MrBeast built a brand on doing what other people won’t: spending real money, taking on big problems, and proving that “mass scale” can still mean “do the right thing.”
That’s exactly why “Beast Mobile” matters.
See: Ethical Connectivity Pledge Page
Because when you enter telecom, you are no longer selling a snack, a shirt, or a subscription. You are selling exposure—a body‑worn, always‑on RF emitter that will be carried against the head, the abdomen, and the developing nervous system of children who will want it simply because your name is on it.
And as of 2025, the scientific and legal landscape has shifted enough that launching a kid‑magnet phone brand without a credible Li‑Fi compatibility plan is not “innovation.” It’s negligence dressed up as marketing.
What Beast Mobile is, and what’s been publicly confirmed
On December 3, 2025, Beast Industries CEO Jeffrey Housenbold publicly confirmed plans to launch a phone service called “Beast Mobile,” speaking at The New York Times’ DealBook Summit. Business Insider
Reporting indicates Beast Mobile is expected to follow the now-common celebrity playbook: operate as an MVNO (mobile virtual network operator)—meaning it likely leases access from an incumbent carrier network (examples commonly cited include T‑Mobile or Verizon), while the celebrity brand focuses on marketing and distribution. Business Insider+2TechCrunch+2
What has not been publicly disclosed (as of the reporting above):
-
The host network (which major carrier infrastructure Beast Mobile will ride on). Business Insider+1
-
Any specific handset model (“the MrBeast phone”) with disclosed RF design choices, antenna placement, or exposure‑reduction features. Business Insider+1
-
Any children’s safety posture beyond generic compliance with existing regulatory rules (which are precisely what we are challenging). Justia Law
Let’s be clear: an MVNO model is not inherently the problem. The problem is what happens when an MVNO is fused to a brand that is uniquely powerful with children.
Why this is different when the brand is MrBeast
A typical carrier fights for adults switching plans.
A MrBeast carrier would be something else entirely: a youth demand engine. Kids won’t want it because they compared network latency or roaming terms. They’ll want it because it’s MrBeast.
That changes the ethical burden.
When you know your brand will pull children into an always‑on RF ecosystem, “we comply with current limits” is not a moral shield—especially when those limits are under active, high‑profile legal and scientific scrutiny. Justia Law
Kids are not “small adults,” and the exposure math is not neutral
In the U.S. and globally, device compliance has long leaned on adult‑centric assumptions (including adult phantom models used in testing). PubMed+1
Published modeling and reviews have repeatedly raised the core issue:
-
Children can receive higher localized absorption in certain regions because of anatomy and tissue differences, and because adult‑based test setups do not represent real child use patterns. PubMed+1
-
One widely circulated analysis reports that a 10‑year‑old’s SAR can be substantially higher than the adult SAM phantom, and summarizes multiple studies describing higher peak exposures in children under certain assumptions. Collaborative for Health & Environment
-
A peer‑reviewed modeling paper on child versus adult brain/eye absorption notes that standards have relied on an adult phantom approach and reports higher local doses in young anatomies under modeled scenarios. PubMed
If you’re building a product that children will pressure parents to buy, you do not get to pretend the child‑specific exposure problem is “someone else’s issue.”
The “high certainty” animal cancer signal is now in the record
You can argue about human epidemiology all day and get lost in noise, bias, and latency.
But you cannot pretend the animal evidence is weak in 2025—because a WHO‑program systematic review says otherwise.
A 2025 systematic review in Environment International—with authorship including individuals associated with major evaluation efforts—concludes that the evidence indicates RF‑EMF exposure increases cancer incidence in experimental animals, with the certainty strongest for malignant heart schwannomas and gliomas. ScienceDirect
This lines up with the two major long‑term rodent programs that every serious discussion must address:
-
The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) states its studies found clear evidence of an association with malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats, and some evidence for malignant gliomas of the brain. National Toxicology Program+1
-
The Ramazzini Institute lifetime study reports findings consistent with and reinforcing the NTP tumor types, including heart schwannomas and signals for glial tumors under far‑field, base‑station‑like exposure conditions. PubMed
This is not an internet rumor. This is the published record.
And that is why turning “Beast Mobile” into the next youth status object—without demanding a safer connectivity architecture—is unacceptable.
“No mechanism” is no longer an excuse in 2025
For decades, the convenient talking point has been: “below thermal limits, there’s no established mechanism.”
In 2025, that claim is increasingly used as a strategic delay tactic, not an honest scientific summary.
Work by Panagopoulos and colleagues explicitly lays out the ion forced‑oscillation / VGIC dysfunction hypothesis (IFO‑VGIC), tying polarized and modulated fields to irregular ion channel gating, downstream oxidative stress, and biological disruption—i.e., the “missing mechanism” regulators have leaned on as an excuse to do nothing. Frontiers+2PubMed+2
Whether every element of any one mechanistic paper holds forever is not the point. The point is this:
The mechanism‑denial posture is no longer scientifically credible as a reason to market RF‑emitting devices to children more aggressively.
The law is not settled—and the FCC’s posture has already been rebuked
In Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC (D.C. Circuit, 2021), the court held the FCC’s decision to maintain its 1996 RF exposure guidelines was “arbitrary and capricious” for failing to provide a reasoned explanation regarding evidence in the record (including long‑term exposure and impacts on children). Justia Law
This matters for Beast Mobile for one reason:
If you build your entire “it’s safe” story on “we meet FCC limits,” you are leaning on a regulatory framework that has already been judicially criticized for not grappling with the evidence it was presented. Justia Law
Section 704: the “health gag rule” that protects rollout, not children
There is a structural reason communities feel powerless.
47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) bars state and local governments from regulating wireless facility placement “on the basis of the environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions” if the facility complies with FCC rules. U.S. Code
Translation: even when parents, school boards, or towns want to act on precaution, the statute has been widely understood to preempt that path—so long as FCC compliance is asserted. U.S. Code+1
If MrBeast wants to enter telecom while claiming to stand with families, then MrBeast should be willing to say out loud:
Children deserve better than a legal structure that forces communities to accept RF infrastructure while forbidding health‑based objections.
Public Law 90‑602: Congress already said “SHALL,” not “maybe”
Under 21 U.S.C. § 360ii, Congress used mandatory language: the Secretary “shall establish and carry out an electronic product radiation control program.” U.S. Code
Whether you call it regulatory capture, regulatory lag, or bureaucratic inertia, the result is the same for parents:
The burden of “proof” is endlessly raised, while exposure becomes more universal and begins earlier in life.
Beast Mobile becomes a moral fork in the road: scale the status quo, or force a safety leap.
Interphone’s “heavy use” tells you how the industry plays the framing game
Even the Interphone study’s own abstract shows the framing issue:
In the highest decile of reported cumulative call time—≥ 1640 hours—the odds ratio for glioma was elevated (with caveats), while the paper flags participation bias and other limitations. PubMed
Put 1640 hours in plain English: that’s roughly 27 minutes per day for 10 years.
In 2025, with kids on screens for hours, “heavy use” framed at ~half an hour a day is exactly the kind of definitional maneuver that delays accountability while exposure patterns explode.
The Light Age solution: Li‑Fi is real, standardized, and available to build into products
Here’s the part that makes Beast Mobile different from every other celebrity MVNO:
MrBeast can force a hardware shift.
Li‑Fi is not a fantasy. The IEEE 802.11 working group lists Task Group bb (Light Communications) as completed and published as IEEE Std 802.11bb‑2023 (published November 10, 2023). IEEE 802
The standard ecosystem explicitly contemplates high throughput light communications, with published materials describing performance ranging from 10 Mb/s up to 9.6 Gb/s at the MAC service access point in the amendment’s scope statements. ANSI Webstore
That means the question is no longer “is light‑based indoor wireless possible?”
It is.
The question is:
Who will force consumer phones to support it?
And that is where MrBeast can do something no regulator has had the courage—or independence—to do.
The RF Safe Position: No Beast Mobile launch for the youth market without Li‑Fi compatibility
So here is the line, stated plainly:
MrBeast, if you are going to put your brand into telecom—knowing children will chase it—then you have a duty to demand more than legacy microwave infrastructure and thermal‑only talking points.
You need to make Li‑Fi compatibility a public requirement of any Beast‑branded device roadmap and any Beast Mobile go‑to‑market strategy.
Not “eventually.” Not “we’ll see.” Now.
The Beast Challenge (to manufacturers): Build the first mainstream Li‑Fi‑compatible phone
This is the challenge I want MrBeast to issue publicly—because it’s the only move that matches his brand scale:
1) A Li‑Fi‑compatible handset pathway
Not a vague “we care.” A real spec commitment:
-
optical receive/transmit capability designed for indoor networking,
-
OS‑level switching that allows RF radios to be minimized indoors when Li‑Fi is available,
-
a developer‑visible API path so the ecosystem can grow.
2) “Indoor by light” as the default expectation
Schools, bedrooms, and desks are where kids live. If connectivity can be delivered indoors by light, then RF should not be the default indoors.
3) Independent testing and radical transparency
If Beast Mobile is going to claim “family friendly,” then it should publish:
-
device‑specific exposure guidance in plain language,
-
real use‑case distances (not legalistic fine print),
-
and support independent verification.
4) Policy pressure where it actually matters
MrBeast should call—openly—for:
-
reform of Section 704 so communities can consider health impacts again, U.S. Code
-
enforcement of Congress’s “shall” mandate on electronic product radiation control, U.S. Code
-
and a scientific framework that does not hide behind “heat only” when the evidence base has moved. Justia Law+1
My personal stake (and why I’m not interested in polite half‑measures)
I’m John Coates. I founded RF Safe. I’ve spent decades on this because I believe the microwave age has extracted an invisible cost from families—and because my own family carries loss that I will never accept as “collateral damage.”
I am not asking MrBeast to end connectivity.
I’m asking him to do what he claims to do everywhere else: raise the standard.
Call to action: Make Beast Mobile the moment telecom is forced into the Light Age
If you want to help push this into the public conversation:
Copy/paste message to MrBeast / Beast Industries
MrBeast: If you launch Beast Mobile, please commit to Li‑Fi compatibility as a requirement for any Beast‑branded phone roadmap. Kids will chase your brand. Don’t market always‑on RF exposure to children using outdated thermal‑only assumptions—use your leverage to challenge manufacturers to build Light‑Age phones.
The public ask
-
Don’t let “Beast Mobile” become a youth on‑ramp to deeper lifetime exposure.
-
Demand a Li‑Fi compatibility commitment before any child‑targeted rollout.
-
Demand policy reform so communities can protect schools and homes without being gagged. U.S. Code+1
Final word to MrBeast
You don’t get to build a reputation on “doing good” and then enter telecom as if it’s just another merch category.
This is children. This is biology. This is law. This is long‑term risk.
If you’re going to put your name on mobile service, make the defining feature Li‑Fi compatibility—and use your platform to force the industry to evolve.
That is what leadership looks like in 2025.
