San Francisco may have signed cellphone radiation labels into law, but the stickers won’t stick without a fight — the Cellular Telephone Industries Association (CTIA) just filed a complain in federal district court, claiming the new law supersedes the FCC’s authority to regulate radio emissions and misleads consumers into believing some phones are safer than others. As we’ve discussed previously, the CTIA does have something of a point. Every phone that makes it to market is rigorously tested for cell phone radiation levels, and those that pass fall below a specific 1.6 watt per kilogram threshold already. But hey, we’re all for bombarding our brains with that much less radiation, as long as our calls stay connected and our text messages arrive on time. If only there were a label for that… Read the CTIA’s full complaint at our more coverage link.
Oh San Francisco, you and your progressive ways. The city just passed a law — a first in the US — requiring retailers to post the Specific Absorption Rates (aka SAR, the rate at which at which energy is absorbed by the body) in no less than 11-point font right next to any cellphone being sold. Sounds good as far as consumer education goes, right? And a functioning democracy demands an educated and informed electorate. But here’s the thing: the jury’s still out (just pick your favorite dangerous / not dangerous study to fit your belief) on the effect of radiation at levels less than the 1.6 watts per kilogram threshold set by the FCC. As such, CTIA spokesman John Walls has a point when he says that highlighting the SAR levels might confuse consumers into thinking that some cellphones are safer than others. In other words, consumer education needs to go much further than any retail-shelf placard could possibly communicate. Well, at least the law will keep us safe long enough to walk out the door and trip over a hippie.
P.S. The image above is from the “Get a Safer Phone” (note the wording) rankings provided by the Environmental Working Group.
The iPhone’s iteration of Google Maps has been shown up time and time again by Google Maps Navigation on Android, but a quirk this big just has to be linked to some Skyhook database issue. According to a new report coming from the LA area, select iPhone users in Southbay cities near Los Angeles are seeing their GPS software linked to Boulder, Colorado, and the issue has been going on for around a week now. What’s curious is that the erroneous positioning affects other third-party iPhone GPS apps as well, and an ABC report notes that a “spokesperson at AT&T said the problem is with Apple.” Pass the blame much, AT&T? So, have any of you LA-based iPhoners found yourself navigating to Folsom Field when trying to find your way to Rodeo Drive?
With LTE onslaughts from Verizon and AT&T (not to mention countless carriers around the world) drawing near, Sprint’s wasting no time beefing up its WiMAX network ahead of its competitors’ 4G launches in an effort to give WiMAX the best chance it can. Without giving a hard figure, the company says that it expects to launch WiMAX service in “many” markets this year, with several notables among the lot: Boston, Denver, Kansas City, Houston, Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC are all called out by name. SF and the Big Apple in particular will be huge wins — assuming the deployments go smoothly — thanks to abnormally high concentrations of geeks (including yours truly, of course) that will immediately appreciate faster wide-area broadband. They’re not listing dates just yet, so it’s unclear just how soon we can expect these to light up.
If the San Francisco Department of the Environment gets its way, starting as soon as next month Bay Area residents might start noticing the radiation levels of cellphones displayed prominently next to their respective price at retail outlets. This is, of course, despite no definitive research that the handsets cause harm and the FCC’s insistence that the devices sold to consumers are safe. The proposal is being endorsed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, who as it’s noted is not about to stop using his iPhone anytime soon. Not to worry, Maine, you’ll still keep the top spot for most ridiculous cellphone warning label.
Love that Pandora app? Well, we’ve got good news and bad news for you. The good news is that AT&T’s wireless head honcho Ralph de la Vega says it’s hard at work at improving service in San Francisco and Manhattan, where it sees especially high smartphone penetration — and coincidentally a higher concentration of whiny tech journalists. The bad news, though, is that it might end up hitting you in the pocketbook. Speaking to investors today, de la Vega mentioned that the company is well aware that downtown New Yorkers are suffering, specifically calling out the area for “performing at levels below [its] standards” expressing confidence that it’s going to get the problem resolved. In the same breath, though, he assured attendees that independent testing conducted by Global Wireless Solutions shows that a test of over 415 markets (which probably means 416 markets) has AT&T coming out on top for network speed — something that we found in our testing as well — and is “within two-tenths of 1 percent of the highest score among major providers” for dropped calls at 1.32 percent averaged nationally. Anyway, about that bad news — the company has noticed that a huge chunk (some 40 percent) of its broadband is consumed by just 3 percent of smartphone users, and it’s suggesting that it’ll “address” that through a combination of usage meters (no complaints there) and likely a tiered pricing model that sticks it to the heaviest users “in a way that’s consistent with net-neutrality and FCC regulations.” At a glance, that sounds “fair” — we’d rather they not increase data fees across the board to average out a very small number of users — but the long-lost term “unlimited” still gives us a warm fuzzy that we’re hoping to win back sooner or later. When LTE shows up, perhaps?
