Calls needed to Governor ASAP! And Federal Action needed NOW.
Phone outreach to our Governor is needed right away!
Ask for a VETO of AB 965 and AB 1065.
PLEASE CALL TODAY. It will take you less than 30 seconds. He could sign these today or sometime next week!
We need to ask Governor Newsom for a VETO on AB 965 and AB 1065. These bills will allow telecom a virtually unrestricted build-out of cell towers throughout towns, next to schools, homes, and places of work and worship.
We have stopped similar bills at the Governor’s desk by asking him for a Veto. It has worked before and we can do it again.
CALL Governor Newsom’s office:
Simply state your name, where you live, and your request for Governor Newsom to Veto AB 965 and AB 1065.
– You can say you’re with a group OR you can call just for yourself.
– If needed, additional info and talking points can be found below.
Call Now: (916) 445-2841
Press 1 for English, then 6 to speak to a representative.
You can leave your message with a live person.
If you get a recording, you can leave a message:
State your name (and group affiliation if needed), town where you live, and say you are requesting Governor Newsom Veto AB 965 and AB 1065.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY OUR LAST CHANCE TO KEEP THESE SEVERELY HARMFUL TELECOM MEASURES FROM BECOMING CALIFORNIA LAW.
PLEASE MAKE THIS CALL.
These bills would fast-track 5G and 4G cell sites near homes and schools in California.
Please know: The norm is after California passes legislation, it gets rolled out to other states. So please forward this to all your contacts to spread the word to California residents.
In Washington – Say NO to HR 4141 and other BAD Telecom bills.
TAKE THIS ACTION – it takes less than 60 seconds to complete.
We have to fight for the environment with a strong message to our Federal Legislators that HR 4141 would jeopardize an already fragile environment. Please send an urgent message through this Children’s Health Defense Action Alert to your elected representative now!
Stand Up Against the Wireless Takeover – Oppose H.R. 4141
Your message will go directly to your elected representatives in Washington DC.
Remember, they count every single phone call, every single email & it does make a difference.
OR you can call your Federal Congressperson:
If you do not know who you Congressperson is, click here.
Then use this link to find their direct Washington phone number.
Suggested phone statement: “I oppose HR 4141, please vote NO.”
“Also, please vote NO on HR 3557, HR 3293, HR 1338 and all the 80+ Wireless Telecommunication Industry sponsored bills that are moving through congress.”
“These bills benefit their Industry at the expense of the citizens you represent and the lands we call home. Do not use more taxpayer dollars to benefit the telecom industry, they make plenty of billions of dollars already.”
HR 4141 would make it even more difficult to fight cell towers on environmental grounds. Right now a pro bono case using the Endangered Species Act to protect endangered flora and fauna is moving along. But, this case has taken over a year, with thousands of man/woman hours and over 1000 pages submitted in science and legal briefs. This is in an attempt to stop one single cell tower, and we still don’t know if we will be victorious in the end. But we knew we had to try. This gives you an idea how difficult this fight already is. Yet HR 4141 would allow an override of critical environmental bills and allow dozens of cell towers in batches to go in with a single permit.
Reasons to Oppose Federal HR-4141 and other bills
HR 4141: Eliminates requirements for environmental and historical preservation reviews. This bill would make it even more difficult to fight cell towers on environmental grounds.
What better place to put up new cell towers and antennas than in our national parks and wilderness areas?
HR 3293 calls for the establishment of a “strike force” to ensure quick approvals of applications, development of online portals to speed up application processing, and removal of “barriers” to rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure on all federal lands.
We strongly oppose any bills that use taxpayer dollars to make it easier for telecoms to place their ugly, dangerous, fire-prone antennas in our national parks and monuments, historic sites, and wilderness areas.
Another set of bills (HR 1338 and others) makes it easier for wireless companies to launch thousands of additional telecom satellites in space. No one seems troubled by the fact that this violates international treaties, or that the FCC admits it lacks any legal basis to authorize space satellites, or that a chain of collisions could lead to massive catastrophic incidents or worse.
Reasons to Oppose California AB-965 and AB-1065
Please see this informational video with Scott McCullough, Julian Gresser, Brenda Martinez, Bill Allayaud, and Doug Wood:
Americans for Responsible Technology
AB-965: (Carrillo) Local Government: Broadband Permit Applications
Allows wireless companies to intentionally dump dozens of antenna applications on local governments at once, forcing fast approvals of permits, jeopardizing public safety.
AB-1065: (Patterson) Communications: California Advanced Services Fund
This bill is a government hand-out to the unregulated and highly profitable wireless industry. It will perpetuate the digital divide by taking money designated for superior wired fiber optic broadband (per NTIA and CPUC) and allowing it to be used for inferior wireless.
Americans for Responsible Technology has factsheets here:
Factsheet on AB-965
Factsheet on AB-1065
These bills will cause:
- Huge increases in electricity draw to power all the new cell towers and antennas.
- Increased fire risk.
- Lowered property values.
- AB 965 allows WIRELESS companies to submit large “batches” of up to 50 complex wireless antenna applications at a time, requiring local agencies to process and approve them according to the established FCC “shot clocks” (short deadlines). Applications will automatically be deemed approved if not acted upon within the prescribed time-frame.
- AB 965 does not consider the diverse needs inherent within local communities throughout California. It will hinder local government’s efforts to protect the public health and safety by forcing local officials to rush through review of multiple submissions.
- Typical antenna applications are large files with complicated engineering drawings, electric diagrams, traffic flow analyses, insurance certificates, and other documents that may be required by local authorities. They may be similar from one to another, but each one needs to be considered carefully for its compliance with codes, including local fire codes, and its impact on the community, the environment, and any historical sites.
- AB-965 will take away public notification and hearings. The community will be cut out from the decision-making process!
- AB 965 is unnecessary. The FCC has already established shot clocks, and local governments have already been working collaboratively with the industry and have improved processes while maintaining important local safeguards.
- AB 965 will quickly drive more wireless 5G, which will mean more small-cell antennas close to people’s homes, whether they subscribe or not.
- AB 965 is promoted as a solution to the digital divide. The truth is, wireless broadband, especially the basic services offered to low-income families, is notoriously slow, unreliable, and unable to meet the demands of present and future digital communications.
AB-1065 allows telecom corporations to use taxpayer funding for wireless networks instead of wired fiber-optic networks to provide communities with high-speed broadband access. It’s a sneaky bill — two little sentences inserted into existing law that will unnecessarily result in more antennas in more communities.
This bill would legalize criminal “cross-subsidies” by large telecom corporations after the fact. For over 20 years, telecoms have been stealing funds collected from taxpayers that were intended to provide high-quality wired broadband services to everyone, including underserved communities. Telecoms instead used the funds to build out their wireless networks (wireless is cheaper to install than fiber), and now they want their past mis-use of taxpayer funds legalized, instead of building out the superior fiber-optic wired broadband networks we already paid for.
In New York State, the people won a lawsuit over this issue, and forensic accountants were deployed to determine the dollar amount to claw back from the telecom corporations.
See http://IRREGULATORS.org/ for more information.
Since 2000, every California landline customer paid a fee added on to their phone bill to finance the build-out of fiber-optic networks TO THE PREMISES (FTTP). The large telecoms stole these funds to use as “cross-subsidies” to instead fund the build-out of their wireless networks. Why? Because wireless is UNREGULATED, and they can charge as much as they can get people to pay, while wired fiber-optic networks would be REGULATED as utilities, and telecoms would be required to provide service to everyone at a reasonable price (i.e., no digital divide). It’s all about the money.
AB-1065 is nothing more than a huge give-away to telecom corporations at the expense of the people, who will be provided INFERIOR wireless broadband, even though we already paid for superior fiber-optic broadband.
- AB 1065 will provide funding for the increasingly massive roll-out of wireless installations and take it away from the much safer, more reliable, and energy-efficient option of WIRED internet connections.
- AB 1065 will allow WIRELESS companies to apply for FFA (Federal Funding Account) grants, money that’s intended for last-mile infrastructure.
- Wireless will set our state back in terms of climate change management because wireless uses a huge amount of energy compared to WIRED fiber networks.
- Wireless facilities placed in neighborhoods are shown to have a negative impact on property values.
- Wireless facilities increase the risk of fires.
- Wireless facilities impact the growing percentage of the population with disabilities related to electro-magnetic radio-frequency radiation (EMR) exposure.
- Fiber to the Premises (to each home) offers greater capacity, more reliable performance, lower maintenance costs, and a longer technological lifetime than wireless technologies. Fiber service is not degraded by line-of-sight issues and is not affected by capacity issues. Bottom line: Wired fiber is much faster and more reliable than wireless!
- CPUC regulators have determined that WIRED connections are technologically superior to wireless and will provide much better access for the unserved and underserved communities.
- “The Federal Funding Account (FFA), established by the CPUC according to Senate Bill 156, will fund last-mile broadband infrastructure projects to connect unserved and underserved Californians with high-speed broadband service. The Federal Funding Account has a $2 billion budget made up of state and federal funds.” https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/internet-and-phone/broadband-implementation-for-california/last-mile-federal-funding-account
For details on the advantages of fiber-optic wired networks, see:
No time for public hearings.
No time for ample consideration of safety factors.
The community will be cut out from the decision-making process!
The flyer below is a .jpg file. You can right-click to save a copy to attach to email messages you send out to friends and family, or download to print out and share.
We will soon post an updated version of the flyer with new calls to action.
We have been working for many years to stop the roll-out of 5G towers across Los Angeles County, California, and beyond.
Fiber First LA Is Taking legal Action To Protect the Citizens of LA County
“On January 20th, [Fiber First LA] gave notice to the LA County Board of Supervisors of [their] intent to challenge their recent decision to approve new changes to the LA County Code that violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), eliminate citizen input regarding the deployment of new wireless antennas in their neighborhoods, and lack sufficient fire and safety protections that other California municipalities are putting in their codes.
“This is not a step Fiber First LA took lightly. We (Fiber First LA and our allied organizations) have tried for months to engage the Los Angeles County Planning Department in meaningful and positive dialogue, but our requests to meet have been refused. Instead, the Planning Department engaged directly with the wireless industry, and accommodated their requests for changes in the code that ignore environmental impacts, increase the risk of fire, and take away citizen rights.”
Please Donate If You Are Able
For legal fees – 501(c)3 – Yes, tax-deductible:
Results of the January 10, 2023 LA County Board of Supervisors Vote on Changes to Titles 16 and 22
Despite overwhelming opposition from local citizens and support from across the country, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on January 10th, 2023 to approve changes to their County Code (Titles 16 and 22), which will remove important safety protections for wireless deployment in LA County. These changes cover small cell towers, macro towers, and antenna arrays disguised as fake trees, water towers, and other stealth structures, as well as strand-mounted 5G on guy wires. The public will have minimal notification, no appeal, and no one to call for help.
The Supervisors paid little attention to the many thousands who voiced their opposition by phone, by comments in the portal, by email, and by petition (over 30,000). They also seemingly ignored the 626 pages of studies and letters from scientists and doctors about the dangers of wireless radiation (submitted by Environmental Health Trust), and Fiber First LA’s extensive CEQA memo (24 pages of legal analysis).
The only support was a “petition” by Verizon, allegedly signed by more than 1,000 Los Angeles residents. We were skeptical, and with a little research, those we found and spoke with said they did not sign it. Go here and scroll down to Verizon Petition Scandal for more details, and to find out if your name is on their list.
Residents have been stripped of their rights. Fire and safety concerns have been ignored. Critical environmental protections – CEQA and others – have been dismissed. And any checks on the wireless industry have been virtually eliminated.
To all of you who helped in this effort, our sincere thanks. Your support kept us going, and will keep us fighting. While we are disappointed at the result, we are not finished speaking truth to power. We will update this website within the next two weeks, and will keep you posted on our ongoing actions and activities. Please stay tuned!
Results of the December 6th Board of Supervisors Meeting:
- Your 8,000+ comments to stop the out-of-control roll-out of wireless facilities in our communities gave the Board of Supervisors reason to postpone their anticipated December 6th vote. Their final vote on the Draft Amendments to Titles 16 and 22 is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, January 10th.
- Two Supervisors out of five now OPPOSE amendments as written: Hilda Solis and Lindsey Horvath.
- Input to the Supervisors does create change, and we just need ONE MORE vote to Oppose.
- We need to keep contacting all Supervisors, including thanking Hilda Solis and Lindsey Horvath.
Results of the November 15th Board of Supervisors Vote on Titles 16 and 22:
- One Supervisor voted to Oppose and Four Supervisors voted to Pass.
- Supervisor Solis surprisingly changed her vote to OPPOSE because of constituent input.
- Input to the Supervisors does create change, and we just need two more votes to Oppose.
- We need to keep contacting all Supervisors, including thanking Hilda Solis.
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Contact Info:
If you don’t know what district you live in, the Executive Office can tell you,
or you can go here to use their district lookup app.
Executive Office: 213-974-1411, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
District 1: Hilda Solis, 213-974-4111, E-mail: FirstDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov
District 2: Holly J. Mitchell, 213-974-2222, E-mail: HollyJMitchell@bos.lacounty.gov
District 3: Lindsey Horvath (includes Topanga), 213-974-3333, E-mail: ThirdDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov
District 4: Janice Hahn, 213-974-4444, E-mail: FourthDistrict@bos.lacounty.gov
District 5: Kathryn Barger, 213-974-5555, E-mail: email@example.com
Current LA County practices do not protect people or the environment.
Model legislation has been drafted to address this.
Here is the link for the Proposed Redline Changes for Titles 16 and 22 submitted by Fiber First LA which would have revised proposed changes to Titles 16 and 22 to be more protective for LA County.
The LA County Department of Regional Planning has proposed amendments to Ordinances Title 16 and Title 22 of the LA County Code. These proposed changes would streamline wireless installations throughout LA County, benefiting the multi-billion dollar telecom industry, and removing protections for LA County citizens and communities. Fiber First LA has submitted to the Board of Supervisors Redlined Model Draft Legislation for Titles 16 and 22 of the LA County Ordinance. This Redlined submission is written to make Titles 16 and 22 more protective for LA County.
For more information, please go to Fiber First LA
Please also watch this brief video below to learn more about why fiber is superior to fixed wireless and how fiber to the end user will finally end the digital divide!
For more details on why Fiber-optic broadband is better than wireless broadband, see this page: Wired Broadband: Safer, Faster Technology
As of October 2022, we will be holding Quarterly Meetings in hybrid form, both live and via zoom.
Due to continuing work, our next meeting will be sometime in Spring 2023. As soon as we have a firm date, we will post it here and notify our list members. Please check back soon to see what’s happening.
October 17, 2022 Meeting Video
Featured Topics & Featured Speakers were:
Doug Wood from the Fiber First Team and Executive Director of Americans for Responsible Technology, presented important information on drafted “redline” model legislation versions of Title 16 and Title 22 of the LA County Code, and updates on actions being taken in LA County for the benefit of all of California and the entire United States.
Susan Foster is a Medical Writer, Fire & Utility Consultant, Honorary Firefighter (San Diego Fire Department) and works with attorney Scott McCullough on legal solutions to wireless challenges. She presented information regarding the ongoing fire risks associated with telecom equipment and four major wildfires in Southern California from 2007 to 2021 costing billions in damages.
Below is the video of the zoom portion of our October 17 meeting, also available on our Bitchute channel.
Timestamps in the above video:
0:03 – Julie Levine
4:35 – Charlene Hopey
10:58 – Kathleen Gildred
23:55 – Doug Wood followed by Q&A
43:44 – Susan Foster followed by Q&A
1:23:51 – Brenda Martinez
Previous Meeting Archives Have Moved to Their Own Page Under “About Us”
Background on Draft Wireless Ordinances, Title 16 and Title 22
The Draft Wireless Ordinances will dramatically accelerate the densification of small cell facilities in the County. There will be no advance public notification and no public hearings. The long-established, open and public process for issuing Conditional Use Permits for such facilities will be replaced with a non-public “ministerial” process where the County rubber-stamps approvals, stripping away your Constitutional property rights, and exposing a large segment of Los Angeles County to Radiofrequency and Electromagnetic Radiation (RF/EMF), and in so doing, violating numerous federal, state, and local laws.
On March 23, 2022, LA County Department of Regional Planning passed horrible draft ordinances for small cell facilities, including industry-friendly and permissive regulations for cell towers on private property and highways. We are demanding the ordinances be amended before approval because:
- There are no requirements regarding distance between cell towers,
- no setbacks from homes,
- no advance public notice,
- no public hearings,
- no environmental or coastal commission reviews,
- no protections for historical landmarks,
- no emissions testing to see if towers exceed the FCC limits,
- and no safety reviews to mitigate fire hazards.
A vote on April 5, 2022 by LA County Board of Supervisors resulted in a “negative declaration” that small cell applications don’t need to go through NEPA or CEQA or fire safety or any other reviews, and found the draft wireless ordinances consistent with LA County’s general plan. That was one step towards approving the ordinances as written, so we have until June 2022 to get them amended prior to final approval.
Eliminating environmental protections regarding cell towers in LA County is not a safe choice and is a fire risk.
The County Regional Planning actions will dramatically accelerate small cell densification and will strip away constitutional property rights in favor of industry:
- Removal of open and public process for issuing Conditional Use Permits for such facilities will be replaced with a non-public “ministerial” process where the County rubber-stamps approvals.
- These actions will expose a large segment of Los Angeles County to Radiofrequency and Electromagnetic Radiation (RF/EMF).
Preliminary draft ordinances for Title 16 (Highways) for small cell facilities in the public right of way and Title 22 (Planning and Zoning) for all other wireless facilities are now available by clicking here: https://planning.lacounty.gov/wireless
To review additional documents, please use the link provided on the County Wireless Ordinances webpage.
This draft ordinance will violate numerous federal, state, and local laws. The LA County Ordinance will go up in front of Board of Supervisors in early June for a rubber-stamped vote. We can’t have this happen. This ordinance is not equitable – it will boost corporate profits by reducing costs for telecom corporations: violating California and federal protections, decreasing property values, and transferring fire and other liability risk to taxpayers. Please say no to “Title 22” and say “yes to science” and protect Los Angeles County residents from being blanketed by wireless RFR, fire risk and allow cities to implement superior municipal fiber broadband to eliminate the digital divide.
Here is a highlight excerpt of comments by Julian Gresser Esq at the March 9, 2022 meeting of the Topanga Town Council. Click here for a 6-page pdf of Mr. Gresser’s complete statement, or scroll down to the talking points.
In a nutshell, the Ordinance will effectively codify the present illegal practice of bypassing over 30 years of a well-established and balanced Conditional Use Permit Registration system with an accelerated Ministerial Site Review of small cell and macro cell antennas installed on private property. This de facto practice is currently being challenged in the Los Angeles Superior Court in the case of Angela Sherick-Bright v. County of Los Angeles. The ostensible justification for this precipitous rush to Ordinance is the FCC’s shot clock deadlines that aim to accelerate densification of small cell and macro towers antennas emitting Radio Frequency/Electromagnetic Field (RF/EMF) radiation in high and dangerous concentrations within residential communities. The clear intention of the proposed Ministerial Site Review Application process, which will effectively replace Conditional Use Permits on new facilities, is to eliminate due process protections for the Los Angeles County community — namely, timely prior notification and an opportunity to be heard in public hearings, which are guaranteed by the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution.Julian Gresser, Esq
The RPC Public Hearing Draft Ordinance has been released for public review, and can be found on the project website.
Here is a pdf slide presentation on the proposed changes to the ordinances.
Scroll down within the box below to view all seven slides.
What You Can Do Beyond the Actions Above
- Review information on the draft ordinances at https://planning.lacounty.gov/wireless.
- Please also Join the Wireless Communication Facility Ordinance mailing list.
- Send in reports to Julie Levine of damages suffered by you and others from RF/EMF radiation, including RF/EMF emissions levels reports documented by certified meters; confirm injuries by reports from licensed physicians and medical professionals with expertise in RF/EMF radiation hazards.
- Alert vulnerable communities, including schools, hospitals, retirement communities, and fire departments.
- Listen to the BBILAN webinar on “Citizens Rights and Remedies Under the Shadow of 5G Surveillance and Behavioral Modification” then:
- Exercise your rights to opt out, and other privacy rights, protected under the California Consumer Privacy Act. Contact: Julie Levine
Please email all communications to: Julie Levine at 5GFreeCalifornia@gmail.com.
Good News! SB-556 Vetoed
Governor Newsom vetoed the worst of the Terrible Telecom Takeover bills, SB-556.
Click to our Legislative Strategy page to read about why this is so important.
Good News! Historic Ruling in CHD vs FCC Lawsuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the historic case CHD et al. v. the FCC that the December 2019 decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to retain its 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was “arbitrary and capricious.”
The court held that the FCC failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” Further, the agency demonstrated “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.” The court found the FCC ignored numerous organizations, scientists, and medical doctors who called on them to update limits, and the court found the FCC failed to address these issues:
- impacts of long term wireless exposure
- impacts to children,
- the testimony of people injured by wireless radiation,
- impacts to wildlife and the environment
- impacts to the developing brain and reproduction.
Click here for details and videos of press conferences celebrating this historic win, including interviews with Robert F Kennedy, Jr, Scott McCullough, and Dafna Tachover.
Did You Know 5G Is Hazardous to Your Health
and the Health of Future Generations?
If you are completely new to the idea that 5G is not as great as it’s sold to be in mainstream media reports and advertisements, start here:
- What is 5G?
- Health Hazards
- Symptoms of Electromagnetic Sensitivity
- Exposure Limits vs Safe Levels
- Wifi In Schools
- Wired Networks ~ Safer Faster Technology