This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

So what is a SAR, anyway?

As the FCC says,

Working closely with federal health and safety agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the FCC has adopted limits for safe exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy. These limits are given in terms of a unit referred to as the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), which is a measure of the amount of radio frequency energy absorbed by the body when using a mobile phone. The FCC requires cell phone manufacturers to ensure that their phones comply with these objective limits for safe exposure. Any cell phone at or below these SAR levels (that is, any phone legally sold in the U.S.) is a “safe” phone, as measured by these standards. The FCC limit for public exposure from cellular telephones is an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg).

(from http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/sar/)

Every cell phone sold in the U.S. must comply with the FCC regulations requiring compliance with the SAR rule, and public disclosure of the SAR value via the FCC’s web site, and sometimes at other web sites.

It’s the ‘public disclosure’ part is just what the CTIA (and the wireless industry that funds it) is so afraid of.

So what, exactly, has San Francisco done to tick-off the CTIA?

San Francisco adopted an ordinance requiring easily accessible point-of-sale disclosure of the SAR value for each phone sold or leased in San Francisco by retailers. 

For the purposes of the ordinance, a retailer is someone who sells or leases cell phones to the public within the City,  or anyone who offers cell phones for sale or lease within the City. Retailers, as defined in the ordinance, specifically excludes anyone selling or leasing cell phones over the phone, by mail, or over the internet, and also excludes anyone selling or leasing cell phones directly to the public at a convention, trade show, or conference, or otherwise selling or leasing cell phones directly to the public within the City for fewer than 10 days in a year (i.e, a person who sells his or her old cell phone to someone else, for example).

So, what does the ordinance require?

First, it requires that any cell phone service provider (think: Verizon, AT&T, MetroPCS, etc.) provide the City with a list of their retailers located in the City.  That list must be updated annually.  (Ord. Sect. 1102.)

Tough to do?  I think not.

Second, if “a cell phone retailer posts display materials in connection with sample phones or phones on display, the display materials must include … three elements: (1) The SAR value of that phone and the maximum allowable SAR value for cell phones set by the FCC; (2) A statement explaining what the SAR value is; and (3) A statment that additional educational materials regarding SAR values and cell phone use are available from the cell phone retailer. ”

To promote uniformity, the City will adopt regulations specifying the content and format of the three elements just listed.

Third, the ordinance sets the minimum physical size, and the type face and minimum point equivalencies for the notice.  (Ord. Sect. 11043.)

Fourth, the ordinance phases in over the period between now an May, 2011, and does not begin enforcement actions against non-compliant persons until August 2012.  Even then, before any fines are imposed, the retailer will have 30 days to come into compliance.  And even if fines are imposed, the ordinance specifically says that fines are the only penalty…no jail time for violations.

That’s what the wireless industry finds to be simply egregious, but they frame their argument in terms of, well, PR spin.  Just read the  first line of that portion of the CTIA’s press release about it’s law suit. The quote, attributed to John Walls, their VP of Public Affairs is:

“CTIA has filed this lawsuit to prevent consumer confusion. The problem with the San Francisco ordinance is not the disclosure of wireless phone SAR values – that information is already publicly available. Consumers can learn a device’s SAR value from a number of public sources, and the value is often included in user manuals and listed on the websites of manufacturers and the FCC. CTIA’s objection to the ordinance is that displaying a phone’s SAR value at the point-of-sale suggests to the consumer that there is a meaningful safety distinction between FCC-compliant devices with different SAR levels.

“The FCC has determined that all wireless phones legally sold in the United States are ‘safe.’ The FCC monitors scientific research on a regular basis, and its standard for RF exposure is based on recommended guidelines adopted by U.S. and international standard-setting bodies. Furthermore, according to the experts at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the available scientific evidence shows no known health risk due to the RF energy emitted by cell phones. As the FDA states on its website, ‘[t]he weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.’

“In contrast, the message conveyed by the San Francisco ordinance to consumers is that the FCC’s standards are insufficient and that the safety of an FCC-authorized wireless device depends on its SAR level. Therefore, the ordinance contradicts the thorough review of the science by the FCC, FDA and other U.S. and international expert agencies, and will send consumers the false message that there is a safety difference between wireless devices that comply with the FCC’s stringent standards.

“The wireless industry is committed to consumer choice. That means providing consumers with the best information to assist them in making the right choice for them when purchasing a device and services.  The San Francisco ordinance, by conveying a misleading impression about the relative safety of wireless phones, will hinder – rather than assist – consumers in making their choices.”

(Emphasis added)

I love the in-your-face PR spin that the “CTIA has filed this lawsuit to prevent consumer confusion.” It’s classic misdirection. Consumer’s are confused because, ah, the same metric is presented in the same way across different handsets? And that metric is available at the very moment the consumer is considering what, exactly, to purchase? Yup, that would confuse me, too.

Not.

I’d like to offer my own idea for a label, and one that is instantly recognizable to anyone who happens to ingest food on a fairly regular basis.  A label, like I show below, could provide basic information to consumers at the time and point of sale, just when and where the CTIA would rather you not have that information. There could be room for other optional data about phone-specific features as I’ve suggested.

We learned to first live with, and then to realize the immense value of consumer information at the point-of-sale for all sorts of consumer food goods, and later at fast-food restaurants.   Consumer’s have not stopped buying groceries, nor have they stopped dining at Micky-D’s, but if they want the consumer information about what they’re going to eat, its right there for them when they are making their buying decisions.

Does any rational person believe that consumers will stop buying cell phones in San Francisco if the ordinance goes into force?

Nope, me neither.

Finally, I believe that consumer rights’ groups should be banding together to oppose to the CTIA’s lawsuit as it is an attempt to bar a government from requiring consumer-oriented disclosure of public record information. The chilling effects that would result could deal a real knock-out blow to smart, informed consumerism.

To read the law suit and the City’s ordinance at the heart of the suit, click on this link.

For more information on SAR from the FCC, start at these sites:

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/sar.html
and
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/sar/

Aleen Tomassian, BS

She steps in for Mr. Tripp May who is now on a three-year leave of absence to attend the University of San Diego Law School, and then to take the California Bar examination.

Ms. Tomassian graduated from the University of California at Berkeley in 2010 with a bachelors of science degree. She intends to attend law school starting in the fall of 2011.

Aleen’s formal science education background has already provided to be very valuable in reaching solutions to client issues based on application of scientific analysis and systems solutions.

We’re very glad that she’s now a member of our team!

This uniquely designed multi-carrier cell tower constructed in the Mesa del Sol area in Albuquerque, New Mexico, just south of the airport.

The architect for this site is Dekker/Perich/Sabatini.

This site isn’t quite complete, but it should raise the level of the discussion regarding turning cell sites into artistic visions.

The anchor tenant at the site is Verizon Wireless.  The site can handle up to seven carriers.

I have placed over 100 photos of this site in a dedicated gallery at CellularPCS.com/gallery/

While Verizon changed the body of its press release to make it clear that they don’t support handsfree driving, they still the same (and now contradictory) headline: “Verizon Wireless Reaffirms Support For Hands-Free Driving And Bans On Texting And E-Mailing While Driving.”

Here is the revised press release, with the additions highlighted in red.

BASKING RIDGE, NJ — Today, Verizon Wireless reiterated its support for handsfree use of wireless phones while driving and bans on texting and e-mailing while driving following the DRIVE Coalition’s attempt to fight state laws aimed at prohibiting motorists from talking and sending text messages while driving.

Verizon Wireless Vice President and General Counsel Steven E. Zipperstein made the following statement: “When it comes to using mobile devices while driving a motor vehicle, Verizon Wireless
has a long and proud record of leading the way toward common-sense public policies.

Since 2000, our record has been clear: we support hands-free use of wireless phones while driving laws. We support bans on texting and e-mailing while driving. And we have run an ad campaign urging people not to text while driving. “Therefore, we strongly oppose the efforts of the proposed DRIVE Coalition to confuse the issues and hinder the adoption of laws to protect motorists, passengers and pedestrians.”

Verizon Wireless broke from the rest of its competitors in the U.S. wireless industry by supporting state-wide hands-free use of wireless phones while driving laws as early as 2000. For more information on Verizon Wireless’ responsible driving practices, please visit http://aboutus.vzw.com/wirelessissues/driving.html.

Now, I don’t believe that hand-free driving is a very good idea, and I suspect that most people don’t either, but when one of the largest international wireless and telecom firms makes a resounding statement of support like Verizon has, I guess you have to sit down and take a closer look at the core values you believe in.

Okay, I just did, and one of my core values is to hold on to the wheel while driving.

I urge you: Please, keep your hands on the wheel while you drive!

Here’s the exact text of Verizon’s press release, issued this very day. . .

Verizon Wireless Reaffirms Support For Hands-Free Driving And Bans On Texting And E-Mailing While Driving

07/08/2010

BASKING RIDGE, NJ — Today, Verizon Wireless reiterated its support for hands-free driving and bans on texting and e-mailing while driving following the DRIVE Coalition’s attempt to fight state laws aimed at prohibiting motorists from talking and sending text messages while driving.

Verizon Wireless Vice President and General Counsel Steven E. Zipperstein made the following statement:

“When it comes to using mobile devices while driving a motor vehicle, Verizon Wireless has a long and proud record of leading the way toward common-sense public policies. Since 2000, our record has been clear: we support hands-free driving laws. We support bans on texting and e-mailing while driving. And we have run an ad campaign urging people not to text while driving.

“Therefore, we strongly oppose the efforts of the proposed DRIVE Coalition to confuse the issues and hinder the adoption of laws to protect motorists, passengers and pedestrians.”

Verizon Wireless broke from the rest of its competitors in the U.S. wireless industry by supporting state-wide hands-free driving laws as early as 2000. For more information on Verizon Wireless’ responsible driving practices, please visit http://aboutus.vzw.com/wirelessissues/driving.html.

Perhaps Verizon’s PR department needs a new proof-reader. The one who reviewed this press release may be in danger of committing ‘hand-free editing.’

-Jonathan

PS: The link below will show you the actual press release.

VerizonWirelessHandsFree.20100708

Excellent T-Mobile Camo Site in Piedmont, California

The antennas are hidden behind the faux vents in the bell tower.  The equipment is inside the building.  If I had not had this site pointed out to me by the rightfully proud planners in the City of Piedmont, I never would have guessed it to be a PCS wireless site.

Good job, Piedmont!

Good job, T-Mobile!

You may CLICK HERE to visit the gallery, or you can click on that really big picture above this posting!

Jonathan

Note: I’ve been one of Palos Verdes Estates experts in this case for years.  -jlk

The FCC’s Shot Clock for siting decisions in wireless cases is turning out to be the bad idea that most governments expected it would be.   Right now we’re seeing the first round of “Chicken” …  The carriers are starting to demand siting decisions on cases because the Shot Clock rule entitles them to sue if they don’t get it.

“Okay… you want a decision?  DENIED for the following reasons based on evidence in the administrative record….”  is what some governments are starting to offer applicants who demand their ‘final’ decision on day 90 or 150.  At the last minute will one side or the other ‘blink’ in this high-stakes game of Chicken? 

In some cases, especially in California with its state law CEQA requirements and when looking at compliance with local siting ordinance requirements, the decisions simply can’t pop out on time like the output of an assembly line.

I suspect we’ll see a fair number of application denials in the next few months while all sides figure out how to live under the Shot Clock…at least until the rule is overturned or seriously limited by the courts.

It was a dumb idea for the wireless industry to push for this rule.  The only ones who will really benefit from strict and severe application of the rule will be the attorneys and experts.  As both, I still think this was a dumb idea becuase it will make siting a more rigid process.

Those are my opinions.  What are yours?