GSMA-俄罗斯部署5G的好处（英文）-2021.1-52页_3mb

Summary: Adopting International RF-EMF Exposure Guidelines for 5G Network Deployment in Russia

Core Content

This document discusses the implications of adopting international Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) exposure guidelines for the deployment of 5G networks in Russia. It outlines the current regulatory framework, the benefits of international standards, and the challenges posed by the existing Russian regulations (SanPIN).

Main Viewpoints

• 5G is a transformative technology that enables faster data speeds, lower latency, and supports the growth of the digital economy and the Internet of Things (IoT).
• Russia's 5G adoption is expected to grow, with commercial deployments starting in 2020 and reaching 46 million base stations by 2025.
• Current Russian RF-EMF regulations (SanPIN) are significantly more restrictive than international guidelines (ICNIRP) and do not offer additional health benefits.
• Adopting ICNIRP guidelines would allow for more efficient 5G deployment, reduce the number of required base stations, and lower financial and administrative costs.

Key Information

1. Executive Summary

• 5G is a platform for high-value applications and will play a crucial role in future society.
• Mobile users in Russia are significant consumers of mobile data, with 4G expected to reach two-thirds of total connections by 2023.
• The Russian government has set a goal for 5G deployment in 10 major cities by 2021.
• The SanPIN regulations are based on outdated methodologies from the former Soviet Union and are not aligned with international standards.
• The document highlights the negative impact of restrictive RF-EMF limits on 5G deployment and suggests the need for harmonization with international guidelines.

2. Introduction

• 5G Benefits: Includes faster data transmission, reduced latency, lower energy use, and greater system efficiency.
• 5G in Russia: Russia has a mature mobile market with high penetration rates. While not among the first countries to launch 5G, it is progressing with commercial deployments expected by 2025.
• Regulatory Shift Needed: Regulators should move from controlling the industry to fostering its development, including supporting a comprehensive 5G development plan.

3. Radio Signals & Wireless Networks

• Wireless networks use RF signals, which are non-ionizing and do not directly cause tissue damage or cancer.
• The WHO and other international bodies have reviewed extensive scientific literature and concluded that current evidence does not confirm health risks from low-level EMF exposure.
• Russia is not represented in the WHO International Advisory Committee (IAC), which could be an opportunity for increased involvement.

4. Global Policies for RF-EMF Compliance

• International RF-EMF Exposure Limits:

  • The ICNIRP guidelines are the global standard for RF-EMF exposure, covering frequencies from 0 to 300 GHz.
  • These guidelines are based on scientific evidence and are endorsed by WHO and ITU.
  • The ICNIRP guidelines were updated in 2020, with no significant changes to public exposure limits for frequencies above 2 GHz.

• International Compliance Standards:

  • IEC TC106 and ITU-T SG5 provide technical standards for RF-EMF compliance assessments.
  • These standards are continuously updated to reflect new technologies and requirements.

• Good Practices for RF-EMF Compliance:

  • Operator self-declaration of compliance with appropriate notification to authorities.
  • Use of international technical standards for compliance assessment.
  • Calculation-based exposure assessment.
  • Handling of uncertainty and post-installation measurements.
  • Reassessment when site changes affect exposure levels.
  • Compliance with controlled access area limits.
  • Simplified criteria and type approval for base stations.
  • Procedures for shared sites.
  • Efficient administrative procedures.

5. Regulation of RF-EMF Safety Compliance in Russia

• SanPIN Regulations: These are based on outdated Soviet-era methodologies and are more restrictive than ICNIRP guidelines.
• Practical Difficulties:
  • Ambiguous definitions of prospective development zones and TRF (transmitting radio facilities) areas.
  • Uncertainty in measurement and lack of clarity in limit application.
• Comparison with International Standards:
  • SanPIN limits are more restrictive but do not provide additional health protection.
  • They lead to higher numbers of base stations, reduced site sharing, and potential service limitations, especially indoors.

6. Impact on 5G Rollout

• Simulation Results:
  • In Moscow, applying SanPIN limits would require three times more base stations than using ICNIRP guidelines.
  • Under SanPIN, all existing sites would need modification for 5G deployment, whereas under ICNIRP, less than half would require changes.
  • SanPIN leads to increased costs, delayed deployment, and reduced service availability.
• Financial Impact:
  • The use of SanPIN limits increases financial costs for operators over time due to the need for more infrastructure and modifications.

7. Conclusions

• Adopting international RF-EMF guidelines would enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of 5G network deployment in Russia.
• It would reduce the number of required base stations, lower costs, and allow for better use of existing infrastructure.
• The current regulatory framework in Russia is not aligned with global standards and is a barrier to 5G development.

8. Recommendations

• Adopt ICNIRP guidelines for RF-EMF exposure limits.
• Revise current RF-EMF standards to align with international best practices.
• Implement more efficient administrative procedures, such as electronic site notifications and self-declaration of compliance.
• Promote site sharing and modern compliance assessment techniques for smart antennas.
• Enhance collaboration with international organizations to ensure scientific rigor and alignment with global standards.

9. Annexes

• Glossary of terms related to RF-EMF and 5G.
• Distribution of clutters in Moscow.
• ICNIRP guidelines (2020).
• Model calculations for Figure 7.
• Compliance assessment of active antenna systems using actual maximum and reduction factors.