Stop the ALEC Wireless Plan to Widen the Digital Divide

Adapted from a commentary by Larry Ortega, Oct 20, 2021 | Original Cal Matters commentary here.

Larry Ortega is founder of Community Union Inc., a nonprofit corporation that trains consumers living in the digital divide, and a 35-year veteran of the technology sector.

Summary: The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Telecoms Cos. are working in tandem to ensure that consumers in California and the U.S. DO NOT get access to world-class telecommunication services.

For almost 30 years, America’s telecom companies have been receiving billions of dollars in rate increases and extra fees to finance the build-out of a national fiber optic network. Along the way, they discovered that such a network would hamper their opportunity to make a financial killing with wireless technology. So in 2010, they stopped upgrading phone customers with fiber optics, thus widening the digital divide and leaving millions of Americans unconnected.

This is not just another digital divide story about rural or inner-city residents who lack access to broadband services. This is a story about a skillfully thought-out, well-financed scheme that involves the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Koch Industries (the largest privately held company in the U.S.) and a gang of lobbyists joining forces to write legislation.

This legislation would use the levers of state government to fast-track the deployment of an unregulated and a highly profitable wireless business. In state after state, the same political forces that are legislating away voting rights and increasing the power of corporations are pushing to fast-track 5G legislation under the guise of fixing the digital divide.

The wireless industry claimed that rapid deployment of densifed 4G/5G technology will bring great new benefits to consumers, and just like that, almost every one of our California legislators climbed on board. What the industry purposefully omits is that fiber optics (wired) connections are 10,000 times faster than 5G, more secure, less expensive for the consumer — and future-proof.

In fact, it was the phone companies themselves that abandoned the completion of fiber connections midstream, leaving millions of miles of “dark fiber” in the ground. A 2018 Network Exam by the California Public Utilities Commission detailed how abandoning fiber optic upgrades to low-income and rural areas left consumers with wireless-only options. This is a well-known — and unethical — strategy called “harvesting.”

These attacks on consumers by ALEC and the telecommunications industry have been constant. Gov. Gavin Newsom faced off with telecom when he was mayor of San Francisco. Federal Communication Commission Commissioner Brendan Carr had fought the city’s effort to ensure consumer protections. Carr wrote the FCC’s current regulations on 5G, known as Carr’s 5G Orders.

These orders obliterate state and local government oversight of infrastructure build-out, throwing out both financial and physical safety protocols, all in the name of a race to third place. Even when 5G can be successfully deployed, it is still slower than fiber optics and cable TV.

ALEC, Carr and the phone companies are working in lock-step to ensure that consumers in California and the U.S. do not get access to world-class telecommunication services. Fiber optic upgrades would slash profits by hundreds of billions of dollars, breaching telecoms’ fiduciary duty to their shareholders. The telecoms want no part of profit-slashing and therefore have chosen to drive a strategy that ensures the persistence of a digital divide.

Community groups, unions (such as the Communication Workers of America) and parents who well understand that their children will be harmed by unregulated deployment of wireless infrastructure have figured out this grift. They recently asked for, and were granted, the governor’s veto on Senate Bill 556 (Sen. Dodd), one of the four ALEC telecom bills in the 2021 legislative session. The three other 2021 ALEC telecom bills which were signed by Gov. Newsom

  • AB.537 (Asm. Quirk) | Chaptered in 2021 | [Tele]communications: wireless telecommunications and broadband facilities. (the “Deemed Approved, Deemed Permit-Issued” Wireless Bill)
  • AB.955 (Asm. Quirk) | Enrolled in 2021 | Highways: encroachment permits: broadband facilities. (the “CA Streets and Highways Deemed Approved” Wireless Shot Clock Bill)
  • SB.378 (Sen. Gonzalez) | Chaptered in 2021 | Local government: broadband infrastructure development project permit processing: microtrenching permit processing ordinance. (the “Cheap Micro-Trenching & No Public Access to Fiber” Bill)

. . . should get repealed in 2022, along with 2015’s AB.57 (Asm. Quirk), another unnecessary shot clock bill that is inconsistent with the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

  • AB.57 (Asm. Quirk) | Chaptered in 2015 | Telecommunications: wireless telecommunication facilities. (the “Unnecessary Wireless Shot Clock” Bill)

Are you seeing the theme, here? Assembly member Quirk is the ALEC/Telecom go-to-guy. Why is that?

Follow the money . . . Voters should respond, accordingly.

The effort to defeat SB.556 was a massive grassroots undertaking. This cohort of consumers and advocates prevailed in 2021, just as they had on securing a veto of SB.649 another ALEC/Telecom bill from 2017. They are sending a clear message to the Wireless industry — stay out of California’s residential zones.

The veto of SB.556 is a victory for local governments in California, and cities should now respond by passing local ordinances that protect the residential zones and keep any densified 4G/5G Wireless grid only in commercial and industrial zones.

But we must remain vigilant because ALEC and its friends have a history that has had a devastating impact on families living with the digital divide:

  • 2012’s SB 1161, which the CPUC Network Exam points to as a culprit in exacerbating the digital divide;
  • 2017’s SB 649, which was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown;
  • 2021’s AB 537, which created a “deemed granted” law that puts safety protocols at risk.

Consumers, telecoms and our legislators are charged with the task of ensuring that all Californians have quality, high-speed, fiber optic access to online resources, be they in the rural cities of Huron, Mendota or Firebaugh or the inner-city of MacArthur Park, Huntington Park or Leimert Park neighborhoods of Los Angeles.

It is time for the governor to call for an investigation into why these ALEC bills keep landing on his desk. Consumers deserve to know how it is that the telecom industry’s plans since 1993 to upgrade consumers with fiber optics still have not been delivered.

At no point did consumers agree to a more expensive, less efficient wireless network. Wireless technology has its application, but to reiterate, 5G is 10,000 times slower than fiber optics, requires higher maintenance and will consume much more energy than fiber optics once deployed, guaranteeing a larger, not smaller, carbon footprint.

We might begin by looking at increasing oversight of fiber optics deployed under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 — a federal mandate that all customers shall be served. This increased oversight, by itself, might be able to close the digital divide.

Inventor of mRNA Technology: Fully Vaccinated People Are COVID Super-Spreaders

By Jeremy Loffredo | Original The Defender article here.

Malone referenced two instances where citizens are being “enticed” to take what he refers to as the “experimental” vaccine.
Malone referenced two instances where citizens are being “enticed” to take what he refers to as the “experimental” vaccine.

On the latest episode of “The Hidden Gateway” podcast, Dr. Robert Malone, recognized for his role in inventing mRNA vaccine technology, said,

“The idea that if you have a workplace where everybody’s vaccinated, you’re not going to have virus spread is totally false. A total lie.”

On the latest episode of “The Hidden Gateway” podcast, host Justin Williams spoke to Dr. Robert Malone, an internationally recognized medical doctor and scientist who assisted with inventing mRNA vaccines.

The wide-ranging discussion covered:

  • The invention and early testing of mRNA technology, in which Malone was heavily involved.
  • How governments are employing different forms of coercion to drive vaccine uptake, policies Malone said he believes are illegal.
  • How public health authorities lack the normally required safety and efficacy information for a global vaccination campaign.
  • How governments and public health authorities are lying to the public “for their own good.”

Malone referenced two instances where citizens are being “enticed” to take what he refers to as the “experimental” vaccine.

“There was a period where West Virginia was trying to get people to get vaccinated,” Malone said. “And so they had a shotgun lottery. And in Canada, there was a policy of offering free ice cream to children to get them to take the jab even without their parents’ approval. So those are just two particularly clear examples of unfair coercion … It’s not actually legal.”

Malone likened what’s going on today with COVID vaccines to the illegal medical experiments conducted by Nazi Germany. “[During the Second World War], Jews and other ethnic groups were subjected to horrible experimental medical research,” Malone said. “And they justified it by saying it was for the common good.”

Malone said the Western World “agreed we weren’t going to do that anymore. Yet, from time to time we seem to forget, and of course, Tuskegee is one example, and frankly, this is another example.”

In an attempt to clear up misinformation coming from the medical establishment, Malone said fully vaccinated individuals can spread COVID. “The idea that if you have a workplace where everybody’s vaccinated, you’re not going to have virus spread is totally false. A total lie,” Malone said.

The vaccinated are actually the “super-spreaders” that everyone was told about in the beginning of the pandemic, Malone argued.

He said:

“If you consider the scientific fact that vaccinated people have less symptoms than the unvaccinated, but can still easily spread disease, consider your fellow vaccinated worker, whose unvaccinated son brought the disease home and gave it to him … He might not have any symptoms … but he’ll definitely be producing the virus. And he’s going to say, hey, I can go to work today. But he’s going to be spreading the virus like crazy.”

Malone also touched on the idea of “the noble lie:”

“If the government isn’t going to disclose to you what the [vaccine] risks are, and they’re not going to disclose to you what’s really going on because they think that you can’t handle the news … this is called the noble lie.”

Malone denounced the “noble lie” as “paternalistic authoritarianism.” He said the idea of governance-by-lying goes back to Plato and Ancient Greek philosophy which argues that it’s “okay for politicians and people in authority positions to lie to the general public because they have special knowledge and ability to understand things … and the general public can’t cope with that level of information. And so it’s okay to lie to them.”

“I really disagree with this line of thinking,” Malone said. “Yet it has been public policy in the United States and worldwide in public health for a very long time.”

https://youtu.be/28xqpV6cmcU

Comment 1

LIES

  1. Calling it a vax is a lie.
  2. Calling it a pandemic is a lie.
  3. Calling it a protection is a lie (the vax).
  4. Saying the vaccinated are protected is a lie.
  5. Saying the unvaccinated are unprotected is a lie.
  6. Portraying “free-choice on medicine” – as “antivax” is a lie.

TRUTHS

  1. Demanding injections of synthetic mRNA is Domestic Terrorism.
  2. Using threats of harm – on those who do-not obey is Domestic Terrorism.
  3. Injections of synthetic mRNA harms ones natural Immunity System.
  4. The harm being caused by the injections is being suppressed (fraud).
  5. Government officials can lie to the people while legally shielded from personal liability.
  6. The manufacturers of mRNA have been shielded from liability from the great harm it causes.
  7. Government is running a “protection racket”. [a legally recognized crime]
  8. Government officials are harming the people under the guises of “protecting them”.
  9. A harmful gene therapy (synthetic mRNA) has been fraudulently re-named a “vaccine” to shield Big Pharma of any liability from the harm it causes. This is a crime.
  10. The failure of the legal system (its prosecutors) to charge these officials with Fraud and Domestic Terrorism reveals that the prosecutors are complicit in executing these crimes.

The people are now demanding that these Criminals be charged with these crimes.

Execute your most important function — or resign from your posts.
Humanity is waking up and watching.

Additionally, those who support the existing system (the police, the military, the doctors, the teachers, the MSM) are being requested to step aside. Do not become complicit in executing these crimes. The people who are exposing these crimes are not your enemy. Do not denigrate them or attack them. Instead, take your hats off to them.

Comment 2

The whole point of the lockdowns in March 2020 were because they said you could be asymptomatic and spread it. If you are vaccinated, you can be asymptomatic and spread it, but now you get special privileges in society.

Pittsfield Board of Health asks Verizon to move a controversial cell tower

Adapted from an article By Matt Ristaino, Oct 8, 2021 | Original Spectrum News article here.

Pittsfield residents: “We’re very hopeful for a solution by this Christmas.”

The Pittsfield Board of Health Asked Verizon to Take Down a Controversial Cell Tower.

Verizon is under no legal order to do so, but, residents who suffered negative health consequences caused by the RF Microwave radiation from that cell tower, hope the tower will be powered off before Christmas. A similarly poorly-sited tower that was installed in front of a home in Sacramento, CA in March 2019 was powered off around mid-August, 2021, after a long campaign by that family that had two children injured by the RF Microwave radiation from that tower.

Residents believe that Verizon powered off the Sacramento cell tower because the evidence of harms from the cell tower’s RF microwave radiation was entered into the FCC’s public record by the Children’s Health Defense in the law suit that CHD won against the FCC. The landmark Aug 13, 2021 ruling in Case 20-1025, EHT/CHD v FCC stated:

“We grant the petitions in part and remand to the Commission [the FCC]. The Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency [microwave] radiation . . .”

The Board of Health will be suggesting alternate sites for relocation.

Pittsfield’s interim public health director, Andy Cambi, said:

“We got an opportunity to discuss with Verizon the evidence presented by the residents and we advocated for a solution.”

Verizon didn’t offer an immediate answer, but for neighborhood residents, who say they’ve been dealing with health problems since the tower was turned on last year, there is some hope.

Neighborhood resident, Ann Carey, said:

“To finally have the board of health to ask Verizon to take it down is such a positive step. I’m very hopeful.”

Neighbor Charlie Herzig said.

““I’m glad to see that they’re starting to take things more seriously, and they see that there is a problem. We’re just really glad to have the backing to get our neighborhood back.”

This new wave of support for the neighborhood goes even further. The state legislature is debating a bill to create a commission to study the problems created by RF Electromagnetic Radiation exposures from cell towers. Former Pittsfield Public Health director Gina Armstrong and former Board of Health chair Alan Kulberg wrote a letter in support of the bill before leaving their respective positions last month.

Courtney Gilardi has been spearheading the neighborhood’s effort to fight the tower. She said:

“It felt like it gave us, finally, a voice, and that we’re not invisible. People are harmed by wireless radiation every day. The consequences of improperly siting towers is real. To be acknowledged like that was a great feeling.”

Right now, Verizon is under no legal order to power off the tower. Cambi acknowledged they’re unlikely to do so. However, he and the Board of Health are working on a list of alternative sites where the tower could be relocated.

Cambi said:

“We’ll definitely bring that forward to the next conversation, just to say, ‘hey, you know, we’ve done a little legwork, is moving the tower feasible?’ We want to keep that open communication with them right now. We want to give them alternatives, we want to reach a solution.”

Pittsfield Health Board to Verizon: Remove Cell Tower

Adapted from an article by Dick Lindsay, from the Berkshire Eagle here

View the Oct 5, 2021 Video at 13:00: Pittsfield Board of Health Hearing

PITTSFIELD, MA — Remove the South Street cell tower, or relocate it.

The Pittsfield Board of Health personally has asked Verizon Wireless to dismantle the Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) at 877 South St. because of a number of neighbors have apparently sickened, some seriously, from a variety of illnesses, cancer possibly being one of them.

After a meeting via Zoom with Verizon representatives last month to discuss the well-documented health problems of those living close to this cell tower, city health officials said residents shouldn’t get their hopes up that the tower will be gone.

“We flat out asked them, ‘Are you willing to consider removing the tower or relocating it?’” Andy Cambi, the city’s interim health director, said during the board’s monthly meeting Wednesday. Cambi and board member Brad Gordon, who both met with Verizon, said the communications giant will consider the request, but Gordon said “it was unlikely” it would be honored.

Health Board member Brad Gordon said:

“We really pressed them to have an open mind and think about it, and they said that’s what they would do, but I don’t want to build false hope we’re moving forward in that manner,” .

The board says it will give Verizon alternative sites for the tower to consider that meet cellphone service needs and are safely further away from residents.

‘SICK IN OUR OWN HOMES’

The cell tower was erected during summer 2020, on the southerly portion of 877 South St., putting it near the Oliver and Plumb streets neighborhood off Holmes Road. The structure was activated a in September 2020 and, shortly thereafter, according to residents, especially on Alma Street, which is the closest to the tower, and the negative health consequences started immediately.

The Gilardi family is among those residents who report that they started to suffer from headaches, nausea and ringing in the ears.

Courtney Gilardi, said before the board Wednesday evening:

“For months after the cell tower started operating, we were sick in our own homes. I watched my children vomit in their beds.”

Gilardi’s teenage daughter, Amelia Coco Gilardi, noted that the health problems persisted to the point that the family was force to move out of their home several months ago. Amelia wants her life back.

Amelia Coco Gilardi told the board:

“After seven months of living out of a suitcase because I can’t live in my own home, I just want to go home and be safe in my room again.”

The Gilardi’s said that since the tower started transmitting, there has been an increase in the number of cancer cases among neighbors. While it’s unclear if the emissions from the tower are to blame, experts who have advised the board and residents said that tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers conclude that the RF microwave radiation exposure levels allowed by the Federal Communications Commission are dated and are not protective of health.

As the city and residents seek an immediate solution to this well understood problem, the Legislature on Monday took testimony on a bill to create an independent commission to study the negative health consequences of Wireless Telecommunications Facility infrastructure.

State Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier, D-Pittsfield, who lives on Oliver Street, says the panel needs to have a balanced membership.

“It’s important the commission is not industry-controlled, but they should be represented. What we need are health experts on the commission.”

Courtney Gilardi testified in support of the commission and took advantage of her trip to the Statehouse in Boston.

“We stayed at a nice hotel, and it was the first time in seven months we slept in real beds, not mattresses on the floor. It was the first time in seven months we took hot showers before going to sleep at night, as where we’re currently staying doesn’t have plumbing to do so.”

The Pittsfield Board of Health has asked Verizon Wireless to remove or relocate the cell tower at 877 South St. to an area further from homes that still meets their business needs. Since the tower went into operation last summer, near Alma Street, neighbors have complained of various health problems, including an increase in cancer diagnoses.

Gov. Newsom’s Balancing Act Between Local Control and Big Wireless

October 5, 2021 | Original article Surviving Sacramento here

Of the three Big Wireless sponsored legislation, one remains: Senate Bill 378

The California Public Utilities Commission has established rules regarding underground utility infrastructure — generally designed to prevent hitting a gas, electric, or other utility infrastructure. Senate Bill 378 requires local government to allow fiber-optic lines to be installed in narrow excavated trenches — microtrenches. SB 378 does NOT specify whether fiber installers would have to comply with the safety requirements established by the CPUC.

This past week, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 537, which places strict timelines for cities and counties to review and respond to cell tower transmitter applications. If the local municipality cannot meet a 60-day timeline, according to AB 537, the application will be deemed approved, the permit considered issued, and the wireless company can start construction immediately.

The legislation is supported by Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, TowerCo, Crown Castle, and the Wireless Infrastructure Association.

Yet, Gov. Newsom vetoed Senate Bill 556, protecting local control over the placement, construction and operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of any size or any “G”.

SB-556 would have compelled local governments to give Big Wireless nearly free access to the streetlight and traffic signal poles to install cell tower transmitters. This legislation would have overridden local agreements with Big Wireless, overridden local zoning laws, and severely limited control over when and where the “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) would be constructed.

In his message, Gov. Newsom said:

“I am returning Senate Bill 556 without my signature.

This bill would restrict the ability of local governments and publically-owned electric utilities to regulate the placement of small cell wireless facilities on public infrastructure and list the compensation that may be collected for use of these public assets.

In 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted many of the requirements that this bill seeks to codify. The provision of this bill, however, conflict with and complicate for of the FCC requirements. Further, it would be imprudent to codify these requirements in state law in the event the FCC revises them.”

It is hard to imagine Governor Newsom signing legislation that raises critical questions about micro-trenching fiber optic lines without appropriate safeguards established by the California Public Utilities Commission. These safeguards seek to prevent excavation projects from hitting the gas, electric, or other utility infrastructure. But then again, it has been a strange and wild 2021 legislative session.

Dear Gov. Newsom: Get the Money Back from Big Telecom to Finally Bridge the Digital Divide

Adapted from an article by Bruce Kushnick, Spet 22, 2021 | Original Medium article here.

Follow the Money . . .

And Then Do Not Sign the Industry-Based Wireless Bills

The following table could be worth over $1–2 billion dollars annually to the state of California from a State Public Telecommunications Utility (SPTU) named AT&T-California (formerly called “Pacific Bell”), particularly if the California Annual Financial Report matches what has been going on with New York state’s SPTU, Verizon-NY. As one can see, there are massive financial cross-subsidies revealed in this table. (This is an excerpt from the Verizon NY 2020 Annual Report, published May 27th, 2021.)

img
img

This is the third of three letters on this topic. The previous two letters can be found at the following links:

  1. Letter 1 addresses the three corporate-sponsored wireless bills, all that deserve to be vetoed:

Each of these bill do not solve the Digital Divide and give unnecessary gifts to Big Wireless at the expense of California’s counties, cities and resdidents. These bills are self-serving and appears to be created with the help of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). This letter also gives a brief history of the failed fiber optic deployments in CA by Pacific Bell/AT&T California.

  1. Letter 2 focuses on the failed fiber optic deployments in California that were all the rage in the 1990’s, including the plans to have San Diego CA, fully upgraded to fiber optics by the year 2010. By 2000, 5.5 million homes should have been upgraded and $16 billion was supposed to have been spent — but that never happened.

How Can CA get fiber optic broadband infrastructure to all, at reasonable rates?

This letter details what is mostly hiding in plain sight, lost or unknown due to institutional amnesia. This article summarizes some of the revenues and expenses from Verizon-NY, which will parallel what can be found in AT&T-California’s financial reports. Unfortunately, the AT&T CA Annual Reports are not available to the public — only the work done by the CPUC and released, unredacted, in January, 2021.

And anyone who has ever read a financial spreadsheet of revenues and expenses, in glancing at the numbers in the opening graphic, will most likely start laughing or crying. How can Local Service, which are the revenues from the basic copper-based phone service, be paying $833 million dollars in Corporate Operations expenses? (Line 5, Column f) in just NY, in just 2020? Worse, $1.1 billion in construction and maintenance has been charged to the Local Service line of business, yet these networks are not being upgraded. (Line 2, Column f). In fact, there are plans to ‘shut off the copper’ which have been around for the last decade.

With revenue for Local Service of only $1 billion, this accounting has been manipulated to put the majority of Corporate Operations expenses, and the construction expenses, into the regulated Local Service classification while the other unregulated lines of business listed are getting a free ride.

This Financial Shell Game is the Digital Divide; These financial machinations have been used to NOT upgrade whole areas of NY State, as well as California, and the billions in construction funds that were intended to maintain the copper infrastructure and to upgrade the network to a fiber optic infrastructure, were illegally diverted to fund the affiliated wireless infrastructure and the other lines of the media content businesses and foreign telecom investments. This Financial Shell Game has been used for multiple rate increases based on claims that the copper infrastructure was losing money, as well as used as an excuse to cut staff and move the business to wireless. In NY, this has meant leaving rural areas and low-income urban areas with no serious broadband competition and slow DSL service. Moving the billions back to build out the high-speed, fiber optic wired infrastructure — should be the next step.

YES, these financials of Verizon NY should match AT&T California — they use identical deformed accounting formulas.

On May 27th, 2021, the Verizon NY 2020 Annual Report was published — and it is important because it is based on the exact same accounting formulas that AT&T California is using — the FCC Cost Accounting rules known as the “USOA”, “Uniform System of Accounting”. And, as we will discuss, the formulas that allocate the expenses to the different lines of business have been manipulated to make one line of business, Local Service, pay the majority of expenses, — while the other lines of business, such as FiOS, DSL, VoIP, Business Data, or wireless services are paying a fraction of the expenses that they should be.

On October 26th, 2020, the IRREGULATORS filed comments with the CPUC and the Broadband Council. We estimate that there is $1.7-$2.4 billion in potential overcharging annually of Local Service, by AT&T, the primary state telecommunications public utility. This money should be redirected to build out the fiber optic networks, which can be used by municipalities or as open access networks — not controlled by AT&T.

Let’s start with a few items in the Verizon NY Annual Report, and the basis of the presentation. There are three major lines of business in these financials using the copper and fiber wires:

  • “Nonregulated”, (Column C) which are the FiOS video, and VoIP (digital voice), or services that were once regulated.
  • “Local Service”, (Column F) the revenues from the ‘regulated’ the basic copper-based phone service.
  • “Access” (Column G) or sometimes called “Business Data Services”, (“BDS”) or “backhaul”, which are the wires to the cell sites or used by banks providing data services.

Click for a short summary of the financial report AT&T California is a state-based wir) and a by-the-numbers explanation, as well as links to the Verizon NY 2020 Annual Report and our analysis.

Do AT&T CA’s financial reports match Verizon NY and do the manipulated accounting formulas match? Yes.

1. Both Verizon NY and AT&T California are state-based telecommunications public utilities hiding in plain sight. Through institutional amnesia, no one we spoke to knows that there are still state telecom utilities, or that the wires are put in and classified as Title II services.

2. Same Accounting: They both rely on the corrupted USOA accounting — even though they filed with the FCC to stop this practice in 2007. (In fact, Brendan Carr, now an FCC Commissioner, was one of Verizon’s attorneys in these proceedings.)

3. Same Accounting Manipulations via a ‘Freeze’ — The accounting formulas that allocate the expenses were frozen by the FCC to match the year 2000 and were never changed over the last 2 decades — nor any adjustments. In 2000, Local Service was 65% of the revenues and it paid 65% of the expenses — by 2021, Local Service was 20–24% of the total revenues but it still is paying almost 60% of the expenses.

4. The last data from the FCC on construction expenditures matched. Throughout America, the local service classification was charged, on average, over 71% of the total construction expenses in 2007, while “BDS” only paid 29%.

The last FCC data collected was for the year 2007. Using “Construction and Maintenance”, (known as “specific” and “nonspecific” “Plant”) we compare AT&T California and Verizon New York. (We also added Verizon-GTE, which was sold to Frontier); the national average we found for 2007; 71% of expenses for construction were put into Local Service, not Access Services.

This is ludicrous as it should have been the other way around, especially in 2020; there has been no serious construction of the copper networks for a decade. We note that there are different sections of the annual report tells a more detailed story.

5. The expenses for Construction were charged to Local Service but were not spent on the networks. And here is the problem — All of AT&T California is one big sink-hole of cross-subsidies.

The California PUC found:

“Over the full 2010–2017 period, less than 1% of all AT&T capital spending on network plant additions, just under $47 million, was for outside plant rehabilitation projects.

“Extraordinarily small portions of AT&T California’s Plant Additions and Maintenance expenditures have been directed at legacy POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) services over the 2013–2017 period.”

Yes, this says that AT&T CA spent under $50 million to maintain and repair the basic entire network in California for 8 years. The CA PUC information stops in 2017.

And this is almost identical to Verizon NY, where the expenses that were charged to Local Service were NOT used to upgrade the network. In Verizon NY, overall, local service used only $41 million for 2020, and averaged only $30 million a year on the construction.

This means that on the opening chart, the $1.1 billion in construction and maintenance is overcharged over $1 billion, is most likely being used illegally by Verizon’s wireless subsidiary,

6. The Kicker to the Allocation of Construction Expenses — An Almost Two Decade Model.

This next chart is taken directly from the Verizon NY 2003 and 2020 Annual Reports and it shows that since 2003, virtually 60+ of the construction was charged to Local Service, while the “construction in progress” in NY had 73% put into Local Service.

Just look at the summary of the ‘Networks in Service’ for the years 2003 and 2020, and the percentage of the expenses by line of business, and the ‘under construction’ for 2020.

What this shows is that for almost 2 decades, the entire state wired infrastructure was charged to Local Service; Nonregulated, including FiOS, has been getting a free ride, while BDS, with about double the revenues, is paying ½ of what Local Service paid. And in 2020, Local Service paid a whopping 73% but it did not go to do construction and maintenance.

NOTE: The differences with the opening chart is that the networks have different types of copper and fiber and they are classified in different ways.

Halting these illegal cross-subsidies to the other lines of business would insure that those funds that should have been used for fixing the Digital Divide now be used to deliver what was ignored over the last decade.

As we noted, AT&T CA stated that the wireless networks were being subsidized by the wireline networks. But these entire financial reports are a collection of shell games.

And most important, based on the CPUC Network exam report, these cross-subsidies appear to be identical.

7. Corporate Operations Expense has also been Manipulated

Using the FCC’s last financial report, this chart shows that Local Service was charged 72% of corporate expenses, on average for America, and that AT&T CA allocated 75% of the total; Verizon NY was charged 68%, but — the total amount actually varies by year.

In short, what we have uncovered is the ongoing cross-subsidy of Verizon NY and Verizon’s other lines of business, including wireless, and halting this illegal flow of money could result in billions of dollars that should/could be used to properly upgrade the entire state with fiber optics.

We assume the same applies to AT&T California.

The proposed corporate-funded wireless legislation has been pushed via these cross-subsidies as well and the corporate expenses are obviously the same monies used to influence politicians and fund lobbyists and even ALEC.

With billions of dollars per year that could restructure the future in California, we hope you take our analyses seriously and implement our findings and recommendations.

The Great Ivermectin Deworming Hoax

By Justus R. Hope, MD, Sept 6, 2021 | Original article here.

“In a normal year, the Kentucky Poison Control Center might receive one call from someone who has taken ivermectin, a drug commonly used to treat parasites in livestock. But amid increasing misinformation about the drug’s ability to both treat and prevent COVID-19, that number has increased to six this year.”

This alarming news was published in Spectrum News – formerly known as Time Warner Cable – on August 24, 2021, and should be a lesson to every American.

https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/louisville/news/2021/08/24/ivermectin-calls-to-kentucky-poison-control-are-up

The lesson is not about Ivermectin being poisonous because it isn’t, but about the pervasiveness of a type of new internet propaganda termed “informational flooding.”

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12274299/Roberts_gsas.harvard_0084L_11469.pdf?sequence=1

In an even more “alarming” report, NPR wrote,

“Minnesota’s Poison Control System is dealing with the same problem. According to the department, only one Ivermectin exposure case [telephone call] was reported in July, but in August, the figure jumped to nine.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/04/1034217306/ivermectin-overdose-exposure-cases-poison-control-centers

Are you kidding me? Nine telephone calls are enough to make the news?

We have 2,213 deaths on August 26 from COVID-19, but these nine telephone calls are enough to make the headlines?

We have a media blackout on how India used cheap Ivermectin to obliterate the Delta variant while we struggle unsuccessfully to sell the public on problematic yet profitable vaccines.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/indias-ivermectin-blackout

The CDC coordinates all 55 poison control centers across the nation, and they are closely aligned with the FDA, which we now know is captured by Big Pharma. more on this later.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537316/

Suddenly we see hundreds of articles on so-called “Ivermectin poisoning.” Indeed, we see more ARTICLES published than there were TELEPHONE CALLS in August on Ivermectin to poison control centers in the ENTIRE NATION.

NPR reports that during the period January 1 to August 31, there were 1,143 Ivermectin telephone calls to poison control centers which works out to 143 calls per month.

The Mississippi State Department of Health was careful to clarify that although telephone calls to poison control had increased, the vast majority of callers had only mild symptoms, and there were “no hospitalizations due to Ivermectin toxicity.”

https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/15400.pdf

If you are still left wondering whether there might have been a tiny grain of truth in these articles, consider what was reported in Utah. This alarmist article is entitled, “The Utah Poison Control Center has seen a bump in calls about Ivermectin – which is not recommended for treating COVID-19.”

However, inside the article, you will notice the false alarm. The Medical Director of Utah poison control is quoted as admitting that it was only “some small increase” in Ivermectin phone calls, and no one required hospitalization.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/08/30/utah-poison-control/

Yet for Utah alone, I counted at least twenty Ivermectin poison control articles, and for the nation, the count was well into the hundreds.

At least one publication made the leap from exaggeration to fabrication. Rolling Stone Magazine published an interview with an Oklahoma osteopathic physician, Dr. Jason McElyea, who claimed that Northeastern Hospital System’s emergency departments were overrun with so many Ivermectin overdoses that gunshot victims were having difficulty getting treatment. Dr. McElyea stated,

“The ERs are so backed up that gunshots victims were having a hard time getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated.”

Multiple networks repeated the story, and it went viral.

https://kfor.com/news/local/patients-overdosing-on-ivermectin-backing-up-rural-oklahoma-hospitals-ambulances/

But the report turned out to be false.

Rolling Stone was forced to publish a retraction of sorts, a correction to their report, wherein they stated the truth of the matter was the opposite. Northeastern Hospital System Sequoyah informed them that Dr. Jason McElyea, although affiliated with them, had not worked in the Sallisaw location in the last two months.

Furthermore, in a statement issued September 5, 2021, Northeastern Hospital System Sequoyah reported that no patients had been treated for Ivermectin overdose. Indeed no patients were treated for any complications of taking Ivermectin – and no gunshot wound patients or otherwise had been turned away from seeking emergency care.

It was all untrue. We were all lied to.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rolling-stone-forced-issue-update-after-viral-hospital-ivermectin-story-false

However, you can do your own research. For example, google the news on Ivermectin poisoning articles, and you will find almost all of them were published within the last few weeks. Nothing before then.

https://trends.google.com/trends/

Then have a look at the graphs above. Notice the steady increase in google searches on Ivermectin over the past 90 days. Notice these searches originated in ALL 50 STATES. This chart reflects truth and accurately portrays the broad interest of the public.

Contrast this with the abrupt onset of interest in this so-called “Ivermectin poisoning.” Does it make sense that only two states have enough searches to register this supposed national problem? Again, this reflects manufactured publicity, a fabricated story. If there were a real problem, one would see corroborating search interest nationally, not only in two isolated spots.

For example, when a physician from Tamil Nadu accused Uttar Pradesh of faking their numbers for political reasons, Juan Chamie, the Cambridge-based data analyst, looked at geographically localized google searches. The interest in oxygen tanks precisely reflected the number of COVID cases the data indicated. Very few searched for oxygen tanks in Uttar Pradesh, where there were few infections. Yet, at the height of their surge, the interest in Tamil Nadu tanks was off the charts and proportional to their COVID hospitalizations. Confirmation.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/tamil-nadu-leads-india-in-new-infections-denies-citizens-ivermectin/article_32634012-ba66-11eb-9211-ab378d521f9a.html

Here we see the hundreds of articles on Ivermectin poisoning exceeding the relatively tiny number of telephone calls. Moreover, the searches confirmed this was not a genuine problem; it was due to the technique of informational flooding, well known to experts in the science of internet propaganda.

Informational flooding is where the purveyor of the propaganda attempts to out-compete other accessible information to gain the consumers’ attention. It is aptly described in this Harvard article entitled, “Fear, Friction, and Flooding: Methods of Online Information Control.”

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12274299/Roberts_gsas.harvard_0084L_11469.pdf?sequence=1

NPR writes this, “Poison control centers are seeing a dramatic surge in calls from people who are self-medicating with ivermectin, an anti-parasite drug for animals…”

On the contrary, Ivermectin is used every day for scabies and is not confined to animals any more than penicillin is purely an animal antibiotic.

We are asked to believe that six telephone calls to poison control about Ivermectin are somehow newsworthy, yet over 100,000 calls to poison control on Tylenol each year are not. Moreover, no one dies of Ivermectin in a typical year, yet Tylenol accounts for 56,000 annual emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and almost 500 deaths.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15239078/

The fact that Ivermectin is so much SAFER than over-the-counter Tylenol should make you wonder exactly why these articles made the news. The reason is simple. Pfizer and Merck are getting ready to launch expensive new anti-viral pills that can provide early outpatient treatment for COVID-19 and perhaps even be used preventatively. Yet Ivermectin remains effective, cheap, and safe and thus poses a HUGE threat to their profits.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizer-starts-dosing-patients-oral-covid-19-drug-trial-2021-09-01/

What Profits?

Let’s say that if Ivermectin costs a few dollars a pill, these new medicines will be one hundred to one thousand times pricier. Merck’s Molnupiravir has already been funded to the tune of 1.2 billion by the US government – translated, it means we – our tax dollars – have paid Merck for it already.

https://www.merck.com/news/merck-announces-supply-agreement-with-u-s-government-for-molnupiravir-an-investigational-oral-antiviral-candidate-for-treatment-of-mild-to-moderate-covid-19/

By ignoring cheap repurposed drug early outpatient treatments, we have already paid with our lives, in addition to whatever money it has cost us to entice Big Media to publish these hundreds of “hit pieces.”

We know early outpatient treatment works for COVID-19, just as early treatment works against cancer, diabetes, glaucoma, hepatitis, and most other diseases. Yet our FDA and NIH, in their infinite wisdom, have asked us to do nothing for early outpatient treatment against COVID-19. Instead, however, we have repurposed drugs that help enormously. This science was published in the peer-reviewed literature by Dr. Peter McCullough, cardiologist, and Dr. Harvey Risch, an editor for “The International Journal of Cancer.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32771461/

Merck, more than anyone, knows Ivermectin to be safe as they developed this drug and used it in over three billion doses IN HUMANS in the Mectizan Program to eradicate River Blindness.

https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/merck-sees-the-light—provides-ivermectin-for-humanity/article_df5674ee-d530-11eb-98a1-3fc9e8ddc005.html

Yet Merck was among the first to cast stones against it. Merck was among the most vocal to denounce their drug regardless of the blood that would inevitably land on their hands. Merck sold us out for precisely 1.2 billion pieces of silver.

What is the evidence that Ivermectin is effective in COVID-19, you might ask?

There is Plenty of Evidence

Let us begin with basic science. In the laboratory, after Ivermectin was given to a cell culture teeming with COVID-19 infection, it killed virtually all the virus within 48 hours. There was a 5000 fold reduction in viral load, which translates to a 99.98% pathogen eradication. However, when I wrote my book on cancer, I realized that many drugs that work in the lab may not always work in live patients.

https://www.amazon.com/Surviving-Cancer-COVID-19-Disease-Repurposed/dp/0998055425

So you want to ALSO review clinical studies in people. For example, Remdesivir, a favorite of Big Pharma, a failure against Hepatitis and the Respiratory Syncytial Virus, worked in a test tube against Ebola. Still, when they tested it in people, it was a dud – just as many died in the placebo group as the Remdesivir group – about 53%.

So they tested it against COVID-19. A small study with 541 patients getting Remdesivir versus 521 on placebo showed no statistical difference in death and a 24% rate of serious adverse events in Remdesivir; however, against all odds, the FDA approved the drug for emergency use against COVID-19.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2007764

To add insult to injury, the WHO later completed another study in which Remdesivir failed miserably and failed to reduce death in COVID. Dr. Ilan Schwartz made it clear, “This puts the issue to rest — there is certainly no mortality benefit (from Remdesivir).”

Yet, the FDA did not revoke their Emergency Use Authorization for some strange reason, and they have maintained Remdesivir as their “go-to” drug. You can bet the majority of our 648,000 Americans who died from COVID-19 first received a dose of Remdesivir – at an average of $3,100 a pop – because it was on the protocol. We cannot expect a small thing, like the drug doesn’t work, to subtract from our FDA’s absolute prerogative to decide what is best for us – and what drugs we should purchase with our hard-earned health care dollars.

The story on Ivermectin, thankfully, is quite the opposite of Remdesivir’s abject failure. Ivermectin has been a resounding success. It not only worked in the lab, it spectacularly reduced death in the living, and it worked early in the disease and late in the disease, often rescuing patients from ventilators and the jaws of death. It even performed before the infection began by effectively preventing it and nicely stopping viral transmission. And it was safe without serious adverse effects. In short, God Himself could not have given us a better tool to eradicate this disease.

We now have 63 studies — and counting — involving some 26,000 patients showing up to a 96% reduction in death associated with Ivermectin.

We have many peer-reviewed medical journal publications showing significant reductions in mortality associated with Ivermectin use. The meta-analyses are considered the highest form of medical evidence and even outweigh the randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial. Thus, the meta-analysis is regarded as the holy grail of medical research. We have two influential such publications authored by Drs. Tess Lawrie and Andrew Hill, British W.H.O. consultants. Both strongly show Ivermectin reduces death in COVID-19.

Dr. Pierre Kory also published a review:

Dr. Pierre Kory and his group, the FLCCC, have recently published another comprehensive review, which updates the Ivermectin data to current as of August 29, 2021. This incorporates all the relevant evidence and is best described as the “the totality of the evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19.”

Dr. Peter McCullough published via preprint yet another review, and all of these strongly showed the drug to be safe and effective against COVID-19.

We have real-world experience from numerous countries, including Mexico, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and India that adopted Ivermectin and saw their COVID cases evaporate.

We saw the real-world experiences of Drs. George Fareed and Brian Tyson from California’s Imperial Valley in saving 99.9 % of their 6,000 patients using a cocktail that included Ivermectin.

Beyond all the scientific evidence, we have plain common sense. Ralph Lorigo is an attorney who has won numerous court orders for Ivermectin for dying COVID patients on ventilators. In nearly every case, after the Ivermectin, they rapidly improved. Most recovered and went home. Many were able to go off the ventilator within 24 hours of the Ivermectin dose.

If Ivermectin did not work, as our trusted agencies continue to advise us, why would this occur? Why would these patients so consistently respond to a drug they advise against? Are Lorigo’s cases just lucky, or might the obvious be true?

Always use common sense when the government tells you the science is “too complicated” for you to understand or that all their paid experts agree it doesn’t work. Perhaps the question you should ask is not whether Ivermectin works but how much they are paying their experts.

We have watched the movement on Ivermectin proceed with steadily increasing global attention on google searches – in sharp contrast to the concocted ad hoc PR campaign hastily crafted in August by Big Pharma on these laughable poison control stories.

When will the next expensive, toxic and ineffective drug be forced upon us? We should be on high alert that more propaganda is coming our way. If we haven’t seen enough horse and cow articles or enough “Public Service Messages” to get the vaccine, soon we may hear that some fancy new pill that claims to do what Ivermectin already does is finally “approved” by the FDA.

Soon we may be allowed to take a medicine that may work against COVID-19. But unless it contains Ivermectin in some form, don’t count on it being effective – or safe.

And don’t believe they will ever approve Ivermectin. Over the last two months, the large pharmacy chains have started to refuse to fill valid physician prescriptions. Although they continue dispensing it for scabies, many refuse to fill it for anything else. The drug is not dangerous as no one with scabies is calling the hotline.

It is more than 100 times safer than Tylenol, judging by telephone calls to poison control. And it is almost as cheap. And its effectiveness against COVID-19 is without parallel. For example, on August 30, 2021, in India in the State of Uttar Pradesh, there were only 23 new cases of COVID-19 out of a population of 240 million people. That is about one case per ten million.

On the same day, in the United States, we saw 280,403 cases or about one new case per thousand people. The difference between one per ten million and one per thousand is 10,000. Here in the United States, we are ten thousand times MORE LIKELY to get sick with the Delta variant. Uttar Pradesh WIDELY USES IVERMECTIN. The US does not.

The United States demonizes it in their media, pressures their pharmacists to NOT dispense it, and threatens doctors who do.

Regulatory Capture is the reason why, says Dr. Pierre Kory. See mark 14:35 and 16:00.

It boils down to plain old corruption. It is when the prison guard is paid to look the other way when someone is being knifed, or a drug deal is being made. It is when Big Tobacco sends a US Senator to the Cayman Islands to go snorkeling in exchange for voting against a law taxing cigarettes. It is when ten out of eleven physician panel members vote against approving a $56,000 a year questionably effective and toxic Alzheimer’s drug, yet the drug gets FDA approved anyway.

It is when a cheap repurposed drug that could end the pandemic – if widely used as prevention in all contacts – gets thrown under the bus to pave the way for Molnupiravir. It is when two Senate Hearings on early outpatient treatment are ignored to promote profit at the cost of 648 thousand American lives.

We may not be able to do much about poisonous informational flooding, but we can all recognize it when it occurs by the sheer number of copycat stories. We can usually see who or what is behind it and boycott those groups UNLESS it is our own government agency, in which case we need to vote for some different people who will reform it. Like Henry Waxman reformed Big Tobacco, someone needs to reform our agencies before we lose more American lives.

Until we end the Regulatory Capture of the US Food and Drug Administration and its Big Brother, Centers for Disease Control, we can continue to expect more of the same: expensive, dangerous, and marginally effective drug approvals. And a smokescreen on anything cheap that actually works.

Dr. Justus R. Hope, writer’s pseudonym, graduated summa cum laude from Wabash College where he was named a Lilly Scholar. He attended Baylor College of Medicine where he was awarded the M.D. degree. He completed a residency in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation at The University of California Irvine Medical Center. He is board-certified and has taught at The University of California Davis Medical Center in the departments of Family Practice and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. He has practiced medicine for over 35 years and maintains a private practice in Northern California.

View CHD Webinar and Q&A re OTARD Lawsuit

By Children’s Health Defense (CHD), June 30, 2021 | Original The Defender article here.

Watch the webinar and Q & A session regarding the filing of CHD’s main brief in its case against the Federal Communications Commission’s amendment of the OTARD rule, allowing base station antennas, including 5G, on homes without notice to neighbors or any ability to object their installation. The rule preempts state and zoning laws as well as federal and state disability laws and unlawfully violates numerous constitutional rights. CHD’s case challenging the rule was filed on 2/26/21; the main brief in the case was filed on 6/23/21. In this webinar, attorneys Dafna Tachover, Director of CHD’s 5G & Wireless Harms Project, and Scott McCollough, a seasoned telecommunications and administrative law attorney and CHD’s lead attorney for this case, explain in layman’s terms what OTARD is and discuss the arguments they raised in the brief. They were also joined by attorney Petra Brokken to discuss the Amicus Brief she spearheaded that was filed on behalf of 68 organizations representing over 1,000,000 people. The Amicus Brief was filed on 6/30/21.

Learn what you can do to oppose OTARD in your community.

Personal Message

From Dafna Tachover, Esq:

The CHD Principal Brief Was Filed on Wed, June 23

We think we have a good case and are pleased with the brief we filed.

  • Read the here or here.
  • Read also a The Defender article which provides a good summary of the legal arguments we raised in our brief.

In addition to the brief, we filed 11 affidavits including 3 expert affidavits and an addendum which includes a collection of 246 personal comments filed with the FCC describing the suffering of adults and children from wireless and the negative effects the OTARD rule may cause. The addendum also includes a table that analyzes close to 500 comments filed with the FCC. We color code the issue raised, which shows that the FCC ignored the comments and the issues that were raised in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Amicus Brief for the OTARD Case Was Filed on Wed, June 30

On Wednesday, dozens of organizations in the US filed an Amicus Brief in the OTARD case. Petra Brokken, from Safe Tech Minnesota initiated and organized the brief. The attorney who filed the Amicus, Stephen Dias-Gavin, was one of the attorneys in the successful case against the FCC’s 5G “small cell” regulation for preempting National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. #### Personal Note from Dafna Tachover

I am very grateful to W. Scott McCollough, Esq. for his brilliance, skills and effort. When I read the brief for the last time, I thought the brief was excellent and a job well done. I was glad that our hard word resulted in a brief we can all be very proud to file with the court. As an Electromagnetically Sensitive (EMS) person who is suffering from exposures to excessive RF Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) in our environment, I felt that the brief stated the case perfectly.

The FCC’s OTARD (Over-the-air reception device) amendment attempts to take all our rights to oppose this unnecessary rollout of the 4G/5G surveillance and crowd control grid. The OTARD case is the case that can achieve acknowledgement and substantive protection for EMS Americans. Now that the US government via the FCC and OTARD, made it clear that it is intending to sacrifice the sick on the altar of wireless, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals judges, will have to make a statement about our rights. This is the purpose of our brief. I concluded my affidavit to the court with Gandhi’s words: “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”

Principal Brief Filed in Children’s Health Defense’s Cases Against FCC Rule Allowing Base Station Antennas on Homes

CHD Press Release

Children’s Health Defense, June 27, 2021

Washington, DC – Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed its principal brief on Wednesday, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in its case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The case challenges the agency’s amendment of its “Over-the-Air Reception Devices” (OTARD) Rule that went into effect on March 29, 2021. The case was filed on February 26, 2021.

CHD is opposing the amended rule, which allows fixed wireless companies to contract with private property owners, including homeowners, to place point-to-point antennas on their property and, for the first time, add carrier-grade base station antenna installations to extend wireless service, including 5G, to users over a wide area.

The rule preempted all state and local zoning laws. No application, permit or notice to neighboring properties is required. Homeowners’ associations and deed restrictions and any other state laws are preempted.

CHD argued that the FCC failed to provide significant and sufficient policy reasons to justify these sweeping preemptions and therefore violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

The organization claims that The FCC’s rule amendment is not authorized by the Communications Act, and conflicts with other laws and policies protecting public interest and property rights.

The rule amendment preemption of federal and state civil rights laws protecting the disabled was the focus of CHD’s brief.

According to experts’ declarations filed with the brief, many children and adults suffer from Microwave Radiation Sickness, or other conditions aggravated by wireless radiation exposure. The preemptions allow non-consensual radiation to be forced on those who can be severely harmed by it, constructively evicting them from their homes while removing their right for accommodation and all their due process rights.

CHD argued that the amended rule is inconsistent with policies underlying federal and state disabilities laws.

According to the brief, the amendment also violates vested constitutional personal rights and liberties secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, and rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as fundamental, including rights to “life,” “property,” “liberty,” “bodily-integrity” and privacy-related rights.

CHD’s brief claims that the FCC treats those who are sick as a “barrier” for deployment and that the elimination of their due process rights by the FCC is “calculated and deliberate.”

The FCC’s Reply brief is due on 8/23/21.

Brief Filed Against FCC by Children’s Health Defense, Challenging 5G Installations

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed its main brief on June 23 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in its case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The case challenges the agency’s amendment of its “Over-the-Air Reception Devices” (OTARD) Rule that went into effect on March 29, 2021.

The case was filed on February 26, 2021. CHD is opposing the amended rule, which allows fixed wireless companies to contract with private property owners, including homeowners, to place point-to-point antennas on their property and, for the first time, add carrier-grade base station antenna installations to extend wireless service, including 5G, to users over a wide area.

The rule preempted all state and local zoning laws. No application, permit or notice to neighboring properties is required. Homeowners’ associations and deed restrictions and any other state laws are preempted. CHD argued that the FCC failed to provide significant and sufficient policy reasons to justify these sweeping preemptions and therefore violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The organization claims that the FCC’s rule amendment is not authorized by the Communications Act, and conflicts with other laws and policies protecting public interest and property rights.

The rule amendment preemption of federal and state civil rights laws protecting the disabled was the focus of CHD’s brief.

According to experts’ declarations filed with the brief, many children and adults suffer from Microwave Radiation Sickness, or other conditions aggravated by wireless radiation exposure. The preemptions allow non-consensual radiation to be forced on those who can be severely harmed by it, constructively evicting them from their homes while removing their right for accommodation and all their due process rights.

CHD argued that the amended rule is inconsistent with policies underlying federal and state disabilities laws.

According to the brief, the amendment also violates vested constitutional personal rights and liberties secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, and rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as fundamental, including rights to “life,” “property,” “liberty,” “bodily-integrity” and privacy-related rights.

CHD’s brief claims that the FCC treats those who are sick as a “barrier” for deployment and that the elimination of their due process rights by the FCC is “calculated and deliberate.”

The FCC’s Reply brief is due on Aug 23, 2021.

Dense 4G/5G Rollout in Tucson Meets Strong Opposition

Adapted from an article and news report by Chorus Nylander, June 14, 2021 | KVOA News 4 Tucson article here

TUCSON (KVOA) – It’s the highly anticipated future for mobile service but for many Tucsonans 5G is not a future they asked for. These days dense 4G/5G Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) are popping up just about everywhere, and many homeowners tell the News 4 Tucson Investigators that they are furious.

Tucson resident Bryan Goldkuhl said:

“They Hid It From Us Until the Last Minute.”

 

Goldkuhl is outraged after a 4G/5G WTF was put up across the street from his home:

“They started by jacking pipe underneath the street that was probably three months ago. When we asked them about it, they told us they were just putting in fiber optic cable then when we found out it was for a cell tower, now we’re being told it’s too late to do anything about it,”

He’s not alone, a group of neighbors from Tucson’s Peter Howell neighborhood held a protest a couple weeks ago against the installation of several towers in the area, one by a school.

“This is happening because Verizon and AT&T would like to implement what our future should look like nobody asked us if we wanted this,” said Lisa Smith.

The telecommunication companies, mainly Verizon and AT&T right now, are able to move with such haste and not be slowed by community opposition due to the City Council of Tucson not reading carefully enough a State law, House Bill 2365, that was passed in 2017. The bill allows the companies to install so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) within the rights-of-way without following normal permitting procedures. Arizona was the first state to pass such a law for the dense 4G/5G rollout.

Even though HB.2365 purports to limits local government’s ability to have a say where the towers go, the law does provide exceptions for the city to regulate the operations of WTFs of any size or any “G” to ensure that the City, as a joint venture partner in this roll out, delivers actual public safety to Tusconsans.

“§9-592 (K). An authority shall approve an application unless the authority finds that the utility pole fails to comply with any of the following . . . Local code provisions or regulations that concern any of the following: (a) public safety.”

Even Councilmember Steve Kozachik seems confused about how the Federal and State Telecom laws apply to the City of Tucson, seeming oblivious to the actual words of these important laws:

Tucson Councilmember Steve Kozachik:

“Based on work that the telecom industry has done lobbying congress at both the federal and state level, they have basically taken our voice out of where we can compel these things to go,” said Tucson Ward 6 councilmember Steve Kozachik.

Kozachik has been hosting discussions with representatives from the telecom companies, but has been unwilling to meet wit Tucson residents and discuss what these residents did: they beat the Tucson City Attorney to the punch by writing and submitting a protective Tucsonans’ Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance, over three months ago in early April.

Kozachik is only “urging” Telecom companies to focus on what’s called collocation, which is installing the overpowered 4G/5G equipment onto or next to existing infrastructure like power poles and street lights. Instead, Kozachik and the City Council members could be limiting the maximum power output from these WTFs to that which provides Telecommunications Signal Strengths sufficient for telecommunications service (-85 dBm to -125 dBm) — and no higher.

Professional measurements for a Verizon sWTF in Sacramento, CA provide evidence that a typical sWTF 60 feet from a second-story bedrooms is way overpowered: in the bedroom of the two little girls who sickened in a matter of weeks, Wireless Signal Strength that was 30 million times higher than -85 dBm).

Instead of taking matters into his own hands, Kozachik appealed to the Telecom Cos:

“Our constituents are your customers and you ought to care about that. The first question your site selector ought to ask is would I want that in front of my house if the answer is no then find another spot.”

Many of the knowledgeable Tucson homeowners said they have evidence that proves the siting WTFs of any size or any “G” next to home lowering their home values by 20-30% and ruins the quiet enjoyment of their streets and homes.

Dr. Russell Witte, a professor of Medical Imaging, Optical Sciences, Biomedical Engineering, Applied Mathematics – GIDP, Neurosurgery and Neuroscience – GIDP, said “there are significant hazard and dangers to increasing the proliferation of microwaves in residential areas.”

Dr. Witte said he has reviewed thousands of studies on microwave radiation released from Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) and says there is established science that proves that current power output levels, which are far below federal guidelines cause adverse biological impacts, including direct neurological injury, cognitive deficits, early dementia, blood and cardiac abnormalities, irregular heartbeats and, eventually, cancer.

Dr. Russell Witte said:

“When you actually measure exposure in homes of people because of the close proximity of these small cells they are getting much more exposure from these cells sometimes 25-30 million times more than needed for telecommunications service. And this is for 24/7 exposure: people can’t escape it or turn it off,”
We reached out to AT&T and Verizon about 5G safety. In a statement to the N4T Investigators in February, Verizon called claims of the towers being unsafe “baseless conspiracy theories” and said, “all equipment used for 5G must comply with federal safety standards. Those standards it says have wide safety margins and are designed to protect everyone, including children.”

AT&T said in an email that questions of safety didn’t directly involve them and referred us to CTIA, a company that says it’s the voice of the telecommunication industry.

After our report Monday CTIA sent us the following statement:

“Radiofrequency energy from wireless devices and networks, including 5G, has not been shown to cause health problems, according to the consensus of the international scientific community, including expert organizations such as the FDA, WHO and American Cancer Society.”

Of course, that industry trade association statement is actually false. The statement means nothing because there are medical doctors making diagnoses in 2019-2021 using WHO medical codes: ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Codes W90.0: Exposure to other Nonionizing Radiation — Radio-frequency Radiation et seq. Actual medical evidence of injury, illness and death from exposure to electromagnetic power through-the-air at power levels that are hundreds of thousands of times lower than the Federal Guidelines trumps any self-serving Wireless industry statements.

Dr. Witte said that the general public should be shown the are many peer-reviewed studies on the subject and able to make up their own minds without being labeled a conspiracy theorist to question the installation of a dense 4G/5G WTF grid in their neighborhood. He believes Wired Broadband via fiber optic cables installed directly to homes and business is far superior to Wireless broadband on nearly every measure. FTTP (Fiber to the Premises) broadband (unlike Wireless broadband) is faster, more reliable, more secure, lower cost to install, has much higher data caps (if any, at all) and does not cause adverse biological effects. In, short, FTTP is the answer because FTTP also means Freeedom to the People of Tucson.

Steve Kozachik, who is up for re-election in November, said he expects thousands of 5G towers to be installed in Tucson within a matter of months. The residents of Tucson say otherwise. It looks like a real showdown in Tucson.

If you have a story you’d like us to investigate email us at investigators@kvoa.com or call our tip line at 520-955-4444.

IARC on RF: What’s Next?

Adapted from an article by Louis Slesin, PhD, June 11, 2021 | Original Microwave News article here.

In 2019, an IARC advisory group recommended — as a “high priority” — that the agency reassess the risk after the release of the NTP and Ramazzini animal studies, both of which showed increases in tumor counts following long-term RF exposure.1 The advisory group recommended that the reevaluation be completed between 2022 and 2024.

Briefing at the European Parliament

On May 30, just three days after colloquium of the German Federal Office of Radiation Protection (known as the BfS), the European Parliament held a briefing on 5G radiation and health at which Michèle Rivasi, a member from France, called for action. “It is time for IARC to reevaluate the impact of RF radiation on health,” she said.

Fiorella Belpoggi, the lead author of the Ramazzini RF–animal study, was the first speaker at the briefing. She has urged IARC to do a fresh cancer assessment ever since her findings were released in 2018.

Continue reading “IARC on RF: What’s Next?”