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

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

Rafał Górski: Mr. Chairman, why should citizens be interested in governmental and corporate activities regarding 5G and fiber 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 interested in this because we are talking about extremely modern solutions that carry their own threats. People should also be interested in this topic because we are talking about very large amounts of money, some 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 recent 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 surprised that this technology is surrounded by a set of myths that serve to justify support – in our opinion, not entirely necessary – from public funds for this technology.

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

This talk of remote surgery was popular even during the promotion of 4G. I am convinced that as we promote 6/7G, we will continue to use this argument. However, the truth is that no one in the medical field has even heard of it, and no such experiments have been conducted.

Remote work technology exists, of course, but I’d like someone to try to remotely repair my car first, and only then perform surgery on me. And just as no one is testing remote car repair yet, we’re still a long way from the concept of medical surgery using 5G, and even with 7G, we really won’t be able to continue doing so. These are myths that we believe are completely unnecessary.

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

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

If legal mechanisms emerge that prevent a small business from performing something it would otherwise be capable of performing – that is, legal constraints eliminate it from the market – 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 system operated by the largest Polish operator and a smaller infrastructure owned by a small local company is nearby, there’s a very high probability that this small 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 corporation differently from a small 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. When 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 one protested. However, when the company was sold to a private foreign partner and regulations requiring fees were later introduced, these regulations only applied to new infrastructure, not the old one. We consider this to be discrimination and that it must be eliminated today, because one entrepreneur pays and the other does not.

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

More examples are emerging now – I’ll cite the rules for administering and awarding EU subsidies for infrastructure construction. In the previous round, they were constructed in such a way that small and medium-sized businesses were unable to apply for these funds at all. Let’s just say that a few medium-sized businesses were successful. The result is that 80% of the funds allocated for infrastructure went to companies with foreign capital, and 20% went to Polish. This is extremely incomprehensible and inappropriate for us.

I’d like to point out that in Poland, we have a unique situation: some large enterprises and others small. Small and medium-sized enterprises are generally 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 small businesses, and secondly, whether intentionally or not, it directs Polish EU funds to foreign entrepreneurs.

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

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

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

Unfortunately, yes, this is a cross-party issue. I say it because we are on the eve of distributing further tranches of enormous funds, and unfortunately, we fear a similar outcome.

Talks with the market are ongoing, but we already know what some of these rules look like and that the conditions will be very difficult for medium-sized businesses to meet. Small businesses will be completely eliminated, although they could develop Polish communication by building a structure that would remain in the hands of Polish companies. Some 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 result in this money being redirected to companies with foreign capital. 

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

I was also intrigued by your statement that it’s the administration’s fault. But you also 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 deeply convinced that lobbying is underway in this area. All to keep large companies growing and small companies cornered. What do you think about this?

Lobbying is 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 someone publicly submitting proposals through the Chamber of Commerce that would benefit large companies. However, we have an extensive administration to analyze 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 a lot of claims about supporting small and medium-sized businesses. I don’t even want to argue with that, because 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 economic support policies. Perhaps our sector is so small 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 one 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 using fixed-line technologies. If we live at home, fiber-optic connections are definitely the better connection. All fixed-line connections, to the extent possible, should be built using fiber-optic technologies. These technologies are significantly superior to radio-optic ones; we can achieve much higher throughputs while also eliminating the radio noise that has been much discussed recently with 5G technology. Fiber-optic technology generates no noise, and the enormous bandwidths we have in networks should be transferred to fiber-optic as often as possible.

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

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

If we give up 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 some reason, is supposed to replace fiber-optic.

Why is this happening?

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

What’s the deal with radio noise 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 phone 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 used appropriately, and just as too much vitamin C can be harmful, too much radiation is certainly harmful. The more radio transmissions we have, the more harmful radiation vapors there are.

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

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

 Every technology is suitable for something. If the computers in an office are stationary, they can be connected by cable in one spot at the desk without using Wi-Fi. However, in a place where mobility with a tablet or cell phone is required, it should be a single Wi-Fi connection. But again, this will create a situation where, of the 100 megabytes per second transmitted to the hospital, if we use Wi-Fi, we will have a huge 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 ten times lower bandwidth, we will have ten times less radiation within the facility.

We don’t advocate eliminating radio technologies, but it’s important to use them sparingly. Then we will maintain a reasonable balance between using modern technologies, not regressing in development 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 market 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 recent years when passing legislation. There was a series of regulations intended to facilitate 5G networks. Some of these regulations were amended, directly 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 used for 5G technology.

Are you talking about the 5G Mega-Law or some other bill?

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

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

To summarize this thread, I understand that there are numerous changes in legislation and law, but the direction of these changes favors large entities, while small 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 internet towers would be installed on a massive scale, even every 50-100 meters in city centers. Why haven’t these towers mushroomed?

This is probably just one of those fairy tales used to justify the need for rapid legislation. Transmitters haven’t mushroomed for several 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 market need in Poland to build such a massive number of 5G transmitters, as was claimed when promoting these regulations and the need to allow the highest radiation power levels.

The truth is that when operators are given the opportunity to build transmitters, they will not build them every 50-100 meters, but only where they have a need, where there is a higher density of inhabitants.

Businesses don’t act like politicians and officials say, saying millions of transmitters will suddenly appear. Operators will simply analyze the load on their networks. Where network traffic is very high and the operator is unable to transfer it, and where they are losing money, they will upgrade to a newer generation transmitter with higher capacity and earn more.

There’s no reason to build transmitters every 50 meters that no one will use and simply no one will pay for them, and their maintenance costs will be high. When 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 when promoting its regulations for many years to come.

What pressure groups were involved in attempts to implement 5G technology in Poland? Behind the scenes, there’s talk of Americans trying to lobby Europeans to close the telecommunications market to Chinese equipment. What is the Polish government’s stance on the demand 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 a dispute that begins at the political level and has nothing to do with real market activity. This is what free-market entrepreneurs extremely 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 also for fiber optics.

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

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

It is preparing for this, creating a law that will allow for an administrative decision to order or remove a specific company, device, or even manufacturer. This will eliminate the two or three largest players from the Asian market.

Of course, the creation of regulations alone doesn’t theoretically eliminate these companies, but it does allow 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 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 small and medium-sized companies in the field of fiber optic development be blocked or even eliminated?

Asian equipment is extremely popular worldwide. Local telecommunications companies building fiber optic networks in Poland, for example, use it en masse because it is of excellent quality and affordable. This is top-of-the-line equipment. Even in 5G technologies, Chinese solutions are used, which no one else in the world has yet been able to produce to such quality.

Similarly, in our fiber optic technologies, we use Chinese equipment en masse because it is of excellent quality and available to us. But also because Asian companies are building service teams in Poland, which means we have access to service for this equipment, we can call the manufacturer’s representative office, and speak in Polish with a trained Polish engineer who will support us and help 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 specific manufacturer from telecommunications networks.

What does this mean in practice?

One could imagine a situation where, due to a 5G device – in which the manufacturer made a mistake or someone is trying to remove it through political means – instead of a decision to remove that specific device, a decision to remove all of the manufacturer’s devices could be issued. This could result in Polish small businesses using fiber optic cables and equipment from that manufacturer 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 suddenly someone says it has to be removed and replaced. This will eliminate most businesses from the market.

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

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

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

Is there any new mobile internet standard currently being developed?

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

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

And what impact will these new mobile internet standards have on the networks of small and medium-sized telecommunications companies in Poland?

When it comes to mobile solutions, they are being dominated by corporations with foreign capital, and we are being eliminated. Eliminated not for technical reasons, because technically, we could even build local networks using these technologies. Then, by associating many local networks, we could create nationwide services.

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

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

We’re not opposed to 5G technology; in principle, it’s better than 4G, and frankly, if properly 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 customer within a 90-degree sector, the signal transmitted to them extends across the entire 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 using 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 move a result of American corporations gaining a technological and price advantage, or is it a legal effort to protect their interests?

Unfortunately, I think it’s the latter. I haven’t heard much about the technological advantage of American solutions. We still have Asian solutions that seem to be a class above the rest. Blocking Asian solutions will result in a lower-quality and more expensive network, so if we are forced to use lower-quality and more expensive 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 important here from the perspective of our country’s critical infrastructure?

The concept of „security” is extremely broad, and we can discuss many aspects of this security. I’ll touch on the issue of network nationality. Recently, we’ve been talking a lot on television 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 exactly the same problem.

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

The situation in which massive EU funds for infrastructure construction in Poland are being given to corporations with foreign capital is an extreme disruption to the digital security of Poles. We are consciously and deliberately handing over critical telecommunications infrastructure to foreign 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 entire country would surely be talking about it. The government boasts that it is building a Polish gas network, Polish gas storage facilities, Polish gas ports, and we are proud of that. The same is true with the construction of a Polish nuclear power plant; we emphasize this Polishness.

However, when it comes to telecommunications, the European Union funds we could give to Polish entrepreneurs are, for some 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 foreign capital is completely incomprehensible to us. This is dangerous because it reduces the digital security of Poles. And no one is talking about it. This is argument number one.

And what’s the second argument?

There’s also a second argument. During the war in Ukraine, it turned out that despite deliberate attacks on telecommunications nodes, the internet in a large part of Ukraine continued to work, but not everyone knew why. It’s because the operator structure in Ukraine is similar to that in Poland, meaning there are many small Ukrainian telecommunications entrepreneurs. These are small, local companies that operate locally, capable of connecting to the world via telecommunications in a multitude of ways, using a variety of technologies. And it’s not easy to cut them off from the rest 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 familiar with their infrastructure, and immediately repair it in the event of a failure. It turns out that this locality in telecommunications networks has enormous value.

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

Meaning, if we have a distributed network, with many nodes and numerous connections between them, it means that damaging such 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 other cities, damaging such a network is extremely 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, often under fire during wartime, repairing their own networks. Not only to save their own businesses, but because they truly identify with their neighbors, with whom they have lived for many years, and for their good, to satisfy their need for information. They know it’s worth putting themselves in harm’s way to save their city, their neighbors, their friends. This has enormous value.

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

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

Our topic is weak in the media and politically bad because we feel discriminated against by the Polish state. That’s why this topic won’t work politically.

Secondly, we must acknowledge that there are several thousand local entrepreneurs in Poland, and this number is too small to generate political capital from us, so we have no chance of breaking through from media outlets that begin their coverage with important political issues.

Thank you for the interview.

Rafał Górski