Emails

Unfortunately, Doug W. is doing more of this in 2023 . . .

>>> Wire California wrote on June 8, 2023:

Hi, [redacted].

The announcement came from you. (see Appendix A), which is why I made my request to you.

Ben L is involved in the Zoom event so I know Julian G is not far behind. Aren’t you, Julian and Scott M working together on the law suit in LA County opposing the county’s disadvantageous Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) ordinance?

As you told me that you are not in charge of the June 13th 5-6:30pm Zoom call, then please encourage/convince Doug W. to put his biases and ego aside and have him add me to the list of speakers for that Zoom call because Californians are responsible for and will face the consequences of the quality of our lobbying efforts. No one outside of California should have final say on CA Legislature lobbying priorities/messages.

Many people seem to not to be facing the elephant in the room. No one should exclude/hide information from those operating in good faith to lobby against these bad bills. The evidence of Doug W.’s consistent, unfortunate behavior in that regard is well documented here.

This, unfortunately seems to be a similar playbook to that of 2021, a year in which our side was successful in turning back only one of three bills that we opposed. At least some of us went to the very end in 2017 and again in 2021 to secure vetoes of SB.649 and SB.556, respectively.

I am calling BS on Doug W.’s continued exclusion/hiding of information. It is time for this behavior to finally stop so Californians will have the best chance to defeat AB 965 and perhaps AB 1056, as well.

Recall that I have repeatedly asked Doug W/ to engage with me on this and other matters. For no good reasons provided by Doug, Doug has not followed through. “I don’t like person X, Y or Z” should not be a sufficient reason to hide information and not engage with those doing the work. We are not in high school. These are serious matters; we need to face these matters seriously.

I asked Doug again a few weeks ago to call me to cooperate on lobbying messages against AB 965. No response from Doug . . . again.

I am asking for all of us to turn a page and allow more experts at the table for this Zoom call. Given my strong efforts in 2017 and 2021, I have earned a spot at this table.

Doug, please add me to the list of speakers on the June 13th 5-6:30pm Zoom call because I will be full-time in Sacramento lobbying against this bill from June-August, 2023. We have already garnered first-hand knowledge from our initial meetings.

I have valuable recent information to share.

Thank you.

>>> [redacted] wrote on 6/8/23 12:24 PM:

I am not in charge. It was organized by Doug.

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 12:06 PM Wire California wrote:
Hi, [redacted].

Yes, there is a problem. I explained it in the email to you.

Will you please add me to the list of speakers on the June 13th 5-6:30pm Zoom call because I will be full-time in Sacramento lobbying against this bill from June-August, 2023. We have already garnered first-hand knowledge from our initial meetings.

I have valuable recent information to share.

Thank you.

>>>[redacted] wrote on 6/8/23 11:51 AM:

Is there a problem with the video?

Appendix A: June 8, 2023 Email from 5G Free California

>>> [redacted] wrote on 6/8/23 7:44 AM:

Info on Important Webinar and Breaking News

Dear Friends,

Please join us Monday, June 19th, 7-9pm for our next meeting at the Inn of the Seventh Ray in Topanga.

We look forward to reconnecting with all of you. We will share and discuss current information and actions taking place locally, around California, and around the nation. This will include the status of the Two Bad California Bills, AB 965 and AB 1065, moving through the California Senate.

Here is a brief video describing AB 965 and AB 1065

FYI, before this upcoming meeting we may send out important action emails on these bills as they move through the Senate. These actions will be timely and will need your immediate attention.

Zoom Webinar on California bills and LA County lawsuit:

Next Tuesday, June 13th 5-6:30pm, there will be a zoom Webinar, “California Wireless Update,” with information on the two pending California bills, the digital divide, and the LA lawsuit with Doug W. of ART, Bill A. of EWG, Brenda Martinez of Fiber First LA, and attorney Scott M. You will have a chance to ask questions. Registration is required.

Click here to Register. Complete the registration. You will then receive email: “Zoom California Wireless Update.” Scroll down this email for your Zoom Link.

Appendix B: June 8, 2023 Email from Wire California

>>> Wire California wrote on 6/8/23 10:44 AM:

Hi, [redacted], Ben et al.

June 8, 2023

Re: Preventing Another Ready Fire Aim Effort for CA in Lobbying Against AB 965

I just received an email from [redacted]/5G Free California and followed the link to a short video at DropBox by Doug W. re: AB 965 and AB 1065 — a video assisted by Ben L.

Please take note of the following important points that Doug W. either does not understand or does not care to get right.

  1. The lobbying effort is not best served by positions like “N0 5G” (inherent in the very name of Julie Levine’s organization “5G Free California”) or pushing for only fiber optic to the premises (FTTP) with no fixed wireless/satellite service at all (which is unrealistic).
  2. Instead, the strongest ask is for the legislature to preserve local control over the construction of all telecommunications infrastructure, consistent with federal law — as specified in the 1996 Telecommunications Act and its Conference report, which was recognized in 2005 by the US Supreme Court as the definitive source of the legislative intent of the 1996 TCA. The Supreme court also upheld cooperative federalism as the law of the land in wireless telecommunications matters:
    • “Congress initially considered a single national solution, namely a Federal Communications Commission wireless tower siting policy that would preempt state and local authority. Ibid.; see also H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, p. 207 (1996). But Congress ultimately rejected the national approach and substituted a system based on cooperative federalism. Id., at 207-208.”
  3. All FCC Orders and state laws must be consistent with the legislative intent of the 1996 TCA — and AB 965 clearly is not consistent with the Act’s legislative intent. AB 965 violates these stated intentions:
    • “When utilizing the term ‘‘functionally equivalent services’’ the conferees are referring only to personal wireless services as defined in this section that directly compete against one another.”
    • “The conferees intend that the phrase ‘‘unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services’’ will provide localities with the flexibility to treat facilities that create different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements.”
    • “The conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor’s 50-foot tower in a residential district.”
    • “It is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests, or to subject their requests to any but the generally applicable time frames for zoning decision.”
  4. The Chief of Staff of Asm. Juan Carrillo is very interested in learning about Pacific Telesys/AT&T’s and GTE/Verizon’s commitments to replace copper lines with fiber optic lines — work that was constructed with public money — which can be a reason — in this bill — to force universal access to any existing fiber optic lines in the state of CA built from the 1990’s through 2010 or so. To that end, we are educating Asm. Juan Carrillo’s staff about these events, with evidence.
  5. I would strongly encourage all Californians that plan to lobby against AB 965 to carefully study the following materials before starting any mass communications plan:
  6. Despite Doug saying at — 0:45-in the video — that AB 965 will allow wireless companies “to submit up to 50 antenna applications at one time”, AB 965 actually says the following:

    • “(h) A local agency may place reasonable limits on the number of broadband project sites that are grouped into a single permit while undertaking batch broadband permit processing. A reasonable limit established pursuant to this subdivision shall be no less than 50 project sites. A local agency may only remove a broadband project site from grouping under a single permit under mutual agreement with the applicant or to expedite the approval of other substantially similar broadband project sites.”

    • Key missing point — unless a locality takes an action to set reasonable limit, there would be no upper limit on the number of batched applications
    • Key missing point — the locality has no unilateral freedom to remove a particular site from the batch — they must do it by mutual agreement with the applicant
  7. Doug then says all towns are subject to the FCC shot clocks with no mention that the FCC shotclocks are presumptive only. The bill is clear about this, even if Doug is not.
    • “(5) Presumptively reasonable time means the timeframe that a local agency must review and resolve an application pursuant to applicable law following submission of a complete broadband permit application. The presumptively reasonable time period may be modified by mutual, written agreement between the local agency and the applicant.”
    • “Batch broadband permit processing shall be completed within a presumptively reasonable time for wireless broadband projects subject to applicable law unless a longer period of time is permitted under the circumstances pursuant to applicable law, including Section 1.6003 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”
  8. A key amendment ask for AB-965 would be to repeal 2015’s AB-57 and 2021’s AB-537 because any state “deemed approved” remedy is not consistent with the legislative intent of the 1996 TCA and the FCC has no jurisdiction over local zoning matters, which is why the US Supreme Court has correctly recognized in 2013 that FCC shot clocks are merely presumptive (a statement of preference).

These points show why it is in the best interests of all Californians that the parties from our side willing to lobby against AB 965 should put their personal biases and egos aside and choose to work together to decide on the best, most consistent messaging that aims to revert AB 965 back to its original language and then add in ratchets to ensure local control and universal access to any fiber optic lines that were constructed with funds contributed by end users for that purpose.

To that end, I request that I be added to the list of speakers on the June 13th 5-6:30pm Zoom call because I will be full-time in Sacramento lobbying against this bill from June-August, 2023. We have already garnered first-hand knowledge from our initial meetings.

Appendix C: May 8, 2023 Email From Wire California

Date: May 8, 2023

To Brenda Contreras, Jay Dickenson

Re: AB 965 Broadband Permit Efficiency and Local Government Staff Solution Best Practices Act of 2023

My name is [redacted]. I am the founder of Wire California and would like the opportunity to meet with Assembly member Juan Carrillo, the author of AB 965 — either in person or via Zoom — to discuss how best to change the bill to keep it from likely being vetoed by Gov. Newsom. Please allow me to make a few suggestions up front:

  • Make a clear distinction in AB 965 between wired broadband and wireless broadband
  • Preserve to localities the right to determine a preference in how best to deliver broadband to their residents
  • Make AB 965 consistent with Gov. Newsom’s 2021 Broadband Budget Bill, SB 156 (Chapter 112. Statutes of 2020)
  • Ensure that AB 965 in not on the Assembly Appropriations Consent or Suspense lists; instead Assembly member Carrillo would benefit from presenting the bill at Appropriations and inviting in-person public comment of sufficient length (similar to the levels of comment afforded to the public in the 2017 deliberations for SB 649). I request a public comment spot for May 17, 2023 or whenever the bill will be heard at Assembly Appropriations.

Wire California is a call to action and a citizen journalist and advocacy organization. We work to preserve local control over Wired Broadband and Wireless Telecommunications infrastructure. We believe that local communities must retain the freedom to integrate the best broadband implementation for their residents. We have successfully worked at the federal, state and local levels to tame the unnecessarily dense deployment of 4G/5G so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in residential neighborhoods. I am requested to be an opposition speaker to AB 965 at the May 17, 2023 Appropriations Committee hearing.

Instead of wireless broadband, Californians need the long-promised, already paid-for (via charges levied on Californians’ telephone bills since the mid-1990’s) and largely undelivered solution: Fiber Optics to the Premises (FTTP).

I am a subject matter expert in Telecommunications policy matters and worked on the teams that secured vetoes of two earlier California state telecommunications overreach bills:

  1. SB 649 was vetoed in October, 2017, 24 hours after I talked to Gov. Brown during his visit to Santa Rosa
  2. SB 556 was vetoed in October, 2021, 48 hours after Gov. Newsom viewed our video address (from five expert Californians)

The bottom line is that California Governors have been very clear in supporting local control over the siting and construction of the heavy industrial equipment in localities that support wireless telecommunications service (the ability to make outdoor wireless phone calls) and wired information service (for internet, video/audio streaming and gaming).

The key problem is with wireless broadband. Wireless broadband is an unnecessary, hazardous, energy-inefficient, fire prone, slower and less secure means of delivering broadband compared to Fiber Optics to the premises (FTTP). Both of our CA Governors agreed. Gov Newsom wrote in his SB.556 veto letter in October, 2021 (See Newsom’s full letter here).

“There is a role for local government in advancing broadband efforts. Part of our achievements laid out in the Broadband budget bill SB 156 (Chapter 112. Statutes of 2020) enables and encourages local governments to take an active role in the last mile deployment and, in doing so, drive competition and increase access.”

In short, the decision to choose wired broadband (via FTTP) or wireless broadband via densified deployment of 4G/5G so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in residential neighborhoods is a local one and NOT a statewide matter. Such a decision is fundamental to local zoning discretion and local residential values.

Wireless industry lobbyists have been relentless in trying to enroll Californians into a foolhardy agenda: taking away local control over the placement and construction of WTFs. This agenda is inconsistent with the legislative intent of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. As one can read here, a reasonable time for processing permits for WTFs was recognized by the US Supreme Court in its 2005 ruling in Palos Verdes vs Abrams. The ruling relied on the Conference Report of the 1996 Telecommunications Act as a definitive source of the congressional intent of the 1996-Act. The Conference Report states:

“It is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests, or to subject their requests to any but the generally applicable time frames for zoning decision.”

In short, no Californian will be best served by Wireless WTFs of any size or any G in front or their homes, as you can read and view here:

Please allow California’s counties and towns to solve the Digital Divide in the best ways for their local residents, consistent with Gov. Newsom’s views on the matter.

Thank you. I look forward to speaking with you both, soon.

Appendix D: May 19, 2023 Email From Wire California

May 19, 2023

Mr. Paul Ramey
Chief of Staff, Asm. Juan Carrillo
Capitol Office (AD-39)
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0039
(916) 319-2039

Re: AB 965 — Broadband Permit Efficiency and Local Government Staff Solution Best Practices Act of 2023 — Needed Amendments

Dear Mr. Ramey,

Thank your for taking my call today to discuss the ways Asm. Carrillo can significantly amend AB 965 to provide first rate broadband service to Californians: wired broadband via Fiber Optics to the premises that offers symmetric service of at least 100 Mbps up and 100 Mpbs down. Californians already paid $16 billion+ on their CA landline phone bills to upgrade their copper telecommunications lines to fiber optic cables to the home, but AT&T, Verizon and other telecommunications companies never carried through on their contractual agreements to do so in many areas, creating the Digital Divide, by design.

AB 965 needs significant amendments that would:

  • Provide a clear distinction in AB 965 between needed wired broadband and unnecessary wireless broadband
  • Preserve to localities the right to determine a preference in how best to deliver broadband to their residents
  • Make AB 965 consistent with Gov. Newsom’s 2021 Broadband Budget Bill, SB 156 (Chapter 112. Statutes of 2020)

The Evidence:
Telecom expert, Bruce Kushnick has written multiple books about the Telecom industry’s duplicity, fraud and incessant bait-and-switch tactics. A recent medium article: See Kushnick’s latest article on Medium Link to Verizon’s FiOS Home Internet Is Now a Deceptive Fixed Wireless Bait and Switch. Kushnick’s latest book from 2022 is entitled The Book of Violations & Egregious Acts: Trillion Dollar Broadband Scandal.

See link in Appendix B of this email and the thesis, below, is taken from the Amazon page for the book:

“Through a series of bait-and-switch tactics used repeatedly, the big telecom companies have overcharged customers in many ways that fostered one of the largest accounting scandals in American history at an estimated cost of $1.3 trillion and counting . . . Congress approved and Biden signed the Infrastructure Bill that included $65 billion to solve the Digital Divide. The telecom companies are lining up to line their pocket by claiming that this time they will deliver high-speed broadband and close the Digital Divide. Only they plan to do so with wireless and without any constraints on pricing these services.”

I appreciate talking to you today by phone and I thank you for the opportunity to put into the record for AB 965, evidence that should convince Asm. Carrillo that partnering with Crown Castle on a batch-application strategy to overrun cities with 50+ applications (no upper limit!) at one time for fixed wireless service via so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) works against the interests of delivering first-rate broadband service to all Californians. More evidence will come.

Please do not effectively settle for inferior wireless broadband, as I communicated in my earlier emails from May 8, 2023 and May 12, 2023.

Please find two letters (in pdf form) attached to this email, both written by Harry V. Lehmann, Esq.

  1. Senator Feinstein Mar 8.pdf
  2. 2017-0719-SB649-CA-Liability-Lehmann-to-Galehouse.pdf

I credit letter [2], above, as the most effective letter at moving votes against SB.649 in the CA Assembly (47-33) and CA Senate (22-18), as I recall, which resulted in a veto by Gov. Jerry Brown, 24 hours after I talked to him in Santa Rosa, CA on Oct 14, 2017. We similarly secured a veto in 2021 by Gov. Gavin Newsom of a very similar bill, SB.556, within 48 hours of providing this video address to Newsom’s office: https://youtu.be/YwMx7Bpyw8o

Please also find evidence laid out in Appendices A through E of this email.

  • Appendix A: Friday the 13th in August, 2021 . . . is the Day the Wireless World Irrevocably Changed. I cite three DC Cir rulings (rulings which bind the State of California) and I can summarize for you the FCC mandates in each that dismantle the so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) agenda.
    • Case No. 20-1025: Envtl. Health Tr. v. Fed. Communications Comm’n, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021)
    • Case 18-1051: Mozilla Corp. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
    • Case No. 18-1129: United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 933 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
  • Appendix B: Link to The Book of Violations & Egregious Acts: Trillion Dollar Broadband Scandal by Bruce Kushnick
  • Appendix C: Timely email from Harry V. Lehmann, Esq. re: surveillance and sWTF liability transfer to counties and towns
  • Appendix D: Gov.Brown, be smart. Veto SB 649: evidence that carried the day in 2017
  • Appendix E: 2023 Email Correspondence to Asm. Juan Carrillo’s Office

I look forward to continuing our conversation about how to amend AB 965 to actually provide first-rate, symmetric broadband service to all Californians (aka wired fiber optic to the premises), consistent with Gov Newsom’s plans in AB 156 in 2021.

Thank you.

[Note: Appendices A-E and attachments referenced in the 5/19/2023 are not included on this web page.]

Proudly powered by WordPress