5G, fibre Optics, and Cybersecurity: Facts and Myths

We talk to Karol Skupień, president of the National Chamber of Ethernet Communications, about 5G, Wi-Fi, and fibre optics, the takeover of Polish critical infrastructure by abroad corporations, and how the government is reducing our cybersecurity.

Rafał Górski: Mr. Chairman, why should citizens be curious in governmental and corporate activities regarding 5G and fibre optics?

Karol Skupień: Much has already been said in the media about the promotion of 5G, but this popular information contains many myths, and certain facts are omitted.

Society should be curious in this due to the fact that we are talking about highly modern solutions that carry their own threats. People should besides be curious in this subject due to the fact that we are talking about very large amounts of money, any of which comes from citizens’ funds, and citizens should definitely know how their money is being spent.

What are the most crucial facts and myths related to the telecommunications market?

In fresh years, much has been said about 5G technology, and indeed, despite it being a modern, very good technology, a multitude of myths have arisen around it, stemming from the fact that, in our opinion, this technology is artificially promoted and is said to be much better than it actually is.

We are amazed that this technology is surrounded by a set of myths that service to justify support – in our opinion, not entirely essential – from public funds for this technology.

As an example of a myth, I’ll mention the claim that thanks to 5G, we will see a massive advancement in medical technology. Doctors will operate remotely.

This talk of distant surgery was popular even during the promotion of 4G. I am convinced that as we advance 6/7G, we will proceed to usage this argument. However, the fact is that no 1 in the medical field has even heard of it, and no specified experiments have been conducted.

Remote work technology exists, of course, but I’d like individual to effort to remotely repair my car first, and only then execute surgery on me. And just as no 1 is investigating distant car repair yet, we’re inactive a long way from the concept of medical surgery utilizing 5G, and even with 7G, we truly won’t be able to proceed doing so. These are myths that we believe are completely unnecessary.

You represent a tiny business. Could you tell me if there are any tensions between tiny telecommunications companies and corporations in this sector?

I think „tension” is the incorrect term; we compete with each other. The problem that arises in this competition is more of an administrative problem, which to any degree favors a certain technology or size.

If legal mechanisms appear that prevent a tiny business from performing something it would otherwise be capable of performing – that is, legal constraints destruct it from the marketplace – then we resent it. It’s hard to resent a large competitor who benefits from privileges, but discrimination does exist.

Please give me an example of discrimination.

If your city has a sewage strategy operated by the largest Polish operator and a smaller infrastructure owned by a tiny local company is nearby, there’s a very advanced probability that this tiny infrastructure operated by this Polish company is paying fees for occupying the right-of-way, while the largest operator, with its gigantic infrastructure, is paying it from the Polish government for zero zloty.

Why does our government treat a large corp differently from a tiny Polish company?

This isn’t a problem of unequal treatment by the administration. It stems from old regulations, from the fact that the largest operator in Poland is the heir to a once-large state-owned company. erstwhile the regulations were created that the old infrastructure was not subject to fees, it was state-owned infrastructure, so it seemed understandable at the time, and no 1 protested. However, erstwhile the company was sold to a private abroad partner and regulations requiring fees were later introduced, these regulations only applied to fresh infrastructure, not the old one. We consider this to be discrimination and that it must be eliminated today, due to the fact that 1 entrepreneur pays and the another does not.

One of my main goals is to fight discrimination, meaning I effort to influence the legal environment so that all companies have the same chance to develop. I address this problem more to the administration than to our competitors.

More examples are emerging now – I’ll mention the rules for administering and awarding EU subsidies for infrastructure construction. In the erstwhile round, they were constructed in specified a way that tiny and medium-sized businesses were incapable to apply for these funds at all. Let’s just say that a fewer medium-sized businesses were successful. The consequence is that 80% of the funds allocated for infrastructure went to companies with abroad capital, and 20% went to Polish. This is highly incomprehensible and inappropriate for us.

I’d like to point out that in Poland, we have a unique situation: any large enterprises and others small. tiny and medium-sized enterprises are mostly Polish, while large corporations are foreign. Therefore, if the administration creates mechanisms for allocating EU funds that make them available only to large enterprises, firstly, it discriminates against tiny businesses, and secondly, whether intentionally or not, it directs Polish EU funds to abroad entrepreneurs.

I realize that this practice has been going on not just for a fewer years, but since Poland joined the European Union?

Yes. I must admit that tiny and medium-sized enterprises had a chance to receive any of the funds in the first round, which was the smallest, erstwhile large enterprises weren’t yet organized adequate to build infrastructure on a large scale in Poland. We managed to get any of these funds then. erstwhile we, as Polish entrepreneurs, started building, it turned out that large enterprises besides began to take an interest in it. And subsequent rounds were structured in specified a way that large enterprises were favored.

So this happened under both the Civic Platform (PO) and Polish People’s organization (PSL) governments, and is inactive happening under the Law and Justice (PiS) government?

Unfortunately, yes, this is simply a cross-party issue. I say it due to the fact that we are on the eve of distributing further tranches of tremendous funds, and unfortunately, we fear a akin outcome.

Talks with the marketplace are ongoing, but we already know what any of these rules look like and that the conditions will be very hard for medium-sized businesses to meet. tiny businesses will be completely eliminated, although they could make Polish communication by building a structure that would stay in the hands of Polish companies. any medium-sized businesses will be able to participate in competitions, but we don’t know if they will have a chance of winning.

The final rules have not yet been announced. We see many problems that could consequence in this money being redirected to companies with abroad capital.

I didn’t know that the Orange corp doesn’t pay for access to public infrastructure. It’s a paradox that, on the 1 hand, large corporations talk a lot about the free marketplace and competition, about making this free marketplace work, and on the another hand, there are the practices you mentioned.

I was besides intrigued by your message that it’s the administration’s fault. But you besides said something else that suggests that corporations may have influenced the rules of the game. And here, based on experiences from various grassroots campaigns we’ve been running, I’m profoundly convinced that lobbying is underway in this area. All to keep large companies increasing and tiny companies cornered. What do you think about this?

Lobbying is simply a word associated with activities that aren’t necessarily legal. In my opinion, lobbying can be done legally or illegally.

As long as we practice it legally, we shouldn’t resent individual publically submitting proposals through the Chamber of Commerce that would benefit large companies. However, we have an extended administration to analyse all consultations submitted by companies large and small, Polish and foreign, to address them and choose the best solution. And that’s where we see the problem.

The current government makes quite a few claims about supporting tiny and medium-sized businesses. I don’t even want to argue with that, due to the fact that I think I could point to sectors of the economy where this is actually the case. However, in our sector, this isn’t the case, which contradicts the Polish government’s economical support policies. possibly our sector is so tiny in terms of the number of companies that we don’t know how to get this information across to the media. In telecommunications, the Polish administration supports large companies.

Is there any difference in how telecommunications companies perceive fiber-optic, mobile (UMTS), and radio (CDMA) networks? Is 1 solution preferred regardless of its parameters? And how does this relate to citizens’ interests, both in the area of ​​health and in the area of ​​paying bills?

The Polish Chamber of Ethernet Communications prefers normality, which for us means utilizing fixed-line technologies. If we live at home, fiber-optic connections are definitely the better connection. All fixed-line connections, to the degree possible, should be built utilizing fiber-optic technologies. These technologies are importantly superior to radio-optic ones; we can accomplish much higher throughputs while besides eliminating the radio sound that has been much discussed late with 5G technology. Fiber-optic technology generates no noise, and the tremendous bandwidths we have in networks should be transferred to fiber-optic as frequently as possible.

We’re not advocating for a technological retreat and saying, „Okay, let’s throw out cell phones, let’s not usage mobile technology at all”. The point is that radio and mobile technologies should be utilized where needed.

When we leave home, we usage a cell phone, but erstwhile we get home or drive, it’s hard to drag fibre optic cables behind us. Let’s keep the cell telephone for reading or watching something in the backseat, but erstwhile we get home, let’s control to fibre optic technologies. This would be a technically sound solution, reduce noise, and avoid burdening us with unnecessary electromagnetic radiation, which will be very advanced if we abandon fibre optics and explain to society that everything can be done with 5G.

If we quit fiber-optic technologies in businesses and homes and believe corporations that everything can be done with 5G, we will indeed find ourselves in a situation where radiation will be unnecessarily increased a thousandfold.

We’re not opposed to 5G, but we are opposed to the artificial promotion of this technology, which, for any reason, is expected to replace fiber-optic.

Why is this happening?

This reveals the underlying issue: 5G technologies are completely inaccessible to tiny and medium-sized businesses; only powerful global corporations can build them, while fiber-optic cables can be built by both corporations and tiny Polish companies. This is most likely 1 of the reasons for the intense lobbying to advance 5G, which we believe is simply a mistake.

What’s the deal with radio sound and radiation?

By radio noise, I mean electromagnetic radiation [commonly called electrosmog – editor’s note], which is, of course, harmful. I won’t demonize it. Everyone uses radio technology, everyone has a cell telephone in their pocket. However, in my opinion, there’s no reason at all to constantly amplify the power of these radio transmitters where it’s not needed.

In my opinion, modern technologies should be utilized appropriately, and just as besides much vitamin C can be harmful, besides much radiation is surely harmful. The more radio transmissions we have, the more harmful radiation vapors there are.

If we abandoned fibre optics and integrated all the powerful transmission presently available in fibre optic networks into radio technologies, radiation levels would increase. What could be transmitted between our towns, streets, and homes without the usage of radio transmitters would be transmitted utilizing them in 5G technology. This design, which we are promoting to usage modern mobile networks only where needed, would importantly reduce harmful radio waves.

So, for example, is it better for Polish schools, hospitals, and clinics to be connected to the net via cable alternatively than Wi-Fi?

all technology is suitable for something. If the computers in an office are stationary, they can be connected by cable in 1 place at the desk without utilizing Wi-Fi. However, in a place where mobility with a tablet or cell telephone is required, it should be a single Wi-Fi connection. But again, this will make a situation where, of the 100 megabytes per second transmitted to the hospital, if we usage Wi-Fi, we will have a immense amount of radiation equivalent to transmitting 100 megabytes. However, if 90 megabytes are transmitted to the stationary computers via cable, and Wi-Fi only supports tablets with 10 times lower bandwidth, we will have 10 times little radiation within the facility.

We don’t advocate eliminating radio technologies, but it’s crucial to usage them sparingly. Then we will keep a reasonable balance between utilizing modern technologies, not regressing in improvement and eliminating harmful excess electromagnetic radiation.

Is it possible to identify a preference for either technology on the part of the legislator (the Chancellery of the Prime Minister) and the marketplace regulator (the Office of Electronic Communications)?

I don’t want to discuss the regulator’s preference here, but if, as you suggested, we add the legislator to the mix, then unfortunately, yes. I must admit, I’ve been paying attention to this myself in fresh years erstwhile passing legislation. There was a series of regulations intended to facilitate 5G networks. any of these regulations were amended, straight demonstrating their incompatibility with EU law, as there were even proposals that fiber-optic cables would have different fees and different operating costs depending on whether they were utilized for 5G technology.

Are you talking about the 5G Mega-Law or any another bill?

Among another things, there were specified proposals during this work. There are many bills and proposals like these to be reviewed. We, as the Chamber of Commerce, are trying to mention EU acts that actually prohibit this technological discrimination.

It’s sad for us that, as Polish entrepreneurs, observing any unjustified attempts to support technology implemented exclusively by Western corporations, we gotta mention EU acts to convince the Polish administration. Something is not as it should be.

To summarize this thread, I realize that there are many changes in government and law, but the direction of these changes favors large entities, while tiny and medium-sized enterprises are getting hit in the head?

Yes.

Three years ago, the electrosmog limit was raised hundredfold, preparing the ground for the implementation of the 5G network. At the time, it was announced that mobile net towers would be installed on a massive scale, even all 50-100 meters in city centers. Why haven’t these towers mushroomed?

This is most likely just 1 of those fairy tales utilized to justify the request for fast legislation. Transmitters haven’t mushroomed for respective reasons.

The first is formal – we haven’t yet had a 5G network announced by the president of the Office of Electronic Communications (UKE), therefore, the construction of these networks is not yet possible. The administration’s actions have been very inconsistent.

The second is formal – there is no marketplace request in Poland to build specified a massive number of 5G transmitters, as was claimed erstwhile promoting these regulations and the request to let the highest radiation power levels.

The fact is that erstwhile operators are given the chance to build transmitters, they will not build them all 50-100 meters, but only where they have a need, where there is simply a higher density of inhabitants.

Businesses don’t act like politicians and officials say, saying millions of transmitters will abruptly appear. Operators will simply analyse the burden on their networks. Where network traffic is very advanced and the operator is incapable to transfer it, and where they are losing money, they will upgrade to a newer generation transmitter with higher capacity and gain more.

There’s no reason to build transmitters all 50 meters that no 1 will usage and simply no 1 will pay for them, and their maintenance costs will be high. erstwhile building infrastructure, we’re talking about construction costs, purchasing transmitters, paying electricity bills, maintaining cables that sometimes get damaged, and maintaining access to buildings. These are monthly maintenance costs. So unless an operator calculates that the cost of installing a single transmitter will be worthwhile, they won’t do it. Therefore, we won’t have the million transmitters the administration promised erstwhile promoting its regulations for many years to come.

What force groups were active in attempts to implement 5G technology in Poland? Behind the scenes, there’s talk of Americans trying to lobby Europeans to close the telecommunications marketplace to Chinese equipment. What is the Polish government’s stance on the request to exclude Chinese companies? Is this a geopolitical dispute or a purely business one? And how does all this impact the Polish market, especially us, the citizens?

It translates poorly. This is simply a dispute that begins at the political level and has nothing to do with real marketplace activity. This is what free-market entrepreneurs highly dislike: political decisions that dictate what we should and shouldn’t buy, what equipment we should and shouldn’t use.

The Polish government is trying to go further and is proposing draft laws that could restrict Asian equipment in our telecommunications networks, not only for 5G but besides for fibre optics.

We are acquainted with the 5G dispute from another countries, and we are trying not to interfere in it. We have no share in the 5G marketplace and will never have any. However, if Polish lawmakers bring this global political dispute over 5G to Poland and extend it to fibre optic technologies as well, it is completely incomprehensible to us.

Does the Polish government want to destruct Asian equipment from Polish telecommunications networks?

It is preparing for this, creating a law that will let for an administrative decision to order or remove a circumstantial company, device, or even manufacturer. This will destruct the 2 or 3 largest players from the Asian market.

Of course, the creation of regulations alone doesn’t theoretically destruct these companies, but it does let for the issuance of an administrative decision that will do so. So, it’s a slow march in that direction. I haven’t seen a law that explicitly prohibits Asian manufacturers from selling in Poland, but there is simply a law on the table that states that the appropriate body can issue an administrative decision and, over time, after the law is implemented, effectively eliminates it.

So, given these regulations on eliminating Chinese technology, could the services of Polish tiny and medium-sized companies in the field of fibre optic improvement be blocked or even eliminated?

Asian equipment is highly popular worldwide. Local telecommunications companies building fibre optic networks in Poland, for example, usage it en masse due to the fact that it is of excellent quality and affordable. This is top-of-the-line equipment. Even in 5G technologies, Chinese solutions are used, which no 1 else in the planet has yet been able to produce to specified quality.

Similarly, in our fibre optic technologies, we usage Chinese equipment en masse due to the fact that it is of excellent quality and available to us. But besides due to the fact that Asian companies are building service teams in Poland, which means we have access to service for this equipment, we can call the manufacturer’s typical office, and talk in Polish with a trained Polish engineer who will support us and aid us integrate the device software with our own software, for example, for subscriber service management.

However, the government’s proposed law allows for the issuance of an administrative decision ordering the removal of all equipment from a circumstantial maker from telecommunications networks.

What does this mean in practice?

One could imagine a situation where, due to a 5G device – in which the maker made a mistake or individual is trying to remove it through political means – alternatively of a decision to remove that circumstantial device, a decision to remove all of the manufacturer’s devices could be issued. This could consequence in Polish tiny businesses utilizing fibre optic cables and equipment from that maker being forced to remove their equipment.

Now, look at a telecommunications company that spent 20 years building its business, spent millions on Asian equipment, and abruptly individual says it should be removed and replaced. This will destruct most businesses from the market.

When we mention this example to the government, they hear: „But no 1 wants to do that.” The threat of eliminating our companies through specified an order is real.

Do you see awareness of the benefits of fiber-optic net among the associate companies of the National Chamber of Ethernet Communications? Do these companies’ marketing strategies include this kind of message directed at customers?

Yes, we strive to convey this message. We have surely managed to get the message across that fiber-optic technologies offer excellent quality and advanced bandwidth.

Is there any fresh mobile net standard presently being developed?

Yes, 6G standards have already been developed, concepts for seventh-generation networks are being developed, and investigation centers are constantly working hard. There are any rather interesting ideas for the next generation, which will include the anticipation of recipient positioning: in the seventh generation, mobile transmitters are being designed that appear and activate their scope only erstwhile needed. Imagine a performance or a national stadium where a large number of users abruptly arrive within a short period of time. Then, the transmitters could appear, increase their power, and operate for the duration of the performance or match, and then, erstwhile the performance is over, turn off the unnecessary radiation.

Mobile technologies are constantly transforming and offer many opportunities, but the key is whether they are utilized wisely or not. Unfortunately, in Poland, we don’t see a trend toward focusing on utilizing technology in a healthier way.

And what impact will these fresh mobile net standards have on the networks of tiny and medium-sized telecommunications companies in Poland?

When it comes to mobile solutions, they are being dominated by corporations with abroad capital, and we are being eliminated. Eliminated not for method reasons, due to the fact that technically, we could even build local networks utilizing these technologies. Then, by associating many local networks, we could make nationwide services.

However, corporate dominance is the consequence of a certain policy; even access to radio frequencies, which are the basis for utilizing mobile technologies, can only be purchased on a nationwide scale.

It’s clear that a company with a municipal or territory footprint can’t afford to pay for a nationwide frequency. Firstly, it would be wasted and unfair to another businesses, and secondly, the costs are specified that we simply can’t afford it.

We’re not opposed to 5G technology; in principle, it’s better than 4G, and frankly, if decently implemented, it’s even healthier due to improved antenna quality, which is designed to deliver a more directional signal to a given customer, which could reduce radio noise.

With older technologies, if we have a client within a 90-degree sector, the signal transmitted to them extends across the full 90-degree range. Modern antennas narrow this signal much more narrowly, and it travels only towards the subscriber. Unfortunately, we don’t see any intention of utilizing these technologies in this way; rather, their advantages are being curtailed.

Recently, there have been announcements that the president of the Office of Electronic Communications (UKE) will announce an auction for the sale of 5G frequencies before the end of 2022. Is this decision a consequence of American corporations gaining a technological and price advantage, or is it a legal effort to defend their interests?

Unfortunately, I think it’s the latter. I haven’t heard much about the technological advantage of American solutions. We inactive have Asian solutions that seem to be a class above the rest. Blocking Asian solutions will consequence in a lower-quality and more costly network, so if we are forced to usage lower-quality and more costly solutions for political reasons, the effects for citizens seem negative. Regarding legal protection, we see a return to the bill drafts I have mentioned earlier.

What impact do telecommunications networks have on Poland’s cybersecurity? I’m asking in the context of the war in Ukraine? What should be crucial here from the position of our country’s critical infrastructure?

The concept of „security” is highly broad, and we can discuss many aspects of this security. I’ll contact on the issue of network nationality. Recently, we’ve been talking a lot on tv about the nationality of gas and energy networks, for example, who owns this infrastructure—is it our country or not. However, everyone ignores the nationality of the telecommunications network. They pretend it’s not a problem. But it’s precisely the same problem.

In our opinion, having Polish entrepreneurs in Poland who build telecommunications networks is beneficial for the country from a digital safety perspective.

The situation in which massive EU funds for infrastructure construction in Poland are being given to corporations with abroad capital is an utmost disruption to the digital safety of Poles. We are consciously and deliberately handing over critical telecommunications infrastructure to abroad hands, and everyone is pretending not to notice. And we don’t have to.

If the money for the construction of the gas network were transferred to Russian, German, French, or Spanish entrepreneurs, the full country would surely be talking about it. The government boasts that it is building a Polish gas network, Polish gas retention facilities, Polish gas ports, and we are arrogant of that. The same is actual with the construction of a Polish atomic power plant; we emphasize this Polishness.

However, erstwhile it comes to telecommunications, the European Union funds we could give to Polish entrepreneurs are, for any reason, given to Germans, French, Spanish, and everyone else. Fortunately, not to Russians; fortunately, things aren’t that bad.

The fact that these funds are directed to companies with abroad capital is completely incomprehensible to us. This is dangerous due to the fact that it reduces the digital safety of Poles. And no 1 is talking about it. This is argument number one.

And what’s the second argument?

There’s besides a second argument. During the war in Ukraine, it turned out that despite deliberate attacks on telecommunications nodes, the net in a large part of Ukraine continued to work, but not everyone knew why. It’s due to the fact that the operator structure in Ukraine is akin to that in Poland, meaning there are many tiny Ukrainian telecommunications entrepreneurs. These are small, local companies that operate locally, capable of connecting to the planet via telecommunications in a multitude of ways, utilizing a variety of technologies. And it’s not easy to cut them off from the remainder of the network.

For example, within their telecommunications hub in a city in Ukraine, these companies have employees who live in that city, know it well, are acquainted with their infrastructure, and immediately repair it in the event of a failure. It turns out that this locality in telecommunications networks has tremendous value.

What’s besides been taught in computer discipline textbooks for years is besides valuable: the power of network reliability lies in its dispersion.

Meaning, if we have a distributed network, with many nodes and many connections between them, it means that damaging specified a network is difficult. However, if we’re dealing with the network of a single, centralized operator, with a management center in a single city, and from that city, individual cables run to another cities, damaging specified a network is highly easy.

So, „small is beautiful”, as the title of Schumacher’s book says…

The war demonstrated the power of network fragmentation and the power of locality. The power of these entrepreneurs, frequently under fire during wartime, repairing their own networks. Not only to save their own businesses, but due to the fact that they truly identify with their neighbors, with whom they have lived for many years, and for their good, to satisfy their request for information. They know it’s worth putting themselves in harm’s way to save their city, their neighbors, their friends. This has tremendous value.

Why is the media silent present about the topics we’re discussing?

I don’t know. It seems to me that the media are more curious in topics originating from within the administration, raised politically by individual somewhere, and then pursued by another media outlets.

Our subject is weak in the media and politically bad due to the fact that we feel discriminated against by the Polish state. That’s why this subject won’t work politically.

Secondly, we must admit that there are respective 1000 local entrepreneurs in Poland, and this number is besides tiny to make political capital from us, so we have no chance of breaking through from media outlets that begin their coverage with crucial political issues.

Thank you for the interview.

Rafał Górski