AT&T and Verizon Ask FCC To Throw a Wrench Into Starlink's Mobile Plan (arstechnica.com) 94
AT&T and Verizon are urging the FCC to reject SpaceX's plan to offer cellular service with T-Mobile, arguing that it would cause harmful interference to terrestrial mobile networks. Ars Technica reports: Filings urging the Federal Communications Commission to deny SpaceX's request for a waiver were submitted by AT&T and Verizon this week. The plan by SpaceX's Starlink division also faces opposition from satellite companies EchoStar (which owns Dish and Hughes) and Omnispace. SpaceX and T-Mobile plan to offer Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) for T-Mobile's cellular network using SpaceX satellites. As part of that plan, SpaceX is seeking a waiver of FCC rules regarding out-of-band emission limits.
AT&T's petition to deny the SpaceX waiver request said the FCC's "recent SCS order appropriately recognized that SCS deployments should not present any risk to the vital terrestrial mobile broadband networks upon which millions of Americans rely today. The Commission authorized SCS as secondary to terrestrial mobile service, correctly explaining that the SCS framework must 'retain service quality of terrestrial networks, protect spectrum usage rights, and minimize the risk of harmful interference.'" AT&T said SpaceX's requested "ninefold increase" to the allowable power flux-density limits for out-of-band emissions "would cause unacceptable harmful interference to incumbent terrestrial mobile operations. Specifically, AT&T's technical analysis shows that SpaceX's proposal would cause an 18% average reduction in network downlink throughput in an operational and representative AT&T PCS C Block market deployment." Verizon's opposition to the waiver request similarly said that SpaceX's proposal "would subject incumbent, primary terrestrial licensee operations in adjacent bands to harmful interference." Wireless phone performance will suffer, Verizon said [...]. SpaceX and T-Mobile told FCC staff that their plan will not harm other wireless operations and predicted that competitors will make misleading claims. SpaceX also argued that the FCC's emissions limit is too strict and should be changed.
AT&T's petition to deny the SpaceX waiver request said the FCC's "recent SCS order appropriately recognized that SCS deployments should not present any risk to the vital terrestrial mobile broadband networks upon which millions of Americans rely today. The Commission authorized SCS as secondary to terrestrial mobile service, correctly explaining that the SCS framework must 'retain service quality of terrestrial networks, protect spectrum usage rights, and minimize the risk of harmful interference.'" AT&T said SpaceX's requested "ninefold increase" to the allowable power flux-density limits for out-of-band emissions "would cause unacceptable harmful interference to incumbent terrestrial mobile operations. Specifically, AT&T's technical analysis shows that SpaceX's proposal would cause an 18% average reduction in network downlink throughput in an operational and representative AT&T PCS C Block market deployment." Verizon's opposition to the waiver request similarly said that SpaceX's proposal "would subject incumbent, primary terrestrial licensee operations in adjacent bands to harmful interference." Wireless phone performance will suffer, Verizon said [...]. SpaceX and T-Mobile told FCC staff that their plan will not harm other wireless operations and predicted that competitors will make misleading claims. SpaceX also argued that the FCC's emissions limit is too strict and should be changed.
If (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If (Score:5, Interesting)
It's possible that it could just be sour grapes because Verizon and AT&T actually had to build out their networks rather than planning on filling the holes in their Swiss cheese coverage with satellites in space. It's equally plausible though that T-Mobile's plan truly will cause interference, and that would result in degraded service for everyone.
T-Mobile has made quite a few anti-consumer moves after gobbling up Sprint, so I'd hardly consider them as the unfairly maligned underdog in this situation. That being said, AT&T is the reincarnation of the phone company that the US government had to break up, and Verizon is the result of the merging of several various landline and wireless companies. As the late Grumpy Cat would've said, "I hope they all lose."
Re: (Score:2)
It's equally plausible though that T-Mobile's plan truly will cause interference
Perhaps. But if T-Mobile erects thousands of cell towers instead, that will also cause interference.
T-Mobile has made quite a few anti-consumer moves after gobbling up Sprint
The T-Moble—Sprint merger was like two drowning men hugging each other. Even after the merger, the combined entity struggled and was in no position to be generous to consumers. The bottom line is that consumers are better off with three choices than only two.
Disclaimer: I am a T-Mobile customer, mainly for the lower price, but I live in the city. When I drive out to the boonies, the coverage sucks. So,
Re:If (Score:5, Interesting)
But if T-Mobile erects thousands of cell towers instead, that will also cause interference.
It's far from clear that the interference would be analogous. TFS says a big part of the AT&T/Verizon complaint is that T-Mo/Starlink are getting a large (9x, so almost 10 dB) increase in allowed out-of-band emissions. If the OOB power flux density is measured on the ground, then that's a lot more power being allowed in a competitor's service area and spectrum than would be allowed for cell towers.
I can understand why Starlink wants laxer limits -- it's usually hard to design and implement sharp filters like that without compromising efficiency in terms of power or other characteristics -- but ETSI standards and national regulations typically set those limits based on good analysis that lots of companies agree on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's equally plausible though that T-Mobile's plan truly will cause interference
Perhaps. But if T-Mobile erects thousands of cell towers instead, that will also cause interference.
Can you explain that?
Re: (Score:2)
The T-Moble—Sprint merger was like two drowning men hugging each other. Even after the merger, the combined entity struggled and was in no position to be generous to consumers.
See, I'm not sure I buy that.
Five years ago, I had five lines, one with all-the-way-unlimited data, one with 2GB of data, and the rest with 10GB, and it was $220/month.
Today, I'm down to a single line with all-the-way-unlimited data, and it's $100/month. I'd ratchet it down, but even their lowest end plan isn't enough of a cost savings to justify it, and my current plan is cost parity with Verizon.
I used to be a super loyal T-mobile fan due to how well they worked with modders; I still remember having an or
Re:If (Score:4, Insightful)
Starlink and TMobile want to team up... all their competitors object. I'm shocked! SHOCKED! I'd take them all with a heavy grain of salt here.
Starlink and T-Mobile wouldn't have gone this far if they didn't at least believe their case had some merit, the other guys would rationalize objections whether there is merit to them or not.
Re: If (Score:2)
Re:If (Score:4, Informative)
Starlink and TMobile want to team up... all their competitors object. I'm shocked! SHOCKED! I'd take them all with a heavy grain of salt here.
Starlink and T-Mobile wouldn't have gone this far if they didn't at least believe their case had some merit, the other guys would rationalize objections whether there is merit to them or not.
Other people believed their cases had merit as well, like Broadband Over Power Line and cellular service right beside frequencies that GPS was used. If you don't have to pay any attention to how much power you are spilling out into other bands, you can really do some incredible things. Keep cranking up the power - and you can even put the cell companies out of business, because their signals are now blocked with your tenfold increase in out of band RF.
Of course, the cellulars can then increase their power - after all if Spacex isn't held to out of band RF limits, they aren't either. Than no one is, Then we have a range war of sorts with not only accidental interference, but very intentional interference.
All of those power limits and band limits and Intermodulation and spurious out of band rules aren't there to punish Musk, or to keep a monopoly for the cellular providers. They are there to keep this from collapsing. https://www.ntia.gov/sites/def... [ntia.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes yes it is possible there is interference though less likely in this case where all the players involved are talking about essentially the same technologies and the entire understand them well. You have gone off the rails a bit and speculated limitless abuse instead of a limited and specific adjustment which they are requesting here. Also remember that T-Mobile will be impacted by their own proposal the same as these other carriers and they are also suggesting that in addition to granting them this excep
Re: (Score:2)
Yes yes it is possible there is interference though less likely in this case where all the players involved are talking about essentially the same technologies and the entire understand them well.
You know, I got the same reply when I said that BPL wouldn't work, and that there was no way that having cellular service next to the GPS band segment would create absolutely no problem because they wren't on the same frequencies.
As really really smart people, they knew, and I was just wrong because I didn't know how things worked. Okay. Then these really really smart people then slinked away when I was found to be exactly correct after they wasted a lot of money.
Not that I am always correct - I am not
Re: (Score:2)
"Not that I am always correct - I am not."
Have you done some sort of technical review of the specific spectrum they are talking about? If you have then I'm not disputing whatever you believe you've found because I have not.
I'm just saying, they are suggesting that the interference limit is overly constrained. It is entirely possible that the underlying protocols are robust enough to mitigate the impact of the small increase they are requesting and/or the limit was overly conservative in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not that I am always correct - I am not."
Have you done some sort of technical review of the specific spectrum they are talking about?
I could - but here's your problem. Spacex and T- mobile say they need to e allowed to violate the regulation of adjacent frequency interference. Thja t means exactly that Spacex and T-Mobile Own the frequencies allotted to them Plus they own the out of band frequencies as well.
Because no one will be able to use those frequencies. Because they have out of band interference from another service.
Now what happens if another service wants to use those adjacent frequencies? And what if they want to have
Re: (Score:2)
"Because no one will be able to use those frequencies. Because they have out of band interference from another service."
That isn't necessarily the case. You are drawing a false and oversimplified equivalence between services and interference here. This also ignores that the interference is ALREADY allowed, this simply adjusts the power threshold. For someone who claims to have done all this presenting at conferences you sure seem to be missing a lot of nuance any of us HAM operators are familiar with. It al
Re:If (Score:5, Informative)
If ATT and Verizon both oppose it, you can't necessarily say that it's good; but if it were good, they would both oppose it.
I think there is an issue though. Elon is demanding a remarkable increase in "out of band" emissions.
Side note - this sort of thing is how I make my living these days. I'm not going to argue from authority, just giving some bona fides.
"AT&T said SpaceX's requested "ninefold increase" to the allowable power flux-density limits for out-of-band emissions "would cause unacceptable harmful interference to incumbent terrestrial mobile operations.
We live in an interesting age, where solid physics is discarded for "Nothing could go wrong!"
RF. RF is unruly stuff. It doesn't stay where it is supposed to stay, frequency wise. It beats against itself, and unless carefully managed, does a good job of shutting the neighboring RF emitters down. That's the "Flux density limits" buzzword in the article.
We see this so many times, like when the cellular carriers wanted a slice of spectrum right beside the GPS frequencies. A quick analysis showed that this would knock out GPS, but it was claimed that since they were on different frequencies, that would be dumb, that can't happen!
So in an experiment to prove that they were smarter than the naysayers, they turned a system on with mock usage, and GPS was lost the moment it was energized.
Or broadband over Power Line. The promoters even tried to get new law written, that unlicensed licensed services be permitted to interfere with licensed services. But they couldn't get ti to not interfere, and worse, licensed services easily knocked out the BPL signals for miles around, and even a kid with a CB Walkie talkie could nock out the signals nearby. This was known and brought up when it was first proposed. But "nothing could go wrong!" So Spacex wants to essentially have its bandwidth and purposely interfere with whatever services are nearby. Not much of any other way to put it. That's a breathtaking demand to make.
Re: (Score:1)
Time for me to leave T-Mo behind. (Score:3)
Re: Time for me to leave T-Mo behind. (Score:2)
"I will leave behind [...] the loyalty due a past employer which I parted from under amicable circumstances."
So... None? That's how much they feel towards you.
Re: (Score:1)
As much as it made you cry? C'mon, be honest - I can see that tear in your eye.
Don't worry, Elon'll make it all better for you. He's going to get rid of 'likes' and implement a system of 'hates' at X. Now, go see if you can't get yourself a Darwin award, hmmm?
Re: (Score:2)
They see it as an entry wedge. (Score:2)
Who Costs More For Less? (Score:2)
The facts speak for themselves.
T-Mobile own the block of bandwidth (Score:3)
if SpaceX transmit on PCS G Block and thats owned by T-Mobile then the only objection is power and all you do is test it which the FCC can do themselves
get over it
Re: (Score:2)
if SpaceX transmit on PCS G Block and thats owned by T-Mobile then the only objection is power and all you do is test it which the FCC can do themselves
get over it
Question do T-Mobile own the bandwidth and frequencies across the entire country or is it more localised? I theorised this on the story a few days ago which concluded that Starlink will roll this out worldwide, I suspect they will face huge regulatory hurdles with small countries densely located together.
They could have a legit complaint if the same frequency isn't owned by one company across a really large landmass.
Re: T-Mobile own the block of bandwidth (Score:2)
We imagine satellites being a huge distance from Earth. In reality, these satellites are 300 miles up. Even if weâ(TM)re talking about Luxembourg, itâ(TM)ll take up 5Â of the satelliteâ(TM)s view. Given the fancy phased array antennae these things have, Iâ(TM)m sure it would be able to deal with that. And thatâ(TM)s assuming these countries have different phone suppliers. In reality, at least BeNeLux have the same suppliers, if not France and Germany too.
Re:T-Mobile own the block of bandwidth (Score:5, Informative)
do T-Mobile own the bandwidth and frequencies across the entire country or is it more localised?
Spectrum ownership like this is national. They could operate in the US on these frequencies, But they don't necessarily have authorization from other countries to use the same frequencies IF they serve customers in that other country. If T-Mobile as a business does not run in whatever small countries you are thinking of, then those countries have little or no regulatory control over what noise T-Mobile sends that they hear. Interference between operators in different countries with entirely different spectrum allocations would be a separate type of issue.
Re:T-Mobile own the block of bandwidth (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a pointeless "if"
SpaceX is seeking a waiver of FCC rules regarding out-of-band emission limits. Out-of-band is not in-band. In other words, the waiver they want is to be allowed to step on other frequencies.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pointeless "if"
SpaceX is seeking a waiver of FCC rules regarding out-of-band emission limits. Out-of-band is not in-band. In other words, the waiver they want is to be allowed to step on other frequencies.
This guy gets it.
"We can't complete, so they shouldn't be able to" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They can't compete right now, but I'd imagine that At&t or Verizon will try something similar once the Amazon Kuiper satellite network is available.
Seems like a stalling tactic to me.
Interference to [the revenue of] terrestrial nets (Score:2)
FTFY. Next time say the silent part out loud.
Hahaha (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember all the money we gave you motherfuckers for rural broadband? We want that back. And after that we'll do nothing, just like you did nothing.
Re:Hahaha (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember all the money we gave you motherfuckers for rural broadband?
The money for rural Internet should've gone to StarLink instead of the incumbent telcos.
StarLink is a more cost-effective solution, and rural residents can install the base stations themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Starlink isn't ideal for rural broadband. The speed is on the low side today, and only going to fall further behind as the US enters the 21st century with FTTP. Latency isn't great either.
There may also be contention in some areas, even rural ones.
Even if you don't care about those things, the Starlink transceivers are quite power hungry, i.e. they cost a lot more to run.
Those rural areas have copper phone lines. It's not impossible to put fibre there, and there are probably already poles in the ground. It'
Re: (Score:3)
You're think'n of "rural" in European terms.
Wyoming is twice the size of England, with less than 1% as many people. Montana is bigger than Germany.
When you're ten miles from your nearest neighbor, trenching and maintaining fiber will cost far more than a StarLink base station. Orders of magnitude more.
Future speeds don't matter. What matters is if the service is "good enough". Most people use only a tiny fraction of their bandwidth.
I have 200 Mbps, average less than 1% of that, and rarely go above 10%, whic
Re: (Score:2)
I had a look at the remotest places I could find in Wyoming on Google Street View, and they all had telegraph lines.
If they can install all that copper cable, why can't they put fibre on the same poles?
Re: (Score:3)
If they can install all that copper cable, why can't they put fibre on the same poles?
They can. The problem is the cost.
Google says stringing fiber on poles costs $5,000 per mile, and buried fiber costs $80,000 per mile.
Even at the lower cost, for a residence ten miles out, the cost of fiber ($50k) is a hundred times that of a StarLink base station ($500).
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming your figure of $5000/mile is accurate, with the $97 billion on offer that would be 19.4 million miles worth of fibre installed. Enough to go from east coast to west coast over 7,000 times.
It appears that the government considers it worth doing at that cost, as presumably it did back when the copper was installed. And the roads it built to those places, for that matter. What's the cost of a road per mile in those remote rural areas?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that why they also don't have roads, telephone lines, electricity etc?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously think fixed wire is better than access to 100 mbps mobile internet and phone anywhere that has view of the sky? What is wrong with you? By the way that will no doubt increase. If you gave Kuiper, Oneweb, and SpaceX a tiny fraction of the $90 billion they'd work out how to get to 1 Gbps by the end of the decade. But forget that, with today now tech .. 100mbps or even 20 mbps (starling mini) can allow you to stream Netflix at 4K .. and definitely would allow you to work from home or call for hel
Re: (Score:2)
1Gbps is already mediocre for fibre. Japan has had 20Gbps commercially deployed to home users for years.
100mbps is a joke in 2024. It's the last resort if you can't get anything better. What your TV buffer when someone starts downloading a game patch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
100mbps is a joke in 2024.
99.9% of users don't need 100 Mbps.
The other 0.1% don't need taxpayer subsidies.
How many people stream ten movies simultaneously?
Re: (Score:2)
Single users who don't upload much, maybe. A household, anyone who works with video...
Re: (Score:2)
The transceiver has two 10gbps ports on it. It also has coax out that supplies 8k video. And a phone line.
Re: (Score:2)
So we're supposed to spend billions to subsidize everyone getting fiber so that the few rural Idahoans who do video editing will be OK? Come on if the Unabomber wants to do video editing let him pay for multiple Starlink connections.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the Unabomber why you have roads, phone lines, electricity, water, sewage and so forth in those places as well?
Re: (Score:2)
Many (most?) rural small towns don't have sewage. Many have dirt roads. As for phone lines and electricity those are much cheaper than fiber. 1 Gbps is a luxury, 99% of people don't need it. 99% of work-from-home jobs don't need it. So no, the Unabomber doesn't need to have 1 Gbps anymore than he needs a highway-spec road. If he needs to use a GW of electricity to do nuclear fuel enrichment .. are we supposed to ensure every rural home has access to a GW of electricity? No. He should put up solar panels or
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody runs water and sewage to remote rural locations.
The water comes from a well. The sewage goes to a septic tank.
Electricity makes sense because 100% of people need it and ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT.
Fiber makes less sense because 0.1% want it but don't care enough to pay for it (hence, the taxpayer subsidies).
640K RAM is enough for anybody? (Score:2)
That's why the government does it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Hahaha (Score:2)
Yes. But often, power companies will string fiber up on their poles while they are doing other maintenance. In these cases the extra labor is minimal.
Unless it's a public power utility and the telcos have won legal injunctions against municipal broadband.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a look at the remotest places I could find in Wyoming on Google Street View, and they all had telegraph lines.
If they can install all that copper cable, why can't they put fibre on the same poles?
I don't know about Wyoming, but some years ago, there was an effort to install fiber all over the place. Apparently never lit, but it's there. It is impressive how many ridiculously rural areas have fiber on the poles.
Re: (Score:2)
"Wherez'ya goin'. Jed."
"On down her da telegraph offie. Gonna get me some eee-mail."
".- .... ...."
Re: (Score:2)
You're think'n of "rural" in European terms.
Wyoming is twice the size of England, with less than 1% as many people. Montana is bigger than Germany.
When you're ten miles from your nearest neighbor, trenching and maintaining fiber will cost far more than a StarLink base station. Orders of magnitude more.
Future speeds don't matter. What matters is if the service is "good enough". Most people use only a tiny fraction of their bandwidth.
I have 200 Mbps, average less than 1% of that, and rarely go above 10%, which is still enough to stream two movies simultaneously.
Trying to argue that StarLink is better than fiber, and that the metric is good enough? I expect better than that from you.
What is amazing to me is that continually launching and putting more satellites in orbit is orders of magnitude cheaper than installing fiber.
What amazes me is that doing this is somehow cheaper than just erecting new Cell towers. Other than the PA Wilderness areas here, where no one lives unless they are living in a camp, even tiny little villages are getting 5G now - which the p
Re: (Score:2)
Starlink isn't ideal for rural broadband. The speed is on the low side today, and only going to fall further behind as the US enters the 21st century with FTTP.
That is not happening. The US telcos say they are going to switch to fiber so they want to abandon POTS, but in reality they just want to abandon the most rural customers and give them nothing.
They said we were going to have DSL everywhere by 2000. 2000 came and went and then 23 more years passed and hey, guess what, still don't have DSL everywhere.
Pretending they will change without being forced to change is insensible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you want DSL now? Fiber is better.
That, sir, was not the point.
The broken promise was the point.
24 years later, still not kept. How long do you think it will be before they deliver fiber to everyone? I say it will be forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Starlink isn't ideal for rural broadband.
Huh? That is its primary use case and it is outstanding. Speed is on the low side? That is nonsense. It is the fastest internet I have ever had. I always get above 100 Mbps, sometimes it pushes into 250+ Mpbs territory.
Re: (Score:2)
Speed is now sitting at 200-300mbps down, 20-30mbps up. Latency is around 20ms. As far as I am concerned, that is far from 'marginal'
Contention is minimal where it is truly needed. Everyone around out here has them now, and I've only seen my speed increase over the last two years. BTW, there is not even a cell signal out here as an alternative. So Starlink is it. I used to have Viasat, and i
Re: (Score:2)
Even 100bps up would be unacceptable to me. Gigabit opens up a lot of possibilities.
Re: (Score:2)
But seriously, for 99% of the time those speeds are more than adequate unless you are a huge gamer or something. I have the internet to work (programming, zoom meetings and the like) and watch a few movies, read news, normal stuff. Those speeds are more than adequate for most normal things you are doing. I would rather suffer a little on my upload speed than suffer everyday living in a city, so I can deal with those. Only time it is a challenge is if I need to upload
Re: (Score:2)
Starlink isn't ideal for rural broadband. The speed is on the low side today
How much speed do you need? We don't need video streaming. We'll rent DVDs or check them out of the local library. We don't need low latency for games. We go outside. Just handle my e-mail and load basic web pages.
Cellular data could have handled rural broadband requirements. But 5G was engineered to be fast and low latency in dense urban environments. And not capable of replacing the more robust 3G services over long distances. With rural areas service to be cut off. Job done.
FCC (Score:1)
FCC is supposed to act in the publics interest. ... Ok, after you finish you fit of laughter, read the rest of this. The FCC should destroy Verizon and AT&T and prioritize satellite based telecom. Not just Starlink, but other services like Kuiper and OneWeb when they start coming onstream over the next few years. The FCC should allow satellite to transmit at 100x power and fuck up the AT&T and Verizon LTE networks. Fuck 'em.
What do you do about latency? (Score:2)
Harmful interference (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not just test it? (Score:2)
Just like with the 5G altimeter discussion, the opposition are just going to pile so many worst case estimates on top of each other it becomes meaningless.
Let T-Mobile run a localized test, limited potential for harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Its difficult to run a "localized test" when one side of the radio link is a satellite orbiting at over 500km above the earth moving at over 7km/s
Re: (Score:3)
The satellites are almost certainly using directional + phased array antennas. For SOS messaging you might be able to spray and pray a continent, but for cellular you need to be a bit more selective.
They damn well know their claims are false. (Score:3)
Yeah, damn those regulators. (Score:2)
Just Get Public Safety To Show Concern (Score:2)
Just get public safety to file some concerns about interference and Musk will find himself slapped with denials.
About the only way to get complaints acted upon is if they interfere with public safety or the commercial broadcasters. If airlines throw up GPS concerns like they did with 5G at the absolute last minute the FAA can tell the FCC to get stuffed too.
But ultimately if the right people don't complain the FCC will...as it has...use it's power to push one provider over another. A lot of our broadcast st
Corporatism (Score:2)
Mussolini said 'fascism' would better be called 'corporatism'.
That's what we've got.
The Pertinent Comment in the whole article (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to mention the 'too strict' part. I'm guessing that Musk will just threaten to move to Texas to solve this issue. /s
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm guessing that Musk will just threaten to move to Texas to solve this issue. /s
Or, and he's already doing this, go full-Trump and hope to get relaxed regulations in return for his assistance leading up to the election. And maybe another bribe or two.
Re: (Score:2)
Deal made in Apartheid South Africa. (Score:2)
my body opposes it. (Score:1)
1. Radio wave sickness has been known a long time.
2. There are many symptoms including hypoxia. It alters the red blood cells, causing coagulation and reducing ability to carry oxygen.
3. Every mass introduction of new electrogmagnetic technology has brought a wave of sickness with it.
4. The spanish flu came about when A/C elec was introduced worldwide. Telegraph operators got sick.
Radar operators, Marconi had heart attacks (when that was almost unheard of), etc, etc.
5. People have warned for years that 5G
I will now leave T-Mobile for another carrier. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
put up or pay up (Score:2)
Well, that explains that... (Score:2)
No wonder Elon is making nice with Trump. If Trump manages to get back to the Whitehouse, Elon is betting Trump will appoint a chairman who will allow the waiver. Money makes for strange bedfellows, too. :)