Why Fiber Optic must be the Standard Option for Broadband Delivery

 
1.  Within the Playbook, broadband is often used synonymously with wireless.  It should not be.  
 
Fiber optic is a far better option for broadband delivery.  Fiber optic broadband is the state-of-the-art gold standard in broadband. It is far and away the highest speed, highest capacity, and most reliable option for broadband. Wireless isn’t even close. Furthermore, it is safe, secure, and energy efficient.  (For additional information, please see http://www.electricalpollution.com/FundFiberNOTWireless.html)
 
2.  Wireless broadband is not going to be the economic driver the state needs and the Playbook talks about. The economic development success story that was cited when wireless broadband programs were rolled out, could not have happened without FIBER OPTIC  broadband (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_09/b4217033849315.htm).  Wireless broadband is already outdated due to the large file sizes, high volume of files, its inherent security problems, and unreliability.  Most applications mentioned as critical within the Playbook require security and reliability as well as high capacity, thus a fiber optic to the premises system should be the focus of government funding, not wireless.  (http://www.ftthcouncil.org).
 
3.  The Playbook should identify and list the legislative and regulatory hurdles that need to be addressed to allow public partnerships for the installation of a fiber optic network.  (Most established private telcos are not willing to take the steps of installing such a system.)
 
4. Far more importance needs to be placed on leveraging public dollars to achieve what would not be achieved without them.  Namely, installation of a fiber optic to the premises system throughout the state.
 
5.  Safety should be paramount, but is not even addressed.  In the face of growing evidence that wireless technology is not safe (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf) and FCC guidelines are extremely outdated – The American Academy of Pediatrics recently wrote the FCC guidelines asking that they be revised to protect children (http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/20/pediatricians-call-on-the-fcc-to-reconsider-cell-phone-radiation-standards/)-, fiber optic to the premises, not wireless, should be the focus as Wisconsin strives to be technologically up to date.  
 
6. The Playbook omits mention of the fact that IARC recently classified radiofrequency radiation, including that used by WiFi and other wireless broadband systems, as a class 2B possible human carcinogen.  Had they been allowed to consider all the evidence of double strand DNA breakage, the classification would likely have been probable human carcinogen – (http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2011/11/18_safra-center-cellphone-radiation-corruption.html).  Thus, wireless broadband is being abandoned in other parts of the world.  For example:  Switzerland, France, Germany, Russia, Israel and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) are all warning against unnecessary exposure to wireless signals and recommend preferential use of wired technology.  The Israeli Minister of Health has called for WiFi to be banned in schools.  France already does.  Switzerland has a program that promotes wired over wireless connections in schools. (http://www.magdahavas.com/2010/10/20/free-internet-access-in-swiss-schools-no-wifi/).  India has lowered there allowable tower transmission levels to a tenth of those previously allowed.  Their previous allowable transmission levels were already lower than FCC guidelines (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-07-18/news/32730933_1_radiation-exposure-mobile-towers-emf).  Failure to mention these worldwide trends away from wireless broadband is a grave oversight and should be remedied.
 
7.  Mention is made of installation of broadband antennas on DNR property.  Due to the damaging effect on wildlife, that should not be allowed  (http://www.moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/final_mobile_towers_report.pdf )
 
8. Relying on wireless broadband would:
Damage the environment 
Raise medical costs
Ultimately, leave the state technologically behind – without broadband service – and fund-less since there appears to be a good chance that it would have to be turned off due to the serious human rights violation of exposing non-consenting individuals to a possible or ultimately, probable, carcinogen. 
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s