Moving

State Legislature transferring to provide telecom firms immense energy

A couple of bills that would profoundly deregulate cell phone tower and antenna placement – essentially giving telecommunications companies complete control over where those facilities can go and overriding most local regulations – are moving quickly through state legislation, almost without news media attention.

A cell phone tower. Image © Justin Smith / Wikimedia Commons.

The measures would allow businesses to freely install antennas on public lighting or power poles anywhere in the state and would not include effective public health considerations.

The Measures Nurse and Health Attorney Catherine Dodd told me

Allows enterprise telecommunications providers to place wireless telecommunications equipment (towers and antennas) anywhere without local control or public input. This includes in front of houses and up to 6 feet outside windows in parks and near schools.

Senator Bill Dodd’s SB 556 (representing a district that spans much of North Bay) sailed through two committees with bipartisan support and only one no vote. It’s on its way to the Senate now.

The measure is sponsored by Crown Castle, which is building cell phone towers.

Senator Scott Wiener, who represents San Francisco, voted in favor.

Help us save local journalism!

Each tax-deductible donation helps us cover the issues that are most important to our community. Become a 48 Hills Hero and support the only daily progressive news source in the Bay Area.

A companion invoice AB 537 from Congregation Member Bill Quirk, who represents the Hayward and Fremont areas, would require cities and counties to rapidly approve applications for new mobile phone facilities. It passed the communications committee and the local government committee without a single dissenting vote.

Congregation member Phil Ting, who is a member of the communications committee, voted in favor.

The impetus for the bill are (of course) telecommunications profits. But lawmakers have also heard from parents who complain that their children are not getting reliable internet access during the COVID.

Telecom says putting up new antennas (and adding 5G facilities) will help solve this problem.

Dodd, who worked in the Clinton Administration and ran the San Francisco Health Service System for eight years, disagrees with this analysis.

In fact, she argues, the bill could undermine municipal broadband efforts – which is a real solution to the digital divide:

SB 556 will DO NOT bridge the digital divide, This entrusts the company’s telecommunications companies with the regulation of wireless telecommunications systems (towers and antennas) and gives them access to all masts and signal lights. So they can make money by charging ever higher internet service fees. Telecommunications providers need to be regulated. Local authorities can ensure that internet access is affordable and even subsidized – if SB 556 is passed, this cannot happen

5G doesn’t facilitate voice data or internet connection – It only increases the download speed for videos (like games), is unreliable in bad weather, not cyber-safe, and contributes to climate change as it powers many more antennas.

In California’s cities and counties, WIRED requires a communally operated BroadBand to and into buildings: FASTER, SECURE, ENERGY EFFICIENT and CYBER SECURE. SB 556 prevents municipal broadband!

As far as I can tell from my research, not a single news agency has covered that bill.

So why is it going through the legislature without serious discussion or opposition?

Think about it:

Over the past two years, AT&T has spent $ 250,000 bringing lawmakers to Pebble Beach (called The Speaker’s Cup) for a fancy golf vacation. In 2019 and 2020 alone, the company donated $ 275,000 to the California Republican Party and $ 755,000 to the California Democratic Party. Gavin Newsom’s campaign for the governor raised $ 20,000 in AT&T money.

It’s hard to find a single lawmaker who hasn’t received AT&T money.

Verizon gave $ 73,000 to the California Republican Party and $ 80,000 to the Democratic Party. Verizon also gave $ 10.00 to Newsom.

Many state lawmakers have also received funding from Sprint.

“This is an uphill fight,” Dodd told me. “You have so much power and influence.”

The League of California Cities is against it. Some health lawyers too.

Here’s who’s for it:

Bay Area Council, California Apartment Association, California Builders Alliance, California Building Industry Association, California Business Properties Association, California Retailers Association, California Wireless Association, CTIA, Greater Sacramento Economic Council, Orange County Economic Council, Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange, Chamber of San Francisco of Commerce, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Verizon.

That’s pretty much a list of people who are on the wrong side on most issues.

And nobody in the Democratic Party stands up against them to protect public health and safety.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button