Here is a great article from August in the WSJ explaining why cities are fighting 5G;
But since then, the FCC has rolled out its 5G Fast plan requiring cities and states to approve new 5G antennas within 60 or 90 days. It also limits what government leaders can charge carriers for the real estate on which the new infrastructure will hang—be it a utility pole, streetlight or even building facade.
This was one of many arguments I had against 5G. Local government entities should have the right to charge a reasonable amount. The telecoms are going to make billions from the technology. Why shouldn’t the taxpayers who own the poles get a piece of that pie?
City leaders say their power to zone and regulate infrastructure is being abridged. More than 90 cities and counties have joined together in a lawsuit, currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the FCC has overstepped its authority. A decision could happen as early as in the spring, but it could also take much longer.
Here was another concern. How can we allow a private industry to tell us where and how they are going to install their technology. Heck, in Sioux Falls, you even have to have a permit to ‘place’ a tool shed in your yard. And the telecoms will be spending millions to fight this – they could possibly drag this out so long that we will have 10G by the time it gets resolved.
This sort of thing could happen in other cities, despite FCC rules that say permits are automatically approved after 60 or 90 days, says Mr. Liccardo. “There are lots of ways for local bureaucracies to make it difficult even when the federal government says they must,†he adds.
Blair Levin, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former chief of staff for FCC chairman Reed Hundt, said, “What the wireless guys are asking is for cities to treat them totally different than every other entity asking for construction permits. I think it will backfire because, in the fullness of time, instead of a cooperative relationship you’ll get a hostile relationship.â€
I don’t think we will have a ‘hostile relationship’ because I think most people want this – even though most don’t even know how it works. My issue is with how this got approved and the overreach of the Federal Government. But what is even sadder is that those who are supposed to be representing us, the Mayor, City attorney’s office and City Council rolled over like old dogs, and the mayor was out cheerleading the effort while his head was up Ironic Johnny Thune-Bag’s ass. I wonder if there was any room for the pom-poms?
1. Conflict of interest abounds on the FCC – almost all on it are from the Telecoms/Wireless Industry, so it’s massive.
2. Precautionary principle re not allowing something to go to market before it’s proven to be safe for consumers totally abandoned here. 27,000+ NON-industry scientific studies shows wireless radiation causes biological – harms health all the way from headaches to nose bleeds to neurological/brain damage, cancer & death.
3. Watch for ppl to start getting headaches, migraines, brain fog, ringing in the ears, nose bleeds, balance problems & worse in the downtown area when the actual 5G starts broadcasting. Sure glad I don’t work or live in that area & don’t wish that bombardment on anyone. However, if the Mayor and councilors started feeling those effects, perhaps they would act to end 5G.
I dont know one single person who wants this 5g. The fact that it is being pushed on us as fast as it has been without addressing any citizens concerns on the heatlth & privacy issues alone should be enough for people to wonder why the Mayor is so much for this. Whats in it for HIM?
If any of that “health” bullshit were true, people would have been drooping like flies 30 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency
When you use ridiculous arguments, you make everyone with legitimate concerns look ridiculous.
The FCC is attempting to change it’s oversight with other communication entities… There was very little oversight with pole attachments before the 5G push.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency
The cellular providers have been in the pocket of our lawmakers for some time now. Att and Verizon pushed for no tax on the internet several years ago. The city has already seen a huge decline in franchise broadband tax revenue.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/02/11/congress-makes-internet-access-tax-ban-permanent/#58101d054965
I have been on the fence about health effects, I’m not a scientist so I cannot tell you. What I do not like is that the telecoms are threatening our local governments with lawsuits if we don’t give in. That is what the SF City Council was told when setting the rates. I told a couple of them at the time ‘so what?’ Let them sue.
And to think that a Republican administration is allowing all this to happen…. #WhateverHappenToLocalControl?
( – and Woodstock adds: “Yah, the GOP only likes ‘local control,’ when it’s the easiest way to control”….)
The reason internet is not taxed as telecommunications is that it has been determined to be an information service and not a telecommunications service. Congress has specified telecommunications taxes not information service taxes. The distinction between telecom and information services dates to the breakup of the Bell System in the early 80’s. If taxes were allowed on information services they would have to be paid on the value of each Google lookup, etc. The problem for most municipalities is that taxing information services causes political problems they don’t want to deal with. For example should Fox News be taxed higher than CNN because it provides more real information whereas CNN is not an information service but a fantasy channel? Or the inverse? Should users internet queries be monitored so the government can put a value on the information retrieved? Is Google more valuable than Bing?
The short answer to this is:
The issue is complicated.
5G is going to happen, and it needs to happen. The sooner it happens, the better.
First and foremost, Internet service in the US is at best subpar. I say this as an IT professional working for a multinational company – Our Internet is, comparatively, pretty bad. By the latest numbers I’ve seen we are around 20th best in the world, with tech powerhouses like Estonia ahead of us.
Getting a higher speed internet connection connected to a wireless backbone IS significantly cheaper and more effective than running fiber to ever house. It requires a lot less infrastructure and maintenance. It also will break the stranglehold that current wired internet providers have. Where I live in Sioux Falls, if I want anything resembling a high speed connection, I am stuck with Midco. A good 5G provider with a reliable connection I would at least have a choice. Because of how the Cell Industry is regulated, we have significantly smaller risk of there being regional fiefdoms like we see today with cable and internet providers.
This isn’t to say that there are not valid arguments against 5G. FCC over-reach is defiantly one of them. Our city government being…well…our city government being another.
But the more people focus on ‘Bad’ arguments, the easier it is to ignore the good arguments.
As LJL pointed out earlier, there is no real health risk – the these are low frequency radio-waves. There is, by definition, more energy in the photons generated by the lightbulb in your bathroom than there is in 5G signals. (If someone wants, I can do the math for you). These are not high energy photons (like UV or Gamma Rays) that can ionize your DNA.
We have been being bathed in this radiation for decades (this is the frequency bands we seen things like Airport Radar, and we see every time we go through Sioux City and their speed cameras take our pictures). These are known and measured. Dangers from 5G are significantly higher from a badly installed booster dropping on your head as you walk underneath it than they are from the EM signals.
“What?”….”There’s something radiant about Sioux City?”…”And I don’t care what you say”…..”Until ‘They’ get cancer, too, I won’t be happy”….. 🙁