The Telecoms Con: Bills to Bridge ‘Digital Divide’ Come at High Cost
By Lendri Purcell and Doug Wood
One day soon you may wake up to find a small cell antenna just outside your bedroom window. That’s because two new bills that will take away community rights on new cell tower placement are currently flying through our State legislature. Senate Bill 556 and Assembly Bill 537, written by and for Big Telecom, promise to bridge the “digital divide” and usher in a new age of wireless technology. But what they actually do is enshrine telecom profits and operational preferences into California law, shift billions in costs and liability from corporations to taxpayers, eviscerate local control over technology and place all that decision-making power in the hands of the telecoms themselves. This is not progress for Californians. This is a con.
SB 556 and AB 537 facilitate a statewide 5G roll-out that will require a dense network of powerful antennas placed close to where people live, learn, work and play. These antennas emit radio-frequency radiation 24/7, exposing everyone in the vicinity whether they use the service or not. Public opposition to this massive deployment of new antennas has been growing across the nation, fueled by new government studies proving biological harm from exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation – the kind of radiation emitted by these antennas. (NTP 2018) (Falcioni 2018)
The recent $25 million study by the National Institutes of Health provides conclusive evidence that causes cancer, serious non-cancer conditions, DNA damage and Microwave sickness (now a recognized medical condition in the U.S.). Current regulations to protect public health and safety are inadequate and outdated and are being challenged in federal courts; small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with chronic illnesses, microwave sickness, or compromised immune systems are particularly vulnerable.
In addition to growing health concerns, issues of privacy, security, property values and public safety are being raised, and as a result, towns and cities across California have been busy revising their municipal codes to control how this wireless technology infrastructure will be integrated into their communities. A particular concern is the increased risk of fire.
More wireless deployments increase our fire risk on the brink of what may be another historic fire season. The 2007 Malibu Canyon Fire destroying over 900,000 acres and hundreds of other fires around the country have been linked to wireless infrastructure. These are electrical fires and cannot be fought through conventional means; delays in turning off power could cause additional fatalities and property damage.
This legislative power grab by Big Telecom is being sold to policymakers as a solution for the “digital divide,” but these bills fail to sufficiently address the problem. Our rural communities are not likely to benefit from 5G because it requires densification that’s not economically feasible where homes are spread too far apart. Low income communities could be saddled with higher internet costs for years, because there is no regulation of price in any of these bills.
And the list of problems with increased wireless infrastructure goes on.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) reported that wireless infrastructure consumes three times as much energy as wired technologies. A massive build-out of 5G will significantly increase demand for power, resulting in greater greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. According to a survey conducted by the National Institute for Law and Public Policy, 94 of home buyers and renters say they are less interested in, and would pay less for, a property located near a cell tower or small cell antenna.
The real purpose of these bills is not to help Californians. It’s to help telecoms compete with cable companies by selling wireless video subscriptions that deliver television without having to invest the money in laying cable to the home. The industry will reap billions by charging consumers to watch movies, play online games and surf the web and by mining and marketing consumer data from those activities.
The fastest, cheapest, most reliable and most secure solution for individuals and communities is “community-owned” wired broadband, or fiber-optic cable delivered directly to the home (inside the consumer has the choice to use wired or wireless). Cable is already in place in most urban and suburban areas. This solution could save consumers millions and generate much needed income streams for our financially strapped cities and counties. Besides, American telephone customers have already paid for a national, fiber-optic network through additional fees on their monthly bills, but instead of using the funds to build that network, the telecoms diverted the money to build out and subsidize their more profitable wireless networks.
Big telecom is impatient to reap big profits from their wireless business. They’re tired of public opposition, exasperated by local control, dismissive of health and safety concerns, and apparently willing to trample the rights of individuals and communities to get what they want. Will the legislators in Sacramento cave in and join the stampede, or will they stand up for their constituents and demand answers before they hand over control of our lives to big telecom. The answer will depend on what they hear from us. Go to https://www.
+++
Doug Wood is the founder and director of Americans for Responsible Technology, a non-profit national coalition of more than 150 organizations in 42 states. An experienced communications professional, Mr. Wood has worked on many successful campaigns to reduce toxins in our environment, including the recent landmark legislation to ban chemical pesticides in all New York City Parks.
Lendri Purcell is the Vice President of Jonas Philanthropies, where she runs their children’s environmental health program, and the Founder and President of FACTS- Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety. FACTS is a one-stop clearinghouse for evidence-based information and expert resources in children’s environmental health.
