The Telecommunications Act of 1996

History

In 1996, President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act (the Telecom Act) into law. The Wireless Industry helped craft this Act.

The Problem

Section 704 of the TCA states that the citing of towers cannot be regulated “on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emission…” so long as FCC limits are met.  Case law in some (but not all) US Circuit Courts  then interpreted this section to mean “health concerns” cannot be used in the citing of a cell tower.

What This Means For Us

If the corporation believes that your city officials took health into account when denying them a permit, then they state this means your city can be sued because of the Telecom Act. However the fact is that 1. Legal experts state this interpretation is an overreach of the statue and 2. Not all Circut Courts have come to this conclusion and 3. Clear scientifically documented health effects are the same as a health “concern.” So please be clear when you raise this issue that you are not “concerned” but you are sharing scientific facts as published in peer reviwed studies that adverse effects are found at legally allowed levels. 

Q: What Can We Do?

A: Get Informed on the Telecom Act and Showcase How Section 704 Fails the American People.

Whitney North Seymour Jr. who served as US Attorney for New York, past new York Senator, co-founder of Natural Resource Defense Council drafted an amendment to the Telecommunications Act, section 704 several years ago. Read his published article Dollars, lobbying, and secrecy: how campaign contributions and lobbying affect public policy in Reviews of Environmental Health.

We can talk to our elected officials about how this Act ignored our health. It showcases the power of industry.

Read more:

“Lobbying, and secrecy: how campaign contributions and lobbying affect public policy” Whitney North Seymour, Jr.* and Gabriel North Seymour Dollars,

 2013 Richmond Journal of Law & Technology “No Implied Effect: The ‘Safe’ FCC Cell Phone Radiation Standard and Tort Immunity by Implied Conflict Preemption” FULL PDF

• “The TCA was not intended to preempt state health and safety objectives and courts should not read it to say as much, thereby removing all remedies from those adversely affected by cell phones radiation.254 Broad readings of the preemptive effects of the TCA ignore the explicit language to the contrary in the statute and by the FCC itself, regardless of their changed position in recent amicus briefs”
• “Allowing cell phone suits to proceed to the merits will not impact the “uniformity” of the national wireless network because as demonstrated, SAR levels already vary widely within the maximum.  In fact, allowing such suits to proceed could act as a complement to the FCC because a successful suit could demonstrate that enough evidence has been mounted to warrant a reexamination of the SAR standard in light of nonthermal effects (if that time has not already come).  While the link between cell phones and health problems is still not definitive, the risk of future harm to hundreds of millions of people dwarfs the minimal addition of precaution. When the stakes are so high, we should not accept “inconclusive” as definitive proof that cell phones are safe.”

Supreme Court Denied  the 2000 Petition for a writ of certiorari. Read CITIZENS FOR THE APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES V. FCC – OPPOSITION

Lessons from 1996 Telecommunications Act: Deregulation Before Meaningful Competition Spells Disaster. Consumers Union. 2000.

Democracy in Peril: Twenty Years of Media Consolidation Under the Telecommunications Act.

1997 Telecommunications Act of 1996: 704 of the Act and Protections Afforded the Telecommunications Provider in the Facilities Sitting Context