Dear Ms Smith,
today, I want to offer a quick perspective on wireless vs fibre optics.
This is the final part of my email to Rt Hon Norman Lamb,’Wireless radiation’:
‘From the comprehensive 2018 report (the report is well worth reading), ‘Re-Inventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks’ written by Timothy Schoechle PhD, Senior Research Fellow, National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy (http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ReInventing-Wires-1-25-18.pdf)
‘The unstated industry motive is to force subscribers into more profitable wireless networks. The claims about obsolescence and the supposed need to “step toward to the 21st century” are a self-serving, false narrative put forward by monopolistic corporations and their political lackeys.’
‘Wireless access has been artificially inflated by regulatory disparity. Present technology and a market trajectory of dependence on wireless are unsustainable as a long-termsolution for many reasons, including: • Not efficient (energy or materials) • Not sufficient (economically or in performance) • Not self-sufficient (energy or materials) • Not sustainable (economically, in energy, environmentally, socially) • Vulnerable (hacking) • Growing health concerns’
‘Wired infrastructure is inherently more future-proof, more reliable, more sustainable, more energy-efficient, and more essential to many other services. Wireless networks and services are inherently more complex, more costly, more unstable, and more constrained.’
If ‘Wired infrastructure is inherently more future-proof, more reliable, more sustainable, more energy-efficient, and more essential to many other services.’, and wireless networks are being described as inferior, more vulnerable to hacking and potentially more harmful, why is Britain pursuing an inferior, more vulnerable and more potentially harmful infrastructure?’
Dr Paul Heroux: ”If you use optical fibre, the optical fibre is totally secure because the signal is confined within the fibre. … With 5G, maybe we’ll get 10 gigabytes per second or some people say maybe even 20 gigabytes per second. Now, with optical fibre, Bell Labs has demonstrated 100 million gigabytes per second internet speed across two kilometres, so there is no competition. There is no comparison at all between optical fibre and wireless. … Any sophisticated society in the future needs, and will depend on, optical fibre, which the telecommunications companies use for themselves, but it seems at the moment to be more commercially desirable for you to depend on wireless.”
So, exactly why is Britain pursuing an inferior, more vulnerable and more potentially harmful infrastructure?