All other arguments seem to pale against that urgent need--unless you can get into a real conversation with the aide, and explain the fallacy of that position. Of course we agree that all under-served communities need to have high-speed internet. However corded internet connections (such as Ethernet, DSL and cable) are just as fast or faster, and they don't have the downsides of EMF pollution and extreme fire risks. Point out that there's nothing in the bill that requires telecoms to actually serve under-served communities.
The much-touted promise of 5G to provide faster connections and download speeds has not held up in practice, according to investigators from PC Mag, who did test of 5G vs. 4G speeds. 5G also does not work in very hot weather. You can explain that by removing local control, the bill also removes the ability of the local government to negotiate with telecoms to provide access for everyone.
Instead of trying to manipulate, or bombard with robo-calls, the person you're trying to convince, what if you just tried to educate them? As I previously noted, humanity right now is facing unprecedented threats. Rather than this piece of proposed legislation providing a solution, you can tell them how this bill will increase possible environmental and public health disasters a hundredfold.
What is the point of giving everyone in California internet access (not that we're saying these bills WILL do that)--if at the same time you are putting in thousands of extremely fire-prone installations throughout neighborhoods? To put it another way, what good is it for a family to have fast home internet, if they no longer have a home?
These fires can be caused by overloading utility poles, frequent use of smart meters (which are a documented fire hazard) on the small cells, lack of built-in fire safety features, lack of state-required fire safety inspections and reports, and the temporary or permanent use of backup generators containing fire-prone substances, such as diesel fuel or lithium batteries.
Thousands and thousands of these terribly risky installations will be put in right next to people's homes, or kids' schools, or facilities for the elderly, so there will be no time for people to escape in a disaster. You can see a lot of this the documented evidence of 5G fire dangers in my article here. Click Here
On April 19. 2021, fire safety consultant Susan Dana Foster was the first opposition witness regarding SB 556, a 5G bill to greatly reduce the involvement of local governments in the 5G rollout, in a hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Communications. She was providing refutation to the testimony of the Verizon representative. She explained that firefighters cannot put out electrical fires, such as would occur at a 4G/5G small cell, because putting water on those fires would cause electrocution.
All they can do is wet the ground next to the fire in short bursts. They have to wait for the power to be shut off, which for various reasons that she explained, could take from ten minutes to up to two hours. She also describes how the telecoms have been successful in evading the usual government electrical codes at the federal, state, and county level.
During that hands-off period for firefighters, that could last up to two hours, strong winds could spread the original electrical fire much, much further. In a state like California, where massive wildfires are already causing immense destruction to life and property, these provisions seem like a recipe for unimaginable disaster.
When I've expressed dismay at the amount of misinformation I've been seeing circulated by anti 5G activists, and asked where that information originated from?, I've been told "everyone says so." BEWARE "everyone says" as a source of information.
One thing I would strongly urge when trying to find out accurate info about a bill, is to read the official analysis and summary of the bill you are going to be speaking or writing to legislators about. (If you have time, read the bill itself). These official analyses are a gold mine of information, and sometimes sound like they could have been written by a fellow activist. It doesn't matter if you don't understand everything the analysis is talking about.
You need to familiarize yourself with the lingo. The term "deemed approved" is one you will see over and over again in these bills. It means if the city is unable to respond to a telecom application within a very short time period (called a shotclock), then their application is automatically accepted without the need for city approval.
Another important term is collocations. This refers to the telecoms' ability to keep adding more and more antennas,which they would prefer to do without local government oversight. You can find all the information you need about each bill, including what committee it's headed to, here. info.legislature.ca.gov/
Another good site to know about is the California Legislature Position Letter Portal, which allows you to send a letter to the entire committee where the bill is headed, by just going through their easy registration steps. It's also helpful to send a copy to your representatives in the Assembly and Senate.
In a few committees, the letters sent through the official portal do not reach the individual committee members, which is why it is good to also send it to them individually. You might even consider using snail mail if you are unable to reach individual legislators through their email. (That is actually suggested by the Senate Appropriations Committee if you want to reach their committee members.)
Sometimes when calling their office you may be told that the legislator only wants to hear from district constituents. You can tell them that as a resident of California, you are a constituent, since their decisions on this committee will affect everyone in the state.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
