Dear Governor Newsom, Please Veto the Corporate-Sponsored Wireless Bills SB.556, AB.537 & SB.378; Start Investigations Instead

Adapted from an article by Bruce Kushnick, Sept 20, 2021 | Original Medium article here.

California needs investigations into the $Billions of cross-subsidies carried out by AT&T Holding Co. to avoid paying California State taxes and boost its corporate profits. For decades, Big AT&T has transferred $Billions from its REGULATED wired State PUblic telecommunications Utility Co. (AT&T-California) to its UNREGULATED wireless subsidiary companies (New Cingular, AT&T Mobility, and others). These financial sleights-of-hand have been and continue to be in direct violation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act: Title 47, §254(k), which states:

§254(k) Subsidy of competitive services prohibited

“A telecommunications carrier may not use services that are not competitive to subsidize services that are subject to competition. The Commission, with respect to interstate services, and the States, with respect to intrastate services, shall establish any necessary cost allocation rules, accounting safeguards, and guidelines to ensure that services included in the definition of universal service bear no more than a reasonable share of the joint and common costs of facilities used to provide those services.

These misallocated $Billions by AT&T Holding Co. were originally earmarked to fund a fiber optic future for California. The State doesn’t need these three corporate-sponsored wireless bills — all three bills deserve a veto by Gov. Newsom in order to preserve local control:

  1. SB.556 (Dodd): the “Destroy Local Control & Child Endangerment” Wireless Bill
  2. AB.537 (Quirk): the “Deemed Approved, Deemed Permit-Issued” Wireless Bill
  3. SB.378 (Gonzalez): the “Cheap Micro-Trenching & No Public Access to Fiber” Bill

The three bills were written for the wireless industry with the help of what appears to be ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council — and simply handed to CA’s State Legislators.

As we will discuss, AT&T et al. created the Digital Divide and they now want to remove the remaining regulations and obligations, and, of course, increase their profits rather than serve its customers with high-speed broadband and internet and compete for customers, which would lead to lower monthly bills.

At the same time, Congress and various state and federal agencies are gearing up to give these companies government subsidies, rewarding them even though they left a trail of broken broadband promises.

Link to: The Rise and Fall of Fiber Optic Broadband in San Diego, a city which had a ‘landmark’ agreement to have the entire region upgraded, starting in 1997, and completed, even in ‘unserved areas’, by 2010. San Diego, unfortunately, has nothing to show for this agreement. AT&T never delivered and was never held accountable.

We estimate that there has been $1.7-$2.4 billion annually in potential overcharges to AT&T-California’s Local Service — the copper, switched Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS). This money should have been spent to upgrade that copper to the fiber optics to the premises (FTTP) — all the way to every home and business.

Four years ago,we wrote about SB.649, an earlier Wireless Telecom bill designed to eliminate the rights of cities, but also used to justify not upgrading the existing state’s wireline telecommunications infrastructure. Fortunately, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed that bill, 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 our article from 2017, we focused on those who pushed these bills through the CA Legislature:

Caption: On the left, Senator Ben Hueso, (Chairman of the Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications) & AT&T present a $45,000 Grant to Urban Corps of San Diego County, his district. On the right, the principal coauthor of AB 537, Assembly Member Quirk getting a ½ million dollar check for a project in his area from AT&T.

The bills, draped in the language of public good — and purporting to bridge the Digital Divide, appears to have been a ruse. We previously wrote:

“California Wireless Legislation: Paid for by AT&T Et Al. 05/15/2017, Huffington Post.

“There is a proposed piece of legislation in California for the deployment of lots of so-called 4G/5G “small” wireless facilities — a streamlining plan being pushed in other states, the US Congress and at the FCC. And, wouldn’t you know it; those who benefit the most from these state and federal gifts are AT&T et al., the companies who are also funding and engineering these campaigns. In fact, these state bills appear to be based on ‘model legislation’ that was created by the Wireless Infrastructure Association, WIA and by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. “

The Wireless Industry has Never been a Friend of California Cities

During your time as Mayor of San Francisco, you were involved in a lawsuit that was initiated by the CTIA, the wireless trade association, (with one of the lawyers having been the now-FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr). And in this case, the CTIA claimed that their First Amendment rights had been violated.

At the time, as Mayor of San Francisco, you wrote:

“I am surprised that industry representatives would choose to spend untold sums of money to fight this in the courts, instead of cooperatively working with San Francisco to comply with a reasonable law that provides greater transparency and information without putting any undue burdens on small businesses or discourage cell phone use in any way.”

Does the Governor now believe that these companies are going to act in California’s best interest or more importantly, that cities should lose their rights to determine the future of the locality’s technology?

These three 2021 Telecom (SB.556, AB.537 and SB.378) are just SB.649 all over again, but split across three bills to attempt to outrun strong opposition to these bills. The bills are attempting to exploit the current problem Digital Divide — a problem created by the Telecoms on purpose. It took a pandemic to stir up public outrage over the lack of competition for high-speed broadband service and the Telecom companies’ decisions to allow whole areas of the state to deteriorate, especially rural areas and low income urban areas.

The Densified 4G/5G Agenda Has Been an Industry Embarrassment.

Densified 4G/5G requires a fiber optic wire to connect each so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTF) to the Internet. The new wireless service has not performed as advertised. Actual, current 5G speeds (25-30 Mbps down, 5-6 Mbps up) can’t compete with a fiber optics to the premises (FTTP), which has symmetric service (1,000 Mbps down, 1,000 Mbps).

Through institutional amnesia, it seems no one knows that AT&T California (sometimes called “Pac Bell”) is still a State Public Telecom Utility (SPTU), that was supposed to have completed state upgrades from copper to fiber optics. Customers paid billions from increased rates on their phone bills to make this happen — but AT&T didn’t deliver. The holding company just pocketed the increased revenues.

img
img
img
img

In 1993, Pacific Bell stated it would replace the existing copper wires for fiber optic services, and by the year 2000 they would spend $16 billion and have 5.5 million households upgraded. This page, from the 1994 Investor Fact Book, lays out the areas that were supposed to be upgraded.

Click for a history of failed fiber optic broadband deployments by AT&T-Pac Bell, (through 2006).

And they used the fiber optic promise to do a bait-and-switch to get rid of regulations and get more profits with “price caps”. Pac Bell started this upgrade process in 1989 with the claim that another technology delivered over copper, ISDN, was needed. (ISDN came to be known as “It Still Does Nothing”.)

When SBC merged with Pac Bell in 1996, it closed almost everything that was being built, didn’t spend the $16 billion and was never held accountable.

Move up a decade, and AT&T announces U-Verse, which the company claimed would be fiber to the home. It was used by former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, (now chairman of the NCTA, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association) to kill off competitors; it would harm investment if the networks were ‘open’ to competition and had to be rented to competitors.

Instead, California got yet another ALEC based bill, known as DIVCA, the Digital Infrastructure and Cable Competition Act, that had claimed it would bring in fiber optic competition and choice. –

Verizon’s statement is particularly poignant, especially since it never upgraded the infrastructure in their territory but instead sold off their California properties to Frontier.

“Gov. Schwarzenegger’s signing of the Digital Infrastructure and Cable Competition Act is a huge victory for California’s consumers. Under this law, California sets a new standard for accelerating cable-TV competition, and customers can expect new choices, greater value and improved service in terms of video providers.

“This landmark legislation unlocks the vast potential of Verizon’s all-fiber network and enables us to more rapidly offer a new alternative to cable — FiOS TV — in dozens of communities where we have already built our 100-percent fiber-optic network. The new law also provides the certainty for Verizon to commit hundreds of millions of dollars in additional investment to accelerate fiber deployment in California, creating hundreds of new jobs and stimulating our state’s economy.”

AT&T, on the other hand, pulled a bait-and- switch, having told the public and FCC that they were rolling out fiber optic services, only to find that they were just using the existing copper wires to deliver U-verse and instead were illegally subsidizing their other lines of business with the construction funds intended for the fiber upgrade.

The Failure of AT&T to Deliver on Fiber Optic Broadband after 30 Years

It appears AT&T took tens of billions of dollars that should have been going to upgrade the State and moved it to their wireless networks or business services, or even sent the money overseas. The map on the left is AT&T’s ‘wire center’ areas currently and on the right is the fiber optic deployment as told by Broadbandnow.

So, after 30 years, most of California is still based on copper wires, and whole areas of AT&T’s territories were never properly upgraded — causing the Digital Divide.

The FCC’s Streamline Deployment of Densified 4G/5G Agenda Drenched with ALEC-influence

This wireless legislation has been propagandizing America with disinformation for years. A veto of these bills would go a long way to starting on the road to finally solve the Digital Divide.

The FCC’s current Densified 4G/5G plans have been based on a modified ALEC bill that was presented by FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, with the help of AT&T Indiana, ALEC, and some Indiana politicians with ties to the industry.

We previously detailed the story:

“FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr went to Indianapolis, Indiana on September 4th, 2018 to announce the FCC’s new proposed 5G wireless regulations that are directly tied to “model legislation” most likely created by “ALEC”, the American Legislative Exchange Council. On the floor of the Indiana Senate statehouse, he was joined by the Hoosier politicians, (most, if not all, appear to be getting money from AT&T el al.).”

Ironically, AT&T Indiana, as well as Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin all had fiber optic plans in the 1990s and all claimed they would be serving rural areas.

As WTHR stated: (September 5, 2018)

“Commissioner Brandon Carr complimented Indiana lawmakers for changing laws that allow wireless providers to bring Indianapolis mobile speed data that’s 100 times faster than 4G.

“That makes Indianapolis, not New York, not San Francisco…that makes Indianapolis number one in the country for most intensive 5G investment.”

But, those were just more empty promises. One reason to not sign this corporate gift bills would be to returning local control to localities who have already passed local ordinances to manage the installation of wired and wireless broadband in ways that best fit their communities. That would be far better than allowing AT&T, and their minions, including ALEC, to take control of America and California’s future.

The second reason is — GET THE MONEY BACK — and use it for what it was intended to for — bring a fiber optic future to California — already paid for, over and over . . . instead of some vague, imaginary wireless future.

AT&T admitted to investors that they were using the wireline — read utility budgets for wireless build outs at a Wells Fargo investment meeting on June 21, 2016. Bill Smith stated:

img
img

Now imagine halting these illegal cross-subsidies and using them to wire the entire state with fiber optics, as well as lower prices — all helping to finally stop the Digital Divide.

California’s State of Emergency Can’t Be Indefinite

By Children’s Health Defense Team, Aug 12, 2021 | Original The Defender article here.

That’s Why We’re Suing Gov. Newsom . . .

Attorney Scott Street and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. discuss a lawsuit filed in the California Supreme Court by Children’s Health Defense asking for an immediate end to Gov. Newsom’s state of emergency.

Scott Street, attorney for the Orange County Board of Education, told Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on the “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast” that California’s state of emergency, issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom in March 2020, is being used to alter the way the government functions in California.

Orange County Board of Education and CHD on Tuesday filed a petition for writ of mandate in the California Supreme Court — the highest court in California — asking the court to declare an immediate end to the governor’s declared state of emergency.

Street said:

“The biggest problem we’ve seen in California,” “is the state of emergency has been used to disrupt and change the way government functions here in California.”

Link to ​Whistleblowers Welcome!
Help Humanity – Securely Share COVID-19 Corruption.

Street said:

“18 months is enough. A state of emergency, by definition, cannot be indefinite.”

“The government is supposed to work through a normal process. The legislature makes a law. The executive branch executes and administers the law. In some cases, administrative agencies like the state department of public health can issue orders, rules and regulations, but they’re supposed to follow a normal process, transparent in the open with an opportunity for public debates.”

“That hasn’t been happening because the governor has said during the emergency we shouldn’t have to do that. So those are the fundamental issues of governance that are at stake, and that we’re asking the supreme court to restore to the people of the state of California.”

Kennedy said

“when you delegate your rulemaking power to a regulatory agency,” the U.S. Constitution says that agency cannot enforce the regulation without taking steps to ensure citizens are part of the regulatory process.

This process prevents it from becoming a ‘dictator situation’ where laws and regulations are passed that are “arbitrary and capricious. You need due process.”

“I think we have a really good chance of winning this case and forcing a change to these emergency declarations, not only in California, but hopefully across the country.”

Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez Announces Breast Cancer Diagnosis

By Krisitina Davis, Aug 7, 2021 | Original San Diego Union-Tribune article here.

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez speaks at a news conference in San Diego on August 29, 2019. She announced Saturday that she has been diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer.

The Cancer Was Caught in Its Early Stages but Will Still Require Aggressive Treatment, According to Her Husband, County Supervisor Nathan Fletcher

State Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez announced on social media Saturday that she has been diagnosed with breast cancer. She broke the news in her characteristic plucky tone, with the tweet: “Breast Cancer: just another hater trying to kill my vibe. Not. Going. To. Happen.”

In a series of tweets, her husband, County Supervisor Chair Nathan Fletcher, said the cancer is early-stage — Stage 0 — but it is also “aggressive and hormone positive.” The stage of cancer typically refers to the size of the tumor of abnormal cells and if those cells have spread beyond the point of origin, according to the National Breast Cancer Foundation.

Fletcher wrote:

”…Given her family history, she will have to have aggressive treatment. Her Mom developed breast cancer at age 44 and died at age 62,”
“That family history and experiences makes this ordeal more difficult but it also has driven her to rigorous screenings, this early detection and the aggressive treatment ahead. She has no symptoms, feels great and plans to fulfill all her obligations to her constituents.”

Gonzalez, 49, was a labor leader and organizer before being elected in 2013. She represents District 80, which includes Chula Vista, National City and southern San Diego neighborhoods such as Otay Mesa, Barrio Logan and City Heights.

She and Fletcher live in City Heights and are raising a blended family of five children. She has risen to become a prominent progressive figure, known for her outspoken, dynamic style of politics.

Fletcher wrote:

“My wife is the strongest and most fearless person I have ever met. And that strength will guide her through the difficult days ahead,”

She is being treated by Sharp Healthcare and has spent the last few weeks “going through biopsy, MRI’s and meetings with doctors and experts to assess the situation and begin the work to design a treatment plan,” he said.

Gonzalez joins the estimated quarter-million American women who have or will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year, he added. “My wife now joins their collective spirit of resilience to fight to this horrific disease and will soon proudly join the ranks of breast cancer survivors.”

He said his wife urges support for regular mammograms and the continued drive for universal healthcare “so that every person can access quality affordable healthcare.” Gonzalez is surrounded by a strong support system, he said, and he encouraged people to send their best wishes and prayers her way.

“She is our Wonder Woman and certainly knows how to fight.”

The announcement was met with a flood of supportive messages.

“Cancer will learn that it’s messed with the wrong person,” San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria tweeted.

Tweets from Nathan Fletcher | @nathanfletcher

Aug 7

My wife is the strongest and most fearless person I have ever met. And that strength will guide her through the difficult days ahead. We wanted to share the news that she was recently diagnosed with breast cancer.
·

Aug 7

We have spent the last few weeks going through biopsy, MRI’s and meetings with doctors and experts to assess the situation and begin the work to design a treatment plan. But she will get through this.

Aug 7

The cancer is early (stage 0) and she a great medical team (thank you @sharphealthcare
), loving family and tremendously supportive friends.

Aug 7

But it is also aggressive and hormone positive…and given her family history, she will have to have aggressive treatment. Her Mom developed breast cancer at age 44 and died at age 62.

Aug 7

That family history and experiences makes this ordeal more difficult but it also has driven her to rigorous screenings, this early detection and the aggressive treatment ahead. She has no symptoms, feels great and plans to fulfill all her obligations to her constituents.

Aug 7

More than a quarter of a million American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer each year. My wife now joins their collective spirit of resilience to fight to this horrific disease and will soon proudly join the ranks of breast cancer survivors.

Recall Money Wars

What do Newsom’s million-dollar donors want?

By Ben Christopher, July 29, 2021 | Original CalMatters article here.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is receiving millions from key backers to fight off the recall effort.
Gov. Gavin Newsom is receiving millions from key backers to fight off the recall effort.

Summary

A new CalMatters analysis shows which of the governor’s big financial backers are coming to his rescue in his hour of need for the California recall election. They include the unions for teachers and prison guards.

Gov. Gavin Newsom may be fighting for his political life amid a

  1. fourth wave of COVID,
  2. a drought , another horrific fire season without modern precedent,
  3. a spiking murder rate and
  4. an increasingly credible-seeming-recall.

But At Least Newsom Has Allies

— a lot of really rich political allies.

At last count, the main committee tasked with defending the governor against the Sept. 14 recall has raised some $39 million. Another allied committee and Newsom’s own 2022 campaign account, which state law allows him to draw upon this year, add another $4 million to that war chest. That’s more than double all other cash raised by the committees campaigning for his ouster and the 46 candidates hoping to replace him, combined.

It also represents the generosity — or perhaps the strategic expenditure — of a broad coalition of some unlikely allies. They include

  • California’s largest teachers union and its most vocal charter school advocates;
  • nurses and the hospitals they sometimes clash with;
  • Realtors, developers, building trades unions and corporate landlords who have differing views on the housing crisis;
  • defense contractors at Lockheed Martin;
  • abortion rights advocates; new car dealers; and
  • the financier-turned-liberal-megadonor George Soros.

All have found common cause in keeping Newsom in his job.

A new CalMatters analysis of the donors to the main anti-recall committee found that organized labor threw Newsom the largest financial lifeline — roughly 45% of the total, including $1.8 million from the teachers union and $1.75 million from the prison guards this week.

2021 NEWSOM RECALL GUIDE

Companies and individuals hailing from the state’s business community coughed up another 36% of the $39 million. The remainder came from an assortment of ideological interest groups, tribal governments, the California Democratic Party and small-dollar contributors. (CalMatters’ recall money tracker now shows where donations from a wide range of industries are going.)

Flourish logoA Flourish hierarchy chart

If political contributions are a vote of confidence, the votes of the well-heeled, powerful and influential are overwhelmingly in the incumbent governor’s camp.

Newsom’s current haul isn’t quite the $58 million that he raised during the 2018 race. And it’s dwarfed by recent corporate-backed ballot measure fights that have hit the 9-digit mark.

But if donations were votes, Newsom would defeat the recall in a landslide. The political reality could be far different: A new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll found pro- and anti-recall sentiment in a virtual dead heat among likely voters. That could provide Newsom’s allies with fresh incentive to pony up — and his campaign more reason to solicit money for the campaign ahead, especially to increase awareness and enthusiasm among Democrats.

The governor’s campaign seems to be taking the threat seriously. In a TV spot that hit the state’s airwaves Wednesday night, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a progressive icon, implored the electorate to vote no “to protect California and our democracy.”

“This is a relatively painless way to strengthen your relationship with an incumbent governor.”

DAN SCHNUR, FORMER CHAIRPERSON OF CALIFORNIA’S FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION

Neither a boatload of money nor a crowded roster of well-financed supporters, however, is a sure recipe of electoral success. Last year, a campaign to repeal state restrictions on affirmative action outraised the opposition nearly 17-to-1, while racking up endorsements from every corner of California power and influence. It failed by 14 percentage points.

But there’s another, even more important reason for many to give, said Dan Schnur, former chairperson of California’s Fair Political Practices Commission and a past strategist for Republican politicians: “This is a relatively painless way to strengthen your relationship with an incumbent governor.”

California campaign finance regulations cap the amount of money that gubernatorial candidates can raise at $32,400 per person — a limit that covers the challengers seeking to replace Newsom. But no such limits apply to committees raising money for a general cause — like the one defending Newsom against the recall. That difference is allowing individuals and groups to write million-dollar checks to help the governor.

Flourish logoA Flourish chart

Organized Labor to the Rescue

Just as the news of the surprisingly grim Berkeley poll was percolating through the California political universe, two more public employee unions — both political forces in their own right and conspicuously absent from the governor’s campaign finance filings — announced this week that they were opening up their coffers.

First, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association threw in $1.75 million. Then came the California Teachers Association with $1.8 million.

Just days after the check from the teachers landed in Newsom’s campaign account, he gave the closing keynote speech today at the union’s summer digital meeting. He applauded the union’s hard-fought legislative accomplishments, which, incidentally, served as a reminder to the teachers that the governor had helped secure them.

Though the teachers were the largest funder of Newsom’s 2018 campaign, that relationship got complicated last spring as Newsom and the union sparred first over when teachers would get vaccines, then how quickly schools should reopen.

But now, Newsom “is facing opponents who are funded by a network that wants to dismantle public education. The choice is stark and clear,” union president E. Toby Boyd said in a statement Wednesday.

Many of the top Republicans vying to take Newsom’s place in the governor’s office support bolstering charter schools, allowing families to spend publicly-funded vouchers on private education and making it easier to fire teachers deemed to be underperforming.

Newsom “is facing opponents who are funded by a network that wants to dismantle public education. The choice is stark and clear.”

E. TOBY BOYD, PRESIDENT OF THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, WHICH GAVE $1.8 MILLION

The teachers and correctional officers join a financial field fighting the Newsom recall that is crowded with other organized labor groups, including other public employees, construction workers, nurses and other health care workers and food pickers and processors.

Service Employees International Union California, one of the state’s most influential organized labor groups, has kicked in $5.5 million through its various locals. The largest single contribution came from Local 2015, which represents nursing home employees and other long-term care workers.

Local president April Verrett declined an interview request, but emphasized in a statement that the union’s support is more than just financial: “We plan to mobilize our predominantly Black, brown, and immigrant caregivers, who have been on the front lines of this pandemic, to make their voices heard as we go door to door, over the phone and online encouraging a vote against the recall.

For many labor groups, supporting Newsom in his time of need is an investment in the future. One of the governor’s longstanding health policy goals is to implement what he has called a “master plan on aging” to beef up the state’s patchwork system of elder care. The idea is still in blueprint form, but the promised overhaul would require a massive increase in state funding for health care and long-term care programs.

For other unions, supporting Newsom now looks a bit more like a thank you card. Prison guards, for example, aren’t reliable Democratic allies. But earlier this year, they scored a major pay hike from the governor and lawmakers over the objections of the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office.

And the alternatives to Newsom on the recall ballot? For most labor groups, there are few appealing options: When he was mayor of San Diego, Kevin Faulconer made overhauling the pension system for former city employees a top priority. John Cox has repeatedly railed against the political influence of prison guards. And conservative radio show host Larry Elder opposes the minimum wage.

Familiar Financiers

But unions make up less than a majority of the contributors to the Newsom cause. The rest of the list is full of regular large donors to California political campaigns, including special interests and more than a few billionaires.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings — a notable charter school advocate who supported Antonio Villaraigosa over Newsom in the first half of the 2018 campaign — gave the governor’s committee its largest single contribution of $3 million.

Other titans of Silicon Valley have lined up to back Newsom. In a public letter published in March, Laurene Powell Jobs, founder of the Emerson Collective and widow of Apple’s Steve Jobs; prominent Bay Area angel investor Ron Conway; and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt were among executives and venture capitalists to close ranks behind the governor. Since then donors from the tech sector have given nearly $1.4 million.

Another $1 million came from George Marcus, a Bay Area real estate mogul with a history of backing moderate Democrats and opposing rent control measures. More than $500,000 was donated by hedge fund heir Liz Simons, who in recent years has contributed millions to criminal reform justice efforts and progressive prosecutors, including Attorney General Rob Bonta.

And whatever Newsom’s conservative critics might say about his anti-business policies, there are plenty of proud capitalists on his roster of defenders. That includes typical big spenders such as the California Realtors, dentists and the building industry.

Unlike other sectors, which have largely consolidated in one camp or the other, developers are divided. While individual real estate titans including GOP mega donor Geoffrey Palmer support the recall, the California Building Industry Association, which lobbies in the state Capitol, is backing the governor.

Association President Dan Dunmoyer, who served as cabinet secretary to Arnold Schwarzenegger after he became governor in the 2003 recall, said that on policy, the governor has said many of the right things. Even if he hasn’t been able to deliver on those lofty goals, Dunmoyer said he wants to give the governor another year to “prove himself” before the next regularly scheduled election in 2022.

He said his group’s support for Newsom is also partly about timing. When so much is uncertain in California, a little stability might do developers good, he said.Removing a governor, he said, is “just not really logical, especially in the middle of a pandemic, fire, housing, homeless crisis.”

Petitioners Brief Filed in CHD v FCC Lawsuit

Adapted from an article by CHD 5G and Wireless Harms Project Team | Original The Defender article here.

Read the Petitioners Brief Filed in CHD v FCC Lawsuit

On June 23, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed its petitoners brief in its lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) re: FCC Order 21-10, the Over the Air Reception Device (OTARD) rule amendment — a rule change that allows Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) Base Station Antennas to be installed on homes and homeowner association property. This rule can be used by fixed wireless information service provider companies to contract with private property owners to place point-to-point antennas on their property.

CHD is opposing the OTARD rule amendment, which allows fixed wireless companies to contract with private property owners, including homeowners, to place point-to-point antennas on their property.

CHD is opposing the OTARD rule amendment, which allows fixed wireless companies to contract with private property owners, including homeowners, to place point-to-point antennas on their property.

The rule amendment preempts federal and state civil rights laws that protect the disabled and their rights for accommodation and allows for non-consensual exposure of wireless radiation to be forced on people in their homes who can be severely harmed by it, and for whom it may even be fatal. Because giving notice is not required, those who are already sick from wireless radiation will likely learn about the installation of an antenna on a neighboring property by becoming sick. They may even experience life-threatening symptoms. For these people, their home is their only refuge, but the rule amendment renders even their own homes unsafe and inaccessible to them, and removes all their rights to be accommodated.

Continue reading “Petitioners Brief Filed in CHD v FCC Lawsuit”

US Supreme Court Won’t Review FCC Order 18-133, the so-called “Small” Cell Order

Adapted from an article by Kelcee Griffis, Jun 28, 2021, Original Law360 article here

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court shot down a bid by municipalities that sought to challenge a Federal Communications Commission order meant to streamline the deployment of densifed 4G/5G so-called “small” cells.

The case is City of Portland, Oregon, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission et al., case number 20-1354, in the Supreme Court of the United States. In a one-line order, the high court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by dozens of local governments in March. As is customary, the court did not explain its reasoning.

Continue reading “US Supreme Court Won’t Review FCC Order 18-133, the so-called “Small” Cell Order”

Why 5G is Failing

Adapted from an article by Adriano Giaquinta, June 28, 2021 | Original Speedcheck article here.

A fresh perspective on 5G in the US sheds light on how regulatory decisions, geo-political tensions, and suboptimal network configurations, contributed to a disappointing year in 2020.

Real-World Results: 5G Wireless Cannot Close the Digital Divide

Note: All of the Wireless speeds discussed below are far below the speeds needed to close the Digital Divide. Americans need symmetric broadband at 100 Mbps Up/100 Mpbs down The best way to achieve 100 Mbps symmetric service is via wired broadband directly to homes — Fiber direct, Fiber/coaxial or Fiber/Fast DSL copper.The U.S. Government agrees!

Dept. of Treasury: Interim Final Rule (p.71) for Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds

“Under the Interim Final Rule, eligible projects are expected to be designed to deliver, upon project completion, service that reliably meets or exceeds symmetrical upload and download speeds of 100 Mbps. . . . In setting these standards, Treasury identified speeds necessary to ensure that broadband infrastructure is sufficient to enable users to generally meet household needs, including the ability to support the simultaneous use of work, education, and health applications, and also sufficiently robust to meet increasing household demands for bandwidth.”

2020 was supposed to be the year in which 5G revolutionized the telecommunications industry, with breakneck speeds and super-low latencies. Everyone – from chip manufacturers to cellular carriers and smartphone brands – promised how amazing 5G would be. That didn’t materialize. The real-world results of 5G, to date, have been underwhelming — not much better than 4G, which can already achieve 50 Mbps.

In 2020, 5G speeds in the US did not come anywhere close to the promised download speeds, where available (just 2x . . . NOT 25x faster than 4G!, as advertised). Data collected from October 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 by our speed test, which measures the quality of Internet connections on millions of devices yearly, shows that 5G networks in the US did not deliver.

States and Localities Are Being Bamboozled, Once Again, with the Wireless Industry’s, Over-Promise, Under-Deliver Bait-and-Switch Schemes

Well-respected technology journalists, Jon Brodkin of Ars Technica and Karl Bode of Tech Dirt have already documented in 2020 that for both Verizon and AT&T, their 5G has been slower than 4G!. These real-world results have caused the companies to make two strategic changes:

  1. Verizon and AT&T have pretty much abandoned widespread roll out of millimeter wave 5G — the frequency that allegedly needed have antennas placed on utility poles, light poles and traffic light poles, despite the 2018 admission by Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam that millimeter wave 5G transmits 2,000–3,000 feet and beyond (see video, below)
  2. Both Verizon and AT&T invested $Billions in the Jan 2021 CBRS mid-band spectrum (3,550–3,650 MHz) auction — a frequency that can be deployed on existing macro towers — meaning that 3,550–3,650 MHz 5G DOES NOT NEED to have antennas placed on utility poles, light poles and traffic light poles.

Continue reading “Why 5G is Failing”

NTIA’s New Broadband Map

By Doug Dawson, June 22, 2021 | Original POTS and Pans article here.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration surprised the broadband industry by issuing a new broadband map for the whole U.S. The map differs in dramatic ways from the FCC’s broadband map, which is derived from broadband speeds that are reported by the ISPs in the country. It’s commonly understood that the FCC broadband map overstates broadband coverage significantly. The NTIA map draws upon varied sources in an attempt to create a more accurate picture of the availability of broadband.

The NTIA map was created by overlaying layers from various data sources over Google Maps. This includes speed test data from both Ookla and M-Lab. The map shows the results from Microsoft measurements of speeds experienced during software updates. There are two layers of data from the American Community Survey showing homes that report having no Internet access at home and also homes that have no computer, smartphone, or tablet.

Continue reading “NTIA’s New Broadband Map”

Protect Your Communities!

Oppose CA Bills SB.556, AB.537 & SB.378 NOW!

California residents should take immediate action today to stop CA Bills SB.556, AB.537 and SB.378. These three state bills will destroy local control over Wireless infrastructure, including constructing tens of thousands of so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (“WTFs”) in residential zones throughout California.

AB.537, along with SB.556 and SB.378, collectively, are similar to a disastrous Telecom bill from 2017, SB.649, that was opposed by over 300 California cities and nearly all counties and consumer protection groups. SB.649, fortunately, was vetoed by then Gov. Jerry Brown on 10-15-17, writing:

“I believe that the interest which localities have in managing their own rights-of-way requires a more balanced solution than the one achieved in this bill.”

Continue reading “Protect Your Communities!”

Treasury Makes It Easier to Fund Broadband

By Doug Dawson, June 21, 2021 | Original POTS & Pans article here

img

On June 17, the US Treasury Department clarified the rules for using federal ARPA broadband money that is being given to states, counties, cities, and smaller political subdivisions. The new FAQs make it a lot clearer that local government can use the funds to serve businesses and households that are considered as served – meaning they receive broadband speeds over 25/3 Mbps.

My first reading of the rules came to the same conclusion, but these clarifications hopefully make this clear for everybody. There was language in the original Treasury Interim rules that might have scared off city and county attorneys from using the funding for broadband.

The Following is some of the clarifying language from the revised FAQs:

  • FAQ 6.8 adds the clarifying language that unserved or underserved households or businesses do not need to be the only ones in the service area funded by the project. This is a massively helpful clarification that discloses Treasury’s intent for the funds. The response to this FAQ could have previously been interpreted to mean that the money could only be used to bring broadband to places that have less than 25/3 Mbps.
  • FAQ 6.9 further makes this same point, that while the goal of a broadband project must be to provide service to unserved or underserved areas, a sensible solution might require serving a larger area to be economical – and again, unserved and underserved locations need not be the only places funded by the ARPA funding.
  • FAQ 6.11 looks at the original use of the term ‘reliably’ when defining the broadband provided to homes and businesses. The Treasury response makes it clear that advertised speeds don’t define broadband speeds, but rather the actual broadband performance experienced by customers.

Continue reading “Treasury Makes It Easier to Fund Broadband”