personal wireless service facility siting application will be deemed a “failure to act.”  We then determine that in the event a State or local government fails to act within the appropriate time period, the applicant is entitled to bring an action in court under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v).  At that point,  the State or local government will have the opportunity to present to the court arguments to show that additional time would be reasonable, given the nature and scope of the siting application at issue.  We next conclude that the record supports setting the time limits at 90 days for State and local governments to process collocation applications, and 150 days for them to process applications other than collocations.  On the second issue raised by the Petition, we find that it is a violation of Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) for a State or local government to deny a personal wireless service facility siting application solely because that service is available from another provider.  On the third issue, because the Petitioner has not presented us with any evidence of a specific controversy, we deny its request that we find that a State or local regulation that explicitly or effectively requires a variance or waiver for every wireless facility siting violates Section 253(a).

CTIA had asked for limits of 45 days and 75 days, but FCC compromised on 90/150, no doubt due to pressure from local governments.

But the root cause of much of this problem is the design of most suburban cellular towers.  The industry does know how to build towers that fit into their environment when forced to do so, but since the approaches they use are very expensive they generally are content to use towers that "look like they were designed by engineers".  Thus the local government resistance should not be a big surprise.  There is only so far that this "uglification" of suburbia can continue without a massive backlash.

In the next decade, the total requirement for suburban antennas for all wireless systems - not just CTIA members - will probably be 25 transmit/receiver systems (each equivalent to one tower level of the picture at left) per square mile.  I doubt that this can be achieved with the current design concepts in suburbia with any harmony with neighbors. (  This is a uniquely suburban issue. In urban areas, it is easier to hide antennas on buildings and in rural areas there are few neighbors to complain.)

It is time for the various sectors of the wireless industry to look at the big picture and start thinking of new concepts for this type of system as the basic design concept.  Note that at an FCC hearing this summer, Jake MacLeod of Bechtel also stated that we have reached the end of the line for current design concepts.  

I hope that FCC will take a leadership role in this issue in bringing various industry sectors (CMRS, FWA, Part 90, Part 101) together to discuss the need for new design approaches that both provide adequate radio illumination of suburbia and are compatible with their environment.

Ofcom on
TV White Space

As many readers know, Ofcom is the FCC's UK counterpart, with roughly comparable jurisdiction. It is much less politicized than FCC is and is run by what we would call a "single administrator" like EPA. As opposed to FCC where virtually all decisions have be be voted on by 5 political appointees,

"(Ofcom) is based upon a model which is familiar to the commercial sector but which marks a departure from the past.
Ofcom has a Board with a Chairman and both executive and non-executive members. The Executive runs the organisation and answers to the Board, whilst the work of both Board and Executive is informed by the contribution of a number of advisory bodies."

(As I have pointed out in my reply comments to Docket 09-157, FCC - without additional legislation - could move to this model for noncontroversial spectrum matters and probably increase its productivity significantly - but I digress.)

On November 17, Ofcom issued a "discussion document" entitled "Digital Dividend: Geolocation for Cognitive Access A discussion on using geolocation to enable licence- exempt access to the interleaved spectrum". After you translate the UK-jargon (Why can't they learn to speak English like us?) it turns out that this is basically the same issue in Docket 04-186, "TV whitespaces". Like the original FCC NPRM, Ofcom is thinking about white space devices using either geosensing or LBT (listen-before-talk) technology. FCC in its November 4, 2008 2nd R&O selected the "belt and suspenders"
approach of requiring both geosensing and LBT - further compounding the situation by basing the geosensing on a 1966 propagation model that FCC itself had already discredited for all but its original context of TV allotments.

In Ofcom's geosensing proposal they state

"Over many years broadcasters have carefully predicted the signal levels that will be received from their transmitter networks and have refined and validated these predictions. This information is held by Arqiva, which conducts the modelling on behalf of the broadcasters. There should be little difficulty in providing such signal strength information to the database. This implies that the database will not need to perform propagation modelling on behalf of DTT (digital terrestrial television - not necessarily HDTV)."
(Arqiva is the private entity in the UK that provides the TV transmitters for ITV, Channel 4, S4C and Five. UK private broadcasters generate content, they do not have the equivalent of Part 73 licenses as US broadcasters do. DTV/DTTV signals for private broadcasters are multiplexed together and transmitted from common transmitters and towers on common frequencies.)

Thus the assumed coverage of TV stations under the Ofcom proposal will be based on "validated predictions" of coverage accumulated over many years. So what does FCC require? Check out the new §15.512(a):

"TVBDs must protect digital and analog TV services within the contours shown in the following table. The contours are based on the R–6602 curves contained in §73.699" of this chapter.

These R-6602 curves were developed in the pre-desktop computer age of 1966 as a convenient way of calculating nominal coverage of TV stations, using 8 radials to consider terrain. The primitive algorithm can be seen in Figures 4 and 5 of §73.333 . (On these 8 radials only the difference between the 90 percentile altitude and the 10 percentile altitude is considered and even this is done on a rough grid appropriate for the manual calculation of the 1960s.) Note that due to the wording of §15.512(a) it is not clear if the limited terrain corrections of Figues 4 and 5 are even to be used! That is because the details for using even these primitive correction factors are in §73.684 which is never cited or incorporated by reference. FCC has warned about the limitations of this technique even when the correction factors are applied:

"Under actual conditions, the true coverage may vary from these estimates because the terrain over any specific path is expected to be different from the average terrain on which the field strength charts were based. Further, the actual extent of service will usually be less than indicated by these estimates due to interference from other stations. Because of these factors, the predicted field strength contours give no assurance of service to any specific percentage of receiver locations within the distances indicated.”

The limitations of the FCC technique are clear in the following coverage map of KTNC-TV/DT, Concord CA from the FCC's dtv.gov website.  Note the nearly circular shape of the contours for both the original analog service and the new DTV service map of this station.  Also shown is a terrain map of the area with a circle marking about the same spot as the official service contours.  (Note the presence of a few orange dots showing people within the contour who lose coverage after the switch to DTV.  Those who never had analog coverage are not shown.)


Hint -- why is it called "Napa Valley"?  Do you think the wine growers of Napa Valley can get this signal from Concord CA with antennas?  Anyone who has been to San Francisco will recall it is a hilly city.  Yet according to the FCC coverage prediction, people on the Pacific Coast north and south of SF can get KTNC.  These are the realities of the R-6602 model.  It was appropriate for determining allotments prior to the computer era and it may be appropriate for "administrative certainty" to keep it for allotments today.  But it is unrealististic to use it to define actual coverage of a TV signal.

So why is the UK proposing a realistic propagation-based geosensing while  FCC is using "belt and suspenders" with unrealistic propagation which overprotects the few people who actually use antennas for TV reception?

The Progress & Freedom Foundation
Presents

Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum

Proposals to have television broadcasters return a portion of their spectrum for re-allocation and auction for next-generation mobile broadband and data services have been met with strong reactions from broadcasters. Is re-allocation of spectrum necessary to encourage broadband expansion? Would compensation for broadcasters be adequate? Will Congress go along with such a deal, or would it be blocked as contrary to "the public interest?" These and other policy issues will be discussed at " Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum ," a Congressional Seminar hosted by The Progress & Freedom Foundation.

Speakers include FCC's Blair Levin, Coleman Bazelon of The Brattle Group, Kostas Liopiros of The Sun Fire Group David Donovan, President of the Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc., and John Hane, Counsel in the communications practice group of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP to discuss if a "grand bargain" to re-allocate spectrum is wise and if it is a feasible option to free spectrum for mobile services. Adam Thierer, President of The Progress & Freedom Foundation, will act as moderator of the event.

" Let's Make a Deal: Broadcasters, Mobile Broadband, and a Market in Spectrum ," will be held Tuesday, December 1st from 9:00am to 11:00am in the Holeman Lounge, 13th Floor, at the National Press Club, 529 14th Street, NW in Washington, DC. Those interested in attending can register here. Questions should be directed to Allison Bringardner at abringardner@pff.org or 202-289-8928.

Your blogger presented a similar proposal in his comments to the Wireless Innovation Inquiry, Docket 09-157:

Para. 54 (of the NOI) seeks comment on “innovations in the use of renewable energy and other green technology to makes wireless networks more energy efficient or address other environmental concerns.” At the risk of saying the obvious, the TV broadcast band uses a large amount of electric power to transmit RF signals that are actually received by an ever decreasing number of subscribers. The main apparent need for these transmitters is to guarantee to broadcast licensees “must carry” status with CATV systems. The use of electric power and the RF occupancy appears to be mainly a byproduct of this desired endgoal that gives 90+% of the viewership of licensed TV broadcasters. While over-the- air broadcasting gives consumers access to broadcast signals at no marginal cost compared to the pricing of MVDS service, policy options exist to offer basic MVDS service as comparable cost. For example, part of fees from new users utilizing former TV spectrum could be used to finance “lifeline” MVDS service.

MSS has no objection to giving present TV broadcasters long term must carry status, but questions why this must be accompanied with the waste of electric power and squatting on spectrum to deny it to others. While it is not possible under present law to let broadcasters keep must carry status without transmitting largely “unreceived” signals, MSS urges the Commission to explore and make recommendations to Congress for giving TV broadcasters incentives to cease using large amounts of electric power and cease filling spectrum with largely unwatched signals while retaining today’s must carry rights.

No broadcaster commented directly on this point, although MSTV and NAB in joint reply comments chose to mischaracterize it - no doubt to avoid addressing the point in question. Thus it is interesting to see that MSTV's president will be present at the PFF forum.

=====

UPDATE

Transcript of event

FCC Tackles Cell Phone Use/Texting While Driving


No doubt reacting to my July posting, FCC has taken several actions recently to look into the controversial issue of traffic safety aspects of cell phone use. The previous management of FCC showed no interest in this topic.

Recent MBTA (Boston subway) accident that injured 49 people and
was caused by the operator texting while driving!

On November 20, there will be a staff workshop on "distracted driving". This will "explore technology innovations and applications that may eliminate or significantly reduce the problem of distracted driving as well as ways to educate the public about such dangerous behavior."

On November 4, FCC announced a "a joint effort (with DOT) to evaluate technologies that may help curb the dangerous epidemic of distracted driving." The announcement went on to say

The DOT-FCC partnership will also include outreach efforts to educate the public about the dangers of texting while driving, talking on cell phones while driving, and other distracting behavior that can lead to deadly accidents.

"We must put an end to distracted driving, which is costing lives and inflicting injuries across the nation's roads and railways," Secretary LaHood told the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. "I look forward to working with Chairman Genachowski and ensuring that FCC's and DOT's technology experts can join forces on this critical issue."

Chairman Genachowski said, “I welcome this collaborative effort to eliminate the increasingly deadly practice of distracted driving. Changing this ingrained behavior will require us to develop creative solutions using both technology and education. By combining the resources and expertise of the DOT and the FCC, I am confident that we can have a major impact on this problem.”

FCC's Changing Its Image

Lots of news media have reported the appointment of Yul Kwon as Deputy Chief of the FCC's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau. He is third from left in the above photo from Survivor: Cook Islands which he won. However, his Wikipedia bio makes a convincing case that he is well qualified for this job.

Some excerpts:

Kwon was born in Flushing, New York, to South Korean immigrants. He moved to Concord, CA and attended Northgate High School, where he graduated valedictorian and played varsity water polo and track & field. Kwon attended college at Stanford University, graduating in 1997 with a B.S. degree in Symbolic Systems. As a student, he earned recognition for both academic achievement (Phi Beta Kappa) and community service.

Kwon’s professional career spanned a variety of roles across technology, law, business, and government. He worked at two law firms - Venture Law Group and Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis. He served a judicial clerkship with Judge Barrington D. Parker, Jr. on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. He also worked as a legislative aide to U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman in Washington, DC.

Kwon is involved with numerous charitable projects. After Survivor, he helped his co-finalist, Becky Lee, establish Becky’s Fund, a nonprofit helping victims of domestic violence. He works with several nonprofits to raise awareness of the need for more minority bone marrow donors, and is a spokesperson for the Asian American Donor Program and the National Marrow Donor Program.

During the 2007-2008 U.S. presidential campaign, Kwon supported then-Senator Barack Obama and campaigned for him as a surrogate in the Asian American community.

Kwon, with business partners, became the Northern California franchisee for Red Mango, a national frozen yogurt brand specializing in healthy probiotic yogurt and yogurt-based foods.

So while he did make the following lists in 2006/2007: People Magazine’s Sexiest Men Alive, People Magazine's Hottest Bachelors, and Extra TV's Most Eligible Bachelors, he has some real qualifications for his job at FCC.

The last media celebrity I recall working at FCC was Adrian Cronauer, the inspiration for the Robin Williams character in Good Morning, Vietnam.

Unfortunately, You Can't Make

the Wireless Microphone

Problem Go

Away by Taking a Different

Tack in TV White Spaces

There seem to be repeated rumors coming out of FCC that maybe they should take a different approach to utilizing TV "white spaces" by licensing them for broadband. Perhaps some think this will solve the wireless microphone problem painlessly - it won't.


TV white spaces are the inevitable result of TV broadcast licensing, especially when there is uneven terrain and uneven population distribution. There will always be places where there is no usable TV signal on a channel and were lower power use of that channel by other services is possible without interference. Under analog TV there was a lot more such white space due to the "UHF taboos" necessary to avoid neighboring channel interference to TV sets with mediocre selectivity. (FCC efforts in the 1970s to improve TV selectivity and decrease white spaces went down in flames due to broadcaster opposition.)


Wireless mics can use TV white space to provide a useful service, but in doing so inevitably use spectrum inefficiently compared to other possible users of white space. Why? Wireless mic use is intermittent in both space and time and only uses a tiny fraction of the space/time/spectrum resource made available by TV white spaces. Hence use is heavy in the Broadway theatre district of Manhattan and in a few other theatre districts. Use is heavy near churches for a few hours a week. But reserving TV white spaces for the exclusive use of wireless mics denies the spectrum to other that can use it much more intensely.


The current wireless mic mess is a result of both benign neglect of FCC towards this sector and aggressive merchandising by mainly Shure, Inc. to large numbers of users ineligible under current FCC rules to use them. (The hypocrisy of the TV broadcasters for opposing Part 74 eligibility for the churches and theatres for years, if not decades, and then becoming Shure's "best buddy" during Docket 04-186 is certainly a case of "strange bedfellows".)


I have repeatedly written here that "wireless mics are a legitimate use of spectrum (that) deserves more from FCC than benign neglect that allows most users only criminal spectrum squatting" . Yet FCC has taken no action even on the relatively simple issue in Docket 08-166 of evicting wireless mics from the spectrum that is now licensed to others after the DTV transition, let alone the more complex issue in Docket 08-167 of whether action should be taken against anyone for flaunting the Commission's rules and creating a de facto reallocation of spectrum.


The only way to avoid the inefficient use of white space that would result from preserving the present squatting of large numbers of users is to move towards a new method of serving wireless mic needs that does not give them exclusive, hence inefficient, spectrum. Let me note that CMRS licensees already have the regulatory flexibility offer femtocell-like systems that transmit wireless mic signals on CMRS spectrum without interconnection to the public network - one way connections from the microphone to the theatre/church audio panel. While the microphones and analog-to-digital convertors (DAC) used in cell phones are not of sufficient sound quality for many wireless mic applications, there is enough CMRS bandwidth available now to permit adequate quality with better mics and DACs. If the CMRS crowd really wants 800 MHz below 3 GHz , maybe it should seriously think about helping FCC by proposing a practical alternative to the wireless mic impasse.


Another approach to solving wireless mic spectrum problems is to move this use to another band where it will have a compatible spectrum sharing partner. Since wireless mics are a distinctly short range service, such sharing should be possible. For starters, the 1435-1525 MHz aeronautical telemetry band might be considered.


But letting wireless mics just sit in white spaces will inevitably cause problems for both the current policy adopted under Docket 04-186 and any alternative path the Commission might go down.

GPS

and

The Big Dig:

1) If GPS amplifier use in underground highways causes no problems, why is it illegal?

2) If it is illegal, why don't FCC and NTIA care about enforcement?

A few months ago I was in Boston staying with relatives in the Northern suburbs. I was invited to give a talk at the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Cable, located at South Station in the center of Boston. Without thinking too much I punched the address into my trusty GPS and headed South. I am a native of Boston but hadn't thought of the impact of the "Big Dig", the major highway reconstruction in Boston that moved several key highways to underground bringing the harbor back to the cityscape. As I entered Boston from Cambridge it was an "Oh, sh.." moment as I realized that I was entering a Big Dig tunnel and my GPS would lose signal. However, it did not and even followed me through the tunnel and told me what exit to take. Amazing?

Recently I had a similar occurrence in the I-395 tunnel in downtown Washington. Not unrelated is noticing that my GPS works in rental car parking garages at certain airports such as Phoenix. Why do these things happen?

The most likely explanation is the use of GPS amplifiers - amplifiers with an outdoor antenna that receives a GPS signal and a second antenna in an area that has no GPS signal which it "illuminates". THESE ARE ILLEGAL (except with a license this can only be obtained in special circumstances.) Why are they illegal? The main GPS frequency, 1575 MHz, is an exclusive Federal Government band and is listed in 15.205 as a "restricted band" - forbidding all unlicensed systems. NTIA has provisions in its "Red Book", the analog to FCC Rules, for use of this band. This gives terms for federal agencies to use systems other than GPS in this band. FCC and NTIA have an understanding that is documented nowhere on the public record that nonfederal users, e.g. FCC regulatees, may apply to FCC for an experimental license for use of this band and it will be reviewed by NTIA in accordance with Red Book Section 8.3.28. If NTIA agrees with the request, an experimental license can be issued by FCC. While 8.3.28 does not say so, senior staff at NTIA have said that they will only approve GPS amplifiers in connection with testing GPS receivers - not for use in tunnels and garages. It appears that this unwritten policy is applied inconsistently.

In any case, a search of the FCC database shows no valid experimental licenses for this band in Boston. It would appear that the GPS signals are coming from an illegal transmitter.

(I thought the GPS amplifiers in question might have been put there to support cellular base stations in the tunnel as cellular base stations usually need GPS input for both frequency and time reference. However, some inquiries revealed that several cellular carriers in Boston collaborated in a fiber optic system that brings the GPS information to their underground base stations without reradiating them in the tunnel. Do all the cellular carriers in the Big Dig use this system? I don't know.)

As you can see from the map at the top of this page, the Big Dig is close to Logan Airport.

• Has the illegal system in the tunnel caused any problems? It certainly has helped the public traveling through the Big Dig.
• If it hasn't caused any problems, why does NTIA continue to forbid this type of spectrum use?
• Since it is illegal and NTIA insists it is a safety-related issue, why doesn't FCC take some enforcement action?

Perhaps NTIA and FCC could explain their views on this issue for the benefit of readers.

Neutrality on

FCC Website

A Surprising Feature of ULS -
the "Universal" Licensing System

I ventured into ULS this week for the first time. Most of my work with FCC involves experimental (Part 5) licenses or rulemakings so I had never entered an application on ULS. For those who also haven't dealt with ULS, here is the official party line:

The Universal Licensing System (ULS) is the easy, online answer to your wireless licensing and research needs. ULS simplifies the application and licensing processes and provides secure, world-wide access through the Internet. This results in reduced filing time and financial savings for both customers and the federal government.

The ULS is browser-based, for ease of use, and provides built-in security. It contains everything you need for electronic filing. You will select the service and the purpose of your application, and the system will dynamically create a screen that will only ask you for the information that is needed. Likewise, if you want to make an administrative change in our licensing database or are required to submit a filing on a specific call sign, you'll be able to access your records with a password and immediately make the changes. Determining the status of an application is just as fast and easy.

Keeping Pace with Technology - The ULS incorporates the latest technical advances that are revolutionizing personal communications and information access to provide wireless radio licensees with online access to their FCC license records. Use your Web connection to keep abreast of fast-breaking developments, and use the ULS to keep your existing registrations up to date as changes occur. (Emphasis added)

Despite its name and the discussion above, ULS is not universal within FCC although it is "universal" within the world of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Other Title III wireless/radio licensing systems at FCC include:

Broadcast Radio and Television Electronic Filing System (CDBS)

Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS)

International Bureau Electronic Filing System (MyIBFS)

OET Experimental Licensing System Electronic Filing

(The OET-maintained General Menu Reports System (GenMen) allows access to review licenses across all 5 systems, but does not allow input of information.)

But the real surprise was the problem I encountered which is shown in the screen shot in the upper left corner of this posting. ULS supports Windows 98, NT, 2000, ME, XP and Windows Vista. It also supports the following browsers: IE8, IE6, Firefox 2, Netscape 8.1 .

Firefox 3, Safari, Chrome - no guarantees. But it is good to know that Netscape 8.1 is still supported! The site also says:

"NOTE: ULS does not support Linux, Unix,

Sun Solaris, or Macintosh operating systems."

I suppose Mac fans like me should not be too jealous because even Windows 7 isn't supported.

But I hope the new team at FCC reviews this issue and sets some goals to prevent this type of problem in the future. Clearly these quirks of ULS have been around for a while and can't be fixed overnight. But recognizing them can help guide revision of the FCC website.

Why should FCC, presumably the most tech savvy agency in the federal government, have web-based systems that are so fussy about the users' systems?

I don't know what the traffic to the FCC website looks like, but the traffic to this blog uses the browsers shown below. In the past 500 readers, nary a Netscape user! Lots of IE 7, Firefox 3, Safari, and even a few Chrome and Opera users. I assume FCC website visitors have a similar spectrum of software systems.

(Click on chart to get clearer version)

IEEE Wireless Communications

10/09 Spectrum Policy

Column Now Published

Your blogger's regular column on spectrum policy in IEEE Wireless Communications magazine was published this week. Unlike this blog, the IEEE column describes issues and tries to avoid advocating positions.

The new column is entitled "Wireless Innovation and Spectrum Policy: The FCC Opens a New Inquiry" and deals with Docket 09-157. It boldly stated that "(t)he final deadline for comments in thsi inquiry is after the publication date of this magazine". This became incorrect when the FCC delayed reply comments and IEEE was very timely with the publication.

France's "CTIA"
on
RF Safety Issues

I was visiting France recently, went into a store of one of the major cellular operators and bought a new SIM card to activate my old French GSM unit during my visit. With the card came all sorts of literature, but what caught my attention was the brochure shown at left - the picture is linked to a .pdf of the whole brochure on the website of Association Française des Opérateurs Mobiles (AFOM), the French counterpart to CTIA.

Now, based on my high school French study and 3 years living in Paris, I am not exactly a certified translator, so what follows is the gist of what it says. But feel free to consult the original text with someone of more professional skills if you don't believe me.

The brochure clearly says that the health authorities do not think that cell phone use is a health issue at exposure levels required by governments.







(Actually the French use the European standard of an SAR limit of 2.0 W/kg vs the FCC limit of 1.6 . Furthermore, details of how the European standard is measured actually makes it actually somewhat higher than it would appear numerically.)

So what does the real CTIA have to tell the public about RF safety? Surf on over and see. You will find statements like

To date, the available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones. Many studies of low-level RF exposure, such as that which occurs with wireless devices, have not discovered any negative biological effects. Some studies have suggested such a connection, but their findings have not been replicated or supported in additional research.

You find similar statements on the AFOM site and in this document. But you will also find the section shown at left entitled "Comment réduire mon exposition aux ondes radio quand je téléphone ?" Which your nonexpert translates has "How can I reduce my RF exposure while using the phone?" As I have said before, RF exposure doesn't do you any good, so why not try to reduce it?

AFOM reports that the health authorities recommend using what we would call a Bluetooth headset during calls. Health authorities also advise, according to AFOM, that pregnant women keep cell phones away from their abdomen (" il est conseillé aux femmes enceintes d’éloigner le téléphone du ventre et aux adolescents de l’éloigner du bas ventre. ")

Finally, AFOM tells us that the "health authorities" advise that you should use your phones in areas with good reception, that is more bars. (On the phone, not drinking establishments nearby! In French it is unambiguous.) ("Elles conseillent également de téléphoner de préférence dans les zones où la réception est de bonne qualité. La qualité de la réception est indiquée par le nombre de barrettes sur l’écran de votre téléphone.") That, perhaps should be obvious, but I must admit I have never thought of it before.

So this guidance does not come from some radical left wing tree-hugging environmentalists opposed to capitalism, but from a CTIA-like trade association of major French operators. I agree with CTIA that there is no evidence the cell phones cause health problems, but why not encourage people to think about selecting models with lower SAR, using Bluetooth headsets, and using handsets in areas with better reception?

I note that Verizon Wireless puts SAR date for each cell phone model it sells on the web pages for the models. But the other major operators that are CTIA members do not appear to have the information on their websites - perhaps it is there but hidden in obscurity.

Cell phones are useful devices that have contributed both to economic growth and public safety. It is a shame that CTIA starts acting like the former Tobacco Institute when it concerns any possible negative impact of cell phones.