SB-556 will likely be heard on Thursday April 22 in the CA Senate Governance and Finance Committee.

This bill removes all local government decision-making in your neighborhood and gives it directly to the Telecom corporations. Don’t let Telecom decide where and how many antennas are on poles in your neighborhood. Preserve Local Control over 4G/5G Wireless Infrastructure. Stop this all-encompassing Telecom power-grab.

Please call all the Governance and Finance Committee members below, especially Durazo and Nielson to urge them to oppose SB556, to preserve local control over 4G/5G wireless infrastructure in CA.

Senator Mike McGuire (916) 651-4002

Senator Jim Nielsen (916) 651-4004

Senator Maria Elana Durazo (916) 651-4024

Senator Robert Hertzberg (916) 651-4018

Senator Scott Weiner (916) 651-4001

Best strategy is to target Nielsen and Durazo with the below arguments otherwise they will likely vote yes on SB-556. 

Call them. Ask to speak with them and ask for email addresses for Legislative Directors and Chiefs of Staff. Then email and call them too.

Nielsen: senator.nielsen@sen.ca.gov, Chico, Roseville, Yuba City, Capitol office: (916) 651-4004, (530) 879-7424, (530) 751-8657

Key: fire hazard and doesn’t close digital divide for rural communities.

SB-556 is a clever play in a chess game by one of the most powerful, richest corporations on the planet to push maintenance costs and liability onto local taxpayers to increase their profits. Do you think the most rural parts of your jurisdiction will benefit with increased Internet access — or that Verizon will invest as they see fit for their “bottom line”?” Wireless is an energy hog. It uses 37% more energy than wired, and wired is more secure, faster and cheaper. Also, there is no price regulation of wireless service and SB-556 will not give more people access, rather it will give Verizon a relative monopoly and allow them to charge more, capture and sell more data, and reduce their operating costs — hugely boosting their profit margin.

Cell antennas and equipment are fire hazards – cause of Malibu Canyon (Verizon) and being investigated for Woolsey fire. The FCC does not regulate electric or radiation power levels, nor do the cities. This is unmitigated risk.

Cities are currently over-burdened with cell tower applications, substantially because the applications are incomplete, incorrect, or revised mid-process. When Verizon moves to its next clever step of dumping hundreds of applications on any given city, they will be overwhelmed and critical maintenance and liability risk management issues will increasingly fall through the cracks. The local taxpayers are who will pay the price in public safety, property loss and financial burden — all with no/minimal reduction in digital divide — while Verizon’s stock value and executive compensation will increase.

Durazo: senator.durazo@sen.ca.gov, Los Angeles, Legislative Aide: fernando.ramirez@sen.ca.gov, Capitol Office: (916) 651-4024, (213) 483-9300

Key: will not close digital divide, false sales pitch to benefit Verizon at cost to people.

SB-556 will not give more people access, rather it will give Verizon a relative monopoly and allow them to charge more, capture and sell more data, and reduce their operating costs — hugely boosting their profit margin. SB-556 offers nothing to bring more people online — nothing! Also, there is no price regulation of wireless service, so costs will continue to increase, actually increasing the digital divide.

Wireless is an energy hog, it uses 37% more energy than wired, and wired is more secure, faster and cheaper. 

Cell antennas and equipment are fire hazards – cause of Malibu Canyon (Verizon) and being investigated for Woolsey fire. The FCC does not regulate electric or radiation power levels, nor do the cities. This is unmitigated risk. 

SB-556 is bad policy for municipalities. Cities are currently over-burdened with cell tower applications, substantially because the applications are incomplete, incorrect, or revised mid-process. When Verizon moves to its next clever step of dumping hundreds of applications on any given city, they will be overwhelmed and critical maintenance and liability risk management issues will increasingly fall through the cracks. The local taxpayers are who will pay the price in public safety, property loss and financial burden — all with no/minimal reduction in digital divide — while Verizon’s stock value and executive compensation will increase.

Talking Points:

State your name and organization (if you represent one). State where you live. State “I strongly oppose SB 556.” or “I urge _______ to oppose SB 556” Cell Towers Are Fire Hazards Don’t Transfer Electric Infrastructure Cost and Liability to Municipalities Don’t Sell Public Safety Out to Corporate Telecom Carriers Consider adding you agree with the opposition letter from the League of California Cities SB 556 gives control over small cell antenna numbers and locations to Telecom Carriers. Currently, our local governments have some control over those decisions. Overloaded poles and poorly planned placement of antennas will cause fires. More antennas will not improve voice or video communication. Only Fiber To and Through the Premises will improve voice and video. Local governments currently make this decision and should continue to do so. Close with urging them to vote NO on SB-556. Finish quickly with: “Please oppose SB.556.”

For more information go to:

https://5gfreecalifornia.org/

https://wirecalifornia.org/action/

Here’s How to Submit an Opposition Letter online via Legislative “Position Letter” Portal. https://calegislation.lc.ca.gov/Advocates/

Opposition Letter Template to Governance and Finance Committee: Feel free to edit and personalize it.

Submit your letter through the portal before April 22, 2021

The Honorable Mike McGuire
Chair, Governance and Finance Committee
State Capitol Building, Room 408
Sacramento, CA 95814

Cc: Committee Consultant Mr. Anton Favorini-Csorba
Governance and Finance Committee
State Capitol Building, Room 408
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: SB-556 (Dodd) Street Light Poles, Traffic Signal Poles, Utility Poles, and SupportStructures –OPPOSED (As Amended 03/16/21)

Dear Chair McGuire and Members of the Senate Standing Committee on Governance and Finance:

Talking Points for Letters:

Thank you for your careful consideration of who is best to make decisions about where Wireless Antennas are located. I am writing on behalf of ORGANIZATION NAME, or yourself which strongly opposes SB-556 and asks for your help to whatever extent possible, to help oppose AB-537.

This bill effectively eliminates local control over the placement, construction and modification of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs), particularly in the public rights-of-way, the management of which has been and should remain a municipal affair, not a statewide concern, and should not be decided by private Telecom Carriers.

California is entering another drought year. The California Department of Water Resources has marked 2021 as the third-driest year on record for our State, potentially setting us up for a 5th and even more severe deadly wildfire season.

California has suffered devastating fire losses due to telecom equipment. SB-556 aims to construct small cells even closer to homes and businesses, yet no wireless carrier or their agents can get liability insurance for claims of injury, death or illness. Over a decade, Lloyd’s of London and other insurers have instituted Pollution Exclusions for RF-EMR/EMF exposures. Wireless telecommunication facilities are uninsurable. Fires have cost California Billions of dollars and individuals billions as well (not to mention displacement and suffering and death).

Wireless Telecom Facilities (aka antennas) are known fire-hazards, and decisions about where they should be placed are very important. State PUC law leaves local governments responsible for damage caused by attachments to their poles, not Telecom carriers, and not the state government. Localities are the only authorities who should be charged with making these safety decisions. In addition, local elected representatives know the residents and neighborhoods in their cities/counties. They know the neighborhood aesthetics and safety concerns.

SB 556 is unnecessary because countless local governments have already negotiated contracts in good faith with wireless companies to allow use of locally owned poles in the public streets on what the industry views as reasonable terms, and local governments already comply with the 2018 FCC Small Cell Order. Many cities in California have created special zones protecting parks, daycare centers, homes, schools, and fire stations, with setbacks for cell antenna towers in the public rights-of-ways. Each local government surveys its own neighborhood characteristics, its risks, and unique local conditions including: its own local fire codes, its unique topography, its existing fiber optic infrastructure and its needed wired fiber optic infrastructure, and the integrity of structures in HIGH winds.

Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of any size or any “G” (generation) are known fire hazards. Lack of FCC attention to local concerns, complaints and damages (including traffic and fire) has allowed Telecom companies to self-regulate. SB 556 will further remove local control, and safety will be jeopardized. Rewiring poles for additional, sometimes multiple carriers’ antennas requires electrical engineering skills, and telecom carriers are not required to follow electrical code.

This is very expensive and the local government will have to bear initial expenses (until cost can be established for billing back the carriers). Imagine being stopped at a stoplight trying to evacuate from a fire and having the wind blow down the antennas above you. Many Californians have a diagnosis of post fire trauma — the very smell of smoke increases anxiety. Now they (or I) will have to worry about antennas as well.

5G equipment will block disability access in our Public Rights of Way and in affected public buildings, which is morally and legally unacceptable and will prompt lawsuits. SB-556 violates the ADA, American Disability Act.

In addition to these very serious objections, it is documented that the 5G antenna roll out will lower property values and harm nearby businesses, (US Association of Realtors research). This will lower the local government tax base.

Alternatively, installation of wired broadband connections will be FASTER, with better video and audio, more private, more secure, more reliable, and safer than wireless. It will not be as affected in stormy weather, wind and firestorms.

SB-649 did not become law, though many busy legislators voted for it without knowing that it was written by industry lobbyists with ALEC (the corporate-beholden American Legislative Exchange Council.) SB 556 is sponsored by wireless carriers. In the words of Jerry Brown’s veto letter for SB-556’s predecessor, (2017’s SB-649)”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.”

Increased density of antennas (more and closer) will not improve reception — that requires wiring into the premises and USB cables to your devices. 5G (fifth generation technology) is for total surveillance via the “internet of things” — it is NOT for improving video or voice communication. 5G reception is interfered with by hills, trees, and weather.

California needs to take effective steps to close the Digital Divide. However, SB-556, is not technology-neutral, it only serves to increase the profits of the Wireless carriers without closing the Digital Divide.

Regulating the internet as a public utility: Wired FTTP Broadband installed with deep underground conduit (prevents fires). Local governments can distribute internet resources and can generate revenue.

Once again, the best solution for California is wired broadband, Fiber Optic to and through the premises (FTTP) and municipal utilities.

Please vote down this bad bill and, instead, encourage the option of municipal wired broadband. We agree with the League of California Cities in asserting that the state must not further limit local control.

Thank you for serving your constituents and working to protect us, to oppose SB-556, AB-537 and SB-378.

Respectfully,

NAME
ADDRESS