A war between RT, Russia’s external English language news channel and the New York Times over the health impact of 5G technology has given the telecom industry a new talking point: Claims that 5G signals are dangerous are nothing more than Russian fake news.

Generous news coverage about 5G deployment has brought out fringe critics claiming wireless mobile technology causes brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease. In some cities in the western U.S., mysterious “Public Health Warning” signs have been placed on utility poles, showing the alleged locations of future 5G cell sites as health is really important for many people, people want to feel healthy and relax, and that’s why so many try cbd products, or vape pens to relax as well, as you can even go online and visit this for different vape pens if you want to get one of your own. You may also want to experience tranquility with the 3chi purple urkle thca flower, as the calming attributes of the Purple Urkle strain combined with THCA offer a pathway to relaxation.

The Times instead blamed the Kremlin’s state-sponsored news outlet RT for stirring up opposition to 5G. Reporter William Broad claimed RT had largely ignored 5G until this year, when it suspiciously aired seven stories about its health risks:

RT’s assaults on 5G technology are rising in number and stridency as the American wireless industry begins to erect 5G systems. In March, Verizon said its service will soon reach 30 cities.

RT America aired its first program assailing 5G’s health impacts last May, its only one in 2018. Already this year, it has run seven. The most recent, on April 14, reported that children exposed to signals from 5G cellphone towers would suffer cancer, nosebleeds and learning disabilities.

[…] The network is now applying its playbook against 5G by selectively reporting the most sensational claims, and by giving a few marginal opponents of wireless technology a conspicuous new forum.

RT’s Rick Sanchez devoted a substantial amount of time on a recent show attempting to refute a New York Times article that claimed Russia was trying to interfere with America’s 5G expansion using fear-mongering. (19:32)

The “Balaclava EMF Shield” is designed to protect you from ambient radiofrequency energy.

One RT host, Rick Sanchez, devoted 20 minutes of a recent show critiquing the Times story and expressing disappointment over the caliber of its reporting. Sanchez suggested the New York Times report was virtually an advertisement for Verizon and narrowed in on an admission near the bottom of the piece that the phone company and the newspaper are now business partners:

Wireless high-speed communication could transform the news industry, sports, shopping, entertainment, transportation, health care, city management and many levels of government. In January, The Times announced a joint venture with Verizon to build a 5G journalism lab.

Sanchez also sought to tie the push for 5G as another example of corporate influence over Washington, noting FCC Chairman Ajit Pai was a former lawyer for Verizon. He also tied 5G into the assault on net neutrality, without explaining why. For its part, the Times suggests, with little evidence, that RT is running a propaganda campaign against 5G to slow down its deployment in the United States, allowing Russia to leap ahead:

Even as RT America has worked hard to damage 5G, the scientific establishment in Russia has embraced a contrary and questionable position: that the high frequencies of 5G communications are actually good for human health. It recommends their use for healing wounds, boosting the immune system and treating cancer. Millions of Russian patients are said to have undergone such high-frequency therapies.

Beauty clinics in Moscow use these high frequencies for skin regeneration, according to a scientific study. One company says the waves can remove wrinkles and fight hair loss.

The back-and-forth arguments have now attracted Washington’s attention, and some in Congress want to hold hearings about a reputed “disinformation campaign” run by Russia against 5G technology. Wireless carriers will welcome such hearings, allowing them to further argue for deregulation of cell placement rules and other zoning matters and claim the U.S. is falling behind in the global 5G race. It is also much easier to dismiss objections to 5G as Russian fake news than to finance a team of experts to counter those claims.

Lost in all of this is the original question about the risks of 5G technology. Much of the health an d safety opposition to wireless technology began long before the concept of 5G was unveiled. Some parents have opposed in-school Wi-Fi as medically harmful. Others fear traditional 3G or 4G radiofrequency energy, which some claim (without substantial evidence) causes cancer.

The health impacts of 5G have not been definitively proven, and it will be important to distinguish between different flavors of 5G to even consider the question. Millimeter wave 5G networks that depend on small cells those signs affixed to utility poles warn about operate at very high frequencies with very low power. No person will likely be within 10-15′ of a small cell because they will be erected on top of utility poles. They also emit a very short range signal unlikely to penetrate walls of buildings, much less your brain or vital organs. The other version of 5G will be placed on existing cell towers and will be no more harmful than 3G or 4G. If one fears radiofrequency energy, they are much more likely to get a large dose of it driving past (or living by) an AM, FM, or TV transmitter that operates at much higher power.

KOIN-TV in Portland, Ore. reported the sudden appearance of ‘Public Health Hazard’ signs warning of the risks of 5G. But are the signs for real? (2:31)

Staffers working for the antitrust division of the Department of Justice have recommended the agency sue to block the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, arguing it will reduce competition and raise prices for consumers.

Two sources familiar with the matter told CNBC staffers have been skeptical of the merger and recommended blocking it on antitrust grounds. But the final decision will rest with President Donald Trump’s political appointees, notably Makan Delrahim, who heads the antitrust division. Delrahim can agree, modify, or reject the staffers’ recommendations.

The disclosure hammered Sprint shares earlier this morning in pre-market trading. Wall Street analysts are likely experiencing significant headaches trying to predict where the deal will ultimately end up. Earlier this week, the FCC’s Republican majority signaled they were prepared to approve the merger, based on concessions including the spinoff of prepaid Boost Mobile, which resells Sprint service.

A final decision from the Justice Department is likely to be announced in June.

Charter Spectrum serves a significant part of the state of Maine.

The Maine state government is reviewing a measure that would require all cable operators in the state to offer customers the chance to buy individual cable channels instead of being forced into a large and costly package of dozens, if not hundreds of unwanted TV channels.

“The senior citizens in my area want to watch the Boston Red Sox,” says Rep. Jeffrey Evangelos, an independent from Friendship. “The package that Spectrum is offering in Maine that includes the Red Sox costs about a hundred bucks. These people are making $800 bucks a month on Social Security. They’re bemoaning to me at the doors, you know, ‘I can’t afford television anymore Jeff.’ And they grew up in an era when television was free.”

Maine Public Radio reports Evangelos’ solution is an insertion of a single sentence into the state franchising law:

A cable system operator shall offer subscribers the option of purchasing access to cable channels, or programs on cable channels, individually.

The proposed change won support from a state legislative committee, but scorn from cable industry lobbyists that claim the proposed measure violates federal law.

Chris Hodgdon, a Comcast lobbyist, pointed to the specific statute forbidding states from telling cable operators how to conduct business: “No state shall regulate the products, rates, services of a cable provider.”

Charter Spectrum’s regional lobbyist Melinda Kinney warned any such law would likely face immediate court challenges. Kinney complained the measure was unfair because it targets cable operators while excluding satellite and streaming providers. But consumer advocates argue that the law could actually help the cable industry as cord-cutting becomes a national phenomenon. Subscribers agree.

“I’d sign back up for cable TV in a minute if I could pick my own channels and pay a reasonable price,” said Jack Winters, 71, a former Comcast customer near Brunswick. “Comcast makes you take all or nothing so I took nothing. I miss not getting Fox News Channel, Turner Classic Movies, and Hallmark, but my bank account doesn’t.”

Sen. Angus King, the independent senator from Maine, has done his part to investigate whether such a state law would violate federal deregulation measures. He took the proposal to the FCC.

Patrick Webre, chief of the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau responded that no state has passed such a law before, so he couldn’t say much:

“In your letter you asked whether a state mandate that a cable operator provide a-la-carte services would be pre-empted by federal law. This poses a question of first impression, and we could not locate any specific Commission rules that addresses your exact issue. Thus we are not in a position to express an opinion on the question you raise.”

Under the Trump Administration, however, the Republican majority controlling the FCC would likely oppose the measure because it would introduce new regulations on the industry, something that has historically been anathema to Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioner Michael O’Rielly. Republican Commissioner Brendan Carr, formerly a lawyer for Wiley Rein, which represents the interests of several large telecom companies, would likely also oppose the measure.

The bill now moves to the full Legislature on a tri-partisan vote of 8-2 and will be debated first in the House.

A proposed new law would require cable operators in Maine to sell individual cable channels to customers. (4:08)

Bloomberg News is reporting this afternoon that the Justice Department is leaning against the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, because the proposed concessions offered by the two companies this morning do not resolve antitrust concerns, according to a person familiar with the review.

News of the reported opposition leaked out on the same day FCC Chairman Ajit Pai offered his support of the T-Mobile/Sprint merger, sparking media speculation Pai would not have issued his unqualified support unless the Justice Department was likely to follow suit.

If Bloomberg’s source is correct, the opposition on antitrust and competition grounds would be a major setback for the merger. Bloomberg reports that the fate of the deal now likely rests with Makan Delrahim, the head of the antitrust division of the Justice Department. Delrahim must weigh whether the merger would hurt competition and raise prices. If it would, he would likely seek to block the $26.5 billion deal.

The news has stemmed the telecom rally on Wall Street. Sprint was still trading up 14% at $7.08 at 2:44 p.m. in New York, but gave up half of its earlier gains. T-Mobile also has slowed and was up 2.9% to $77.52.

Pai

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai found a lot to like about the proposed merger of T-Mobile and Sprint and has recommended his fellow commissioners approve the transaction after the companies offered new commitments to ease anti-competitive and anti-trust concerns.

That typically means the FCC’s 3-2 Republican majority will quickly approve the deal in a forthcoming vote, with three Republicans in favor and two Democrats opposed, if tradition holds.

Pai’s support for the merger is hardly surprising. Since joining the FCC as a commissioner in the second half of the Obama Administration, Pai has consistently opposed every pro-consumer item on the FCC’s docket. He loves industry-consolidating mergers, hates telecom companies being forced to open their businesses to competition on things like set-top boxes, and considers almost all pro-consumer protection policies from net neutrality to merger deal conditions examples of “overregulation” that he argues are harmful to the free market and investment.

The troubled merger, which would create what we will call T-Sprint, has remained under review for months, recently stalled over revelations the two companies tailored the transaction to appeal to President Trump. T-Mobile executives spent $195,000 repeatedly renting rooms at the Trump International Hotel in Washington and spent large sums hiring Trump-connected “advisors” including Reince Priebus and Corey Lewandowski. The merger pitch was changed to emphasize its impact on rapidly growing 5G networks, a talking point favorite of President Trump, who wants to beat the Chinese over the development of next generation wireless networks.

The merger must win approval from both the FCC and the Justice Department. The latter is said to be troubled about the anti-competitive impact of reducing the number of national wireless carriers from four to three. Such a consolidation would likely permanently change the wireless competition paradigm, because there has been no interest among new entrants to construct multi-billion dollar national cellular networks to compete with established wireless companies.

On Monday, T-Mobile and Sprint delivered additional concessions which seem to have won the approval of Mr. Pai.

“Two of the FCC’s top priorities are closing the digital divide in rural America and advancing United States leadership in 5G, the next generation of wireless connectivity,” Pai said in a statement Monday. “The commitments made today by T-Mobile and Sprint would substantially advance each of these critical objectives.”

But a closer examination of “T-Sprint’s concessions” shows there is remarkably little there to protect competition and consumers:

• A proposed spin off of prepaid Boost Mobile, which relies on the weaker Sprint network, is hardly much of a concession considering it will likely be impacted by the decommissioning of Sprint’s network, requiring at least some customers to buy new equipment that works on T-Mobile’s network. T-Sprint would also continue to control Boost competitors Virgin Mobile and MetroPCS, putting Boost at a distinct disadvantage.
• The “nationwide” 5G network promised by T-Sprint is replete with fine print. The company will not be formally assessed on its expansion progress for three years, has demanded that T-Mobile’s own employees be allowed to conduct network performance tests — a conflict of interest, and that if it fails to meet its own proposed metrics, the FCC must forego the use of its regulatory forfeiture powers. Instead, the company agrees to pay “voluntary” fines if it fails coverage expansion commitments that are open to wide interpretation and litigation.
• T-Sprint agreed to expand its “5G” coverage, but will rely heavily on existing macro cell towers and low and mid-band spectrum, shared by a much larger number of users than millimeter wave/small cell technology. That will probably deliver a more modest, incremental upgrade over existing 4G LTE technology, not a game-changer that can deliver gigabit speeds to wireless customers. Nothing precludes AT&T and Verizon from deploying similar upgrades without a competition-crushing merger between the third and fourth largest competitors.
• T-Sprint’s proposed wireless home broadband replacement does not include a commitment to provide unlimited service. In fact, vague language in the commitment letter suggests T-Sprint will offer the service with a performance and usage expectation akin to other fixed wireless networks. That likely means customers will endure a data cap and speeds that are not comparable to wired technology. Once the company has signed up 9.5 million home broadband customers, any commitments offered to regulators about that service automatically expire.
• The FCC is expected to give up much of its regulatory authority in return for T-Sprint’s commitments. If T-Sprint walks away from its commitments and not invest billions on its network expansion, it can pay a much smaller fine and have its merger obligations disappear. The FCC will not be able to use its more effective compliance power: forfeiture penalties.

T-Sprint’s argument is that this transaction will accelerate the deployment of 5G technology in a war for 5G supremacy with China. But exactly what technology is deployed, on what spectrum, using small cells or macro cell towers, makes a lot of difference. China’s wireless companies are owned and controlled by the Chinese government, which is also underwriting some of the costs. America’s networks are financed with private capital (and customer bills). T-Sprint’s 5G plans are also far less ambitious than those from AT&T and Verizon, and the cost to long-term competition is too high. The FCC should know that.

Congress has noticed that this merger has been rejected before during the Obama Administration for being anti competitive. Nothing has changed with respect to that. But T-Mobile’s lobbying sure has — this time trying to appeal to the Trump Administration for approval. Pai is certainly on board, and that could cost American consumers plenty.

Most telling of all is Wall Street’s reaction to today’s news. A merger that is being sold as as an AT&T/Verizon killer appears to be anything but. Verizon stock rose by 4.2% and AT&T by 4%. Investors recognize that consolidation can mean only one thing: higher prices. It means the end of the wireless price war that had Sprint and T-Mobile taking potshots at their larger rivals, forcing them to cut prices and bring back unlimited data plans.

It would be ruinous for T-Sprint to continue slashing prices and taunting AT&T and Verizon with costly promotions and giveaways. AT&T and Verizon expect T-Sprint will join their comfortable cartel with suspiciously similar plans and pricing, while firing up to 30,000 redundant workers and decommissioning Sprint’s wireless network. That last fact is well known on Wall Street, too. Cellphone tower owners took a beating in the stock market on the news they could lose Sprint as a customer. American Tower was down 1.9%, Crown Castle fell 3.2% and SBA Communications Corp. dropped as much as 4.5%.

The deal still must pass muster with the Justice Department, and attorneys general from multiple U.S. states are also opposing the deal on the state level. But the Republican members of the FCC joining up to support the deal make it more likely that it will eventually get approved.