Please note the addition of Power Ratio to the Maximum Effective Radiated Power calculations & our latest finds re: FCC guidelines for cellular antenna sites
You need to discover the number of channels being transmitted by each antenna because the FCC is stating that in urban areas, there should be no more than 5-10 Watts ERP per channel.
One great place to hunt down, carrier-specific downlink frequencies/bands is here –> https://ourtownourchoice.org/signal/
The following was an additional refinement from Prof. Trevor Marshall, PhD (https://ourtownourchoice.org/fcc)
- Please note the addition of Power Ratio to the Maximum Effective Radiated Power Calculations, using this calculator –> http://www.mogami.com/e/cad/db.html
- From https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#power
See also this page –> https://ourtownourchoice.org/fcc-guidelines-for-cellular-antenna-sites/
. . . and read below what we are pushing for in Petaluma https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#latest
. . and in Sonoma –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sonoma
- City of Sonoma City Council Meeting, Oct 19, 2020
- General Public Comment –> https://youtu.be/A5_HHn6Ih_o?t=5m30s
- Active FCC Complaint Against 3 sWTF Applications –> https://youtu.be/A5_HHn6Ih_o?t=24m53s
Link to Spec Sheet for Commscope NHH-45B-R2B Antenna x 16 Qty.
|Frequency||Ant. Gain||Power Ratio||Max Power × Power Ratio||Watts ERP x Qty||Watts ERP|
|696-806||16.8||47.9||300 × 47.9 =||14,370 × 16 =||229,920|
|806-896||17.5||56.2||300 × 56.2 =||16,860 × 16 =||269,760|
|1695-1880||19.3||85.1||300 × 85.1 =||25,530 × 16 =||408,480|
|1850-1990||19.9||97.7||300 × 97.7 =||29,310 × 16 =||468,960|
|1920-2200||20.3||107.2||300 × 107.2 =||32,16 × 16 =||514,560|
|2300-2360||20.8||120.2||250 × 120.2 =||30,050 × 16 =||480,800|
|Total Max ERP Output Capability||148,280 × 16 =||2,372,480 Watts ERP|
|With 3dB override . . .||296,560 x 16 =||4,744,960|
“Attorney Gary Widman, a former law professor and, General Counsel for the Council on Environmental Quality staffer under presidents Nixon, Ford and Carter in Washington DC and I spoke to the FCC yesterday and confirmed that the following in the 1934/1996 Telecommunications Act, applies to every Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF).”
47 U.S. Code § 324 – Use of minimum power
In all circumstances, except in case of radio communications or signals relating to vessels in distress, all radio stations, including those owned and operated by the United States, shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, § 324, 48 Stat. 1091.)
Oct 19, 2020 40-minute call with the FCC Wireless Telecommunications, Competition & Infrastructure Policy Division
- Garnet Hanly, Division Chief
- Susannah Larson, Associate Chief
- Erica Rosenberg, Deputy Chief
- Paul D’Ari, Senior Legal Counsel
ADA Rights for those with Electromagnetic Sensitivities
This page is one of three legs of the stool that establishes local control over the operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs);
Attorney Mark Pollock
Attorney Andrew Campanelli
Attorney Harry Lehmann.
Suggested Change to Your City Ordinance:
CTC Technology can be neutral, if you constrain them to make statements only about compliance with the FCC RF-EMR Maximum public exposure guideline and Wireless signal strength levels (as measured in dBm).
The bottom line is that “Capacity” is not in the 1996 Telecommunications act. There is no preemption for capacity, only for telecommunications service (i.e. coverage for wireless telephone calls — this is why —>https://scientists4wiredtech.com/mozilla-v-fcc/ listen to the argument by attorney Steven C. Wu, which carried the day in the DC Circuit ruling ).
See Appendix A for key quotes from that ruling:
“We vacate the portion of the 2018 Order that expressly preempts “any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with [its] deregulatory approach.” 2018 Order ¶ 194; see id. ¶¶ 194–204 (“Preemption Directive”). The Commission ignored binding precedent by failing to ground its sweeping Preemption Directive — which goes far beyond conflict preemption — in a lawful source of statutory authority. That failure is fatal. The Order was meant to have independent and far-reaching preemptive effect from the moment it issued. Id.; see also 2018 Order ¶¶ 195–197. And the Commission meant for that preemptive effect to wipe out a broader array of state and local laws than traditional conflict preemption principles would allow. Oral Arg. Tr. 171 (Q: “It’s broader than ordinary conflict preemption?” A: “That’s correct.”). The Governmental Petitioners challenge the Preemption Directive on the ground that it exceeds the Commission’s statutory authority. They are right.
. . . That Title II provision has no work to do here because the 2018 Order took broadband out of Title II. So the Commission is not “forbear[ing] from applying any provision” of the Act to a Title-II technology. 47 U.S.C. § 160(e). On top of that, Section 160(e) — as a part of Title I — does not itself delegate any preemption authority to the Commission. People of State of Cal., 905 F.2d at 1240 n.35.”
. . . By expressly requiring that [tele]communications services under Title II be regulated as common carriers, the Federal Communications Act grants the Commission broad authority over services classified under Title II, unlike those classified under Title I. See 47 U.S.C. § 153(51); Brand X, 545 U.S. at 976; Verizon, 740 F.3d at 630; Comcast, 600 F.3d at 645. Which is also why the Act carves out more space for federal objectives to displace those of the States in the Title II context. See 47 U.S.C. § 253(a), (d) (expressly authorizing the Commission to preempt state or local regulations that “may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service”).
. . . That statutory authority is the fatal gap in the Commission’s argument here. Not only is the Commission lacking in its own statutory authority to preempt, but its effort to kick the States out of intrastate broadband regulation also overlooks the Communications Act’s vision of dual federal-state authority and cooperation in this area specifically.
. . . Congress does not generally hide elephants in mouseholes, and we think it utterly improbable that [Congress intended to authorize the EPA’s interpretation] by creating a list of several hundred toxic chemicals.”) (internal citation omitted). The mousehole, in short, cannot be the wellspring of preemption authority that the Commission needs. Doubly so here, where the Supreme Court has specifically held that the Commission’s desire to “best effectuate a federal policy” must take a back seat to Section 152(b)’s assignment of regulatory authority to the States. Louisiana PSC, 476 U.S. at 374.”
The wireless industry has some “capacity” ruling in some lower court out there, but nothing that has been decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals or the US Supreme Court, so, therefore, that ruling does not apply to the City of Petaluma[or YOUR City]. This is why–> https://mystreetmychoice.com/press.html#courts
This is all you need to know about capacity –> https://www.unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery/#capacity
An overloaded term is one that has more than one meaning.
Capacity (noun) : has at least two distinct definitions
- the maximum amount or number that can be contained or accommodated
- the facility or power to produce, perform, or deploy
Telecommunications is the practice of transmitting Title II-regulated phone calls by wire or by spraying it wirelessly, using electromagnetic power through the air.
Broadband is the practice of transmitting Title I-unregulated data by wire or by spraying it wirelessly, using electromagnetic power through the air . . . (see more at the link)
The City of Malibu is moving on from Telecom Law Firm due to the obvious conflicts-of-interest and less-than-stellar advice purveyed by the Telecom Law firm, as evidenced here:
- Aug 24, 2020 W. Scott McCullough Memorandum to the City of Malibu → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/mccollough-memo/
- Sept 29, 2020 Susan Foster letter to the City of Malibu, CA → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2020/10/letter-to-malibu-city-council/
- . . . which led to this on Oct 29, 2020 Request for Proposals for Wireless Communication Facilities Application Review Services → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2020/10/letter-to-malibu-city-council/ andhttps://www.malibucity.org/bids.aspx?bidID=159
- Jan 14, 2020 Appeal of similarly-sized Verizon WTF in Thousand Oaks → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/thousandoaks/
The actual entity that you “believe” is the applicant is very relevant and foundational to this application — the City can and should force the actual applicant(s) to list right on the application their board of directors and the assets of their firms to determine if the entity has assets sufficient to self-insure against claims for injury, illness and death from pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR).
You see, the Verizon operates via franchises to keep the law suits from piercing the corporate veil of Big Verizon — which is the only entity with assets sufficient enough to cover the self-insurance for such claims. Most entities in the labyrinth of agents, franchises and franchisees are intentionally small and designed to go bankrupt whenever a claim is made.
This is why . . . please listen to attorney Mark Pollock:
Finally . . . please listen to Attorney Harry Lehmann at https://scientists4wiredtech.com/thousandoaks/
- Please read Lehmann’s seminal letter that I credit for moving Votes in the CA Senate against SB.649 the vetoed ALEC-written State Streamline Small Cell Deployment bill (the CA Senate votes moved from 32-1 the first time through to 22-18 the second time — we almost won in the Senate — but we got the veto on Oct 15, 2017 . . . I spoke to Gov Brown on Oct 14, 2017 in Santa Rosa)
- Letter from https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2017/10/gov-brown-be-smart-veto-sb649/#lehmann
The wireless industry has designed the chessboard, writes and rewrites the rules at will, lies to everyone when they say “this is federal law” and then hides the very probative evidence you need to process these applications properly using ridiculous excuses like “this is proprietary information”.
Just think back to the 2008 financial crisis caused by the massive investments in the overly-complex mortgage-backed derivative securities. How could so many “seemingly-smart” investors get so fooled? This was well-explained in Michael Lewis’ book/film “The Big Short“.
This fraud happened (and many suffered) because all of the “expert” bond-ratings agencies — Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings, Moody’s, and Fitch Ratings — firms that were simply paid by the Investment Banks to gave AAA-ratings to these toxic derivatives. The AAA ratings were given to securities they actually did not understand!
Who are the equivalent of the Standard & Poor’s Global Ratings, Moody’s, and Fitch Ratings in 2020 on the Petaluma Creamery WTF application? That would be Hammett & Edison, CTC Technology and Telecom Law Firm. This is plain for all to see. Verizon is acting as the Investment Banker here . . . follow the money . . . who is paying the costs for Hammett & Edison, CTC Technology and Telecom Law Firm? Verizon.
Come on, folks. Let’s not fall victim to this scheme. Big Wireless wants to keep City staffs, Planning Commissioners and City Council members in the dark, so they can achieve maximum advantage in order to increase their revenues and profits. There are very good, recent court cases that are slapping the industry for practicing such deception and fraud.
Look no further than this 2020 Ruling in Cambridge, MA –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2020/09/densified-4g-5g-swtf-proliferation-takes-a-hit-in-cambridge-ma/
The entire process is based on fraud. The current Petaluma Creamery WTF has oodles of errors and omissions in the application — on purpose — because Verizon is attempting to game the system and break many federal laws (1996-TCA, ADA, FHAA, NEPA) in order to achieve this unnecessary densified 4G/5G roll out. Please, don’t let them do it!
Please, instead, encourage the City to stand its ground and simply say NO by making the strongest findings, just as Marin County did a few weeks ago –> https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2020/10/marin-county-supervisors-reject-cell-tower-on-san-rafael-church-grounds/
Thank you to PMG & SC!