Opening:
Governor Newsom, we are five Californians that are delivering an important short message to you, tonight.
- I am Paul McGavin from Petaluma, CA and the founder of both Wire America and Wire California. (or Alex Krohn, if he responds in time)
- I am Gary Widman from Tiburon, CA — simple intro
- I am Johanna Finney from Nevada City, CA — simple intro
- I am Trevor Marshall, PhD from Thousand Oaks, CA — simple intro
- I am Cheryl Scheurer, PhD from Mill Valley, CA — simple intro
- I am Mark Graham, from Elk Grove, CA — simple intro
Paul M
Governor Newsom. Thank you for you time.
As the Mayor of San Francisco, you remember that the Cell Phone “Right to Know” Bill was passed in San Francisco. That must have been fresh in your mind in the 2013 documentary Moblilize, when you said about Big Wireless:
“They buy silence. They buy apathy. They buy politicians.”
We are grateful that Big Wireless has not bought your silence or apathy. We thank you for putting a stake in the ground by supporting AB.156 and the $6 Billion state budget to install and operate a state program for fiber optic middle-mile infrastructure to underserved Californians. We encourage you complete this vision by ensuring fiber optics gets all the way to every home and business. By doing so you will be joining other experts, including
- Susan Crawford, PhD, a Professor at Harvard Law School and author of a 2019 book “Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution—and Why America Might Miss It.”
- Tom Wheeler, the former FCC Chairman and former President of CTIA, who testified in March 2021 to Congress about the benefits of fiber optics and the need to bring it all the way to the premises in order to provide the backbone for economic growth and to compete against China.
In advocating for Fiber Optics to every location in America, Wheeler said to Congress that fiber is needed to ensure that everybody gets access to the network. He also emphasized that
- The 2015 definition of Broadband of 25 mpbs down and 3 mpbs up is wholly inadequate; we need at least symmetric service that is 100 Mbps both down and up.
- Wireless service is not future proof because it will always be constrained by the finite nature of spectrum and cannot be a full substitute for wired broadband.
We agree. This seems to be a forward looking vision among broadband experts who have listened apparently to the Great One, Wayne Gretsky who said long ago “Skate to where the puck is going, not to where it has been.”
To actually close the Digital Divide, California must skate toward Fiber Optics to the Premises (FTTP) and skate away from hazardous, energy-inefficient, unreliable and insecure Wireless broadband. Wireless is third-rate broadband infrastructure that is not future proof.
That is why we are asking you to turn a page on an old, tired and now defeated agenda of forcing cities, counties and taxpayers to subsidize the construction of so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities every few hundred feet in residential neighborhoods.
We are, therefore asking you to veto three bills, currently on your desk, that are not consistent with your broadband-for-all-Californians vision:
- Senate Bill 556 from Sen. Dodd — the “Destroy Local Control & Child Endangerment” Wireless Bill
- Assembly Bill 537 from Asm. Quirk — the “Deemed Approved, Deemed Permit-Issued” Wireless Bill
- Senate Bill 378 from Sen. Gonzalez — the “Cheap Micro-Trenching & No Public Access to Fiber” Bill
You will hear from me again at the end, but I would now like to yield to gentleman from Tiburon, attorney Gary Widman.
Gary W:
Governor Newsom, a number of us traveled to Sacramento in 2021 to provide in-person testimony and submit opposition letters with substantial evidence, scientific facts and legal analysis against the Telecom triple-threat: SB.556, AB.537 and SB.378.
Before we go any further, congratulations on your victory in the recall vote. We look forward to working with you to close the Digital Divide in California in ways that will give all Californians fast, secure, energy-efficient and fire-safe internet access.
Signing into law the triple-threat of SB.556, AB.537 and SB.378 will likely create nothing but significant harms, unrest, expensive and time-consuming legal controversy, and unfunded liabilities due to a lack of adequate insurance to cover claims for injury, illness or death from the toxic pollutant of RF microwave radiation pollution. Please veto all three of these bills which wipe out most local control over the placement and construction of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of any size or any “G”.
These triple-threat Telecom bills are simply unnecessary, because the local communities have already updated their telecommunications ordinances to efficiently add broadband service where needed in their communities. These bills could create significant harms to public safety, privacy and property values. Most importantly, SB.556, AB.537 and SB.378, if passed, would not close the Digital Divide, as claimed.
The so-called “Small” Wireless Facilities agenda at the Federal level is crumbling because the FCC has been a serial loser in Federal Courts from 2019 to 2021, for example, with significant losses and clarifications in the US Court of Appeals rulings
No amount of COVID-19-inspired, Digital Divide rhetoric can paper over the transparent power grab behind SB.556, AB.537 and SB.378. These bills do not have the power to force private wireless companies to serve these currently underserved communities, both rural and urban.
When it comes to wireless radiation, U.S. policies have not kept up with the science. On August 13, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2019 to retain its 1996 wireless radiation safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was “arbitrary and capricious.” Specifically, the court pointed out that the agency had ignored research showing damage to memory and reproduction and indications that children are more vulnerable to wireless radiation. In an extraordinary rebuke, the court ordered the FCC to
“address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines.”
The bottom line from this landmark ruling is that the decision to re-affirm FCC’s 1996 wireless exposure limits does not rest on sound science. Federal agencies have not reviewed the mounting scientific evidence. The court noted that the “silence” of federal health and safety agencies in the FCC record such as the National Cancer Institute, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health does not mean these agencies agree with the FCC’s 1996 limits. The court ruling highlights the fact that relevant US agencies have not reviewed research on: impacts to flora and fauna; long-term exposures from cell towers; children’s unique vulnerability; and health effects such as damage to the brain and reproduction.
Johanna F
In 2017, we actively engaged with the CA Legislature and the Governor’s office via open democratic deliberations to oppose SB.649 — and we prevailed. We spoke directly to Gov. Brown in Santa Rosa on October 14, 2017, stated our best case and asked him to veto the bill.
The next day, Gov. Brown vetoed SB.649, writing:
“I believe that the interest which localities have in managing rights of way requires a more balanced solution than the one achieved in this bill.”
In 2021, the CA Legislature disrespected these efforts from 2017 and placed on your desk essentially a repeat, a mulligan, a do-over of SB.649, but split across three bills:
Californians settled the need for local control over Telecom matters back in 2017. In the last four years, despite the Wireless industry’s lobbying efforts, the FCC-sponsored streamline so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Orders have faced consistent defeats in the US Courts of Appeal from 2019 through 2021 — with more defeats expected in the next two years.
This is very relevant to CA bills SB.556, AB.537 and SB.378 because the authors of these bills consistently misled the committee members when pitching their bills. They alleged, without completing due diligence, that California should act to align itself with the FCC’s crumbling so-called “small” cell agenda.
California should not. It should chart it’s own course.
Wired Broadband and Wireless Broadband are NOT functionally-equivalent services: not in the eyes of Federal law and not in actuality. California can and should state a clear preference for Wired Broadband to every home and business.
There are many similarities between 2017’s SB.649 and the three Telecom bills in 2021. All of the bills are ALEC-written, Wireless industry-sponsored bills that aim to eliminate nearly all local control over the placement and construction of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the public rights-of-way, at the expense of counties, cities and the public.
SB.556, AB.537 and SB.378 will force counties, cities and the public to essentially subsidize the uber-profitable wireless industry and help them transfer their liabilities to the localities and the taxpayers. The well-documented liabilities from RF microwave radiation harms forced the reinsurance industry to act a decade ago: Lloyd’s of London, Swiss re and AM Best have all adopted comprehensive pollution exclusions for RF Microwave radiation claims of injury illness and death. They view Wireless harms as the next asbestos and they want no part of the fall out.
California should not be aiding and abetting the Wireless industry to shift these liabilities to the localities, as these three bills do.
Mark G
Unlike Wireless broadband, FTTP broadband preserves the quiet enjoyment of streets, a right that the residents of each California community require their cities and counties to protect, consistent with the 2019 CA Supreme Court ruling in T-Mobile v San Francisco.
The 2019 CA Supreme Court Ruling in T-Mobile v San Francisco states:
The city has inherent local police power to determine the appropriate uses of land within its jurisdiction. That power includes the authority to establish aesthetic conditions for land use . . . Travel is not the sole use of public roads; other uses may be incommoded beyond the obstruction of travel. (T-Mobile West, at pp. 355-356.) For example, [Telecom] lines or equipment might generate noise, cause negative health consequences, or create safety concerns. All these impacts could disturb public road use, or disturb its quiet enjoyment.”
A one-size-fits all program for a state of nearly 40 million people with different climates, cultures, geographies and topographies (e.g. South Lake Tahoe, San Diego and Modesto) is doomed to fail. California’s cities and counties, therefore, need to retain their power to set their own policies for the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities.
That is why we hope you agree with us that SB.556, AB.537 and SB.378 are not consistent with your vision for California.
SB.556 would allow new microwave radiating antennas to be installed on virtually every existing street light or traffic signal throughout the state which would be a public safety disaster. The bill would override local zoning and public safety laws by severely limiting control over where such so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) can be constructed.
In addition, On August 13, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2019 to retain its 1996 wireless radiation safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was “arbitrary and capricious.” Specifically, the court pointed out that the agency had ignored research showing damage to memory and reproduction and indications that children are more vulnerable to wireless radiation. In an extraordinary rebuke, the court ordered the FCC to
“address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines.”
AB.537 grants automatic approval for any application for a new wireless antenna not approved by a local authority within a short 60-day time frame. Considering that wireless companies routinely submit hundreds of applications at a time, this bill would pave the way for impossibly short windows for approval, especially for local governments with limited personnel and budgets burdened by the demands of Covid-19.
SB.378 allows Big Telecom companies to ignore local construction standards and then slice through city streets using so-called “micro-trenching” instead of the best practices of Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), which does not slice through streets. When Google Fiber tried micro-trenching, it failed in Louisville, KY. Google pulled their fiber service out of Louisville and had to pay the city millions of dollars to fix their streets.