Resolution for Regulating Wireless Telecommunication Facilities

A resolution calling upon State of Idaho and its political subdivisions to pursue fast, safe and secure wired fiber optics to the premises (FTTP) for Broadband Internet provision.

Resolution Author: Grace Bauer, LD1 PC

Co-Sponsors:  Scott Herndon, LD1PC, Daniel Rose, LD1 PC, and Anne Wilder

Whereas the telecommunications industry is engaged in a massive deployment of pulsed -modulated microwave and millimeter-wave “small cell” antennas across the state to facilitate the next generation of broadband and wireless communications; and

Whereas this new technology uses wired infrastructure, most of which was financed with public money by consumers for 20 years at a rate of $5 to $7 per month, designated for the purpose of providing fiber optics to the premises; and

Whereas publicly-financed fiber-optic cables and copper wire-lines cannot lawfully be claimed or used exclusively by private wireless companies as if they were private property, purposed for private profit; and

Whereas new types of pulsed-modulated microwave radiation are scheduled to be utilized to transmit large amounts of data, including private, personal data, without residents’ permission, requiring significantly closer proximity to users and dense deployment of antennas near residences, schools, and hospitals; and

Whereas, the FCC dismissed evidence of potential harm by microwave radiating devices during a public inquiry in 2019, (documented March 19, 2020, FCC choosing not to update its exposure standards, claiming there was an insufficient scientific record to change the current levels of protection), and prompting the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) and the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) to file suit (Case # 20-1025)1 to require those exposure standards be updated; and

Whereas on August 13, 2021 the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, in EHT/CHD v FCC, Case 20-1025, demanded FCC reconsider Its Wireless Safety Standards and must now 1) provide a reasoned explanation why it hasn’t updated its testing procedures, 2) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, and the ubiquity of wireless devices, and 3) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment; and

Whereas over 11,000 published peer-reviewed independent studies were submitted in the above referenced lawsuit, proving pulse-modulated microwave radiation  adversely affects the biology of all living things, especially under long-term, close proximity exposure as would happen with antennas in neighborhoods; and

Whereas documented adverse effects of pulse-modulated microwave radiation include neurological impairments, cardiac malfunctions,  reproductive problems, diminished immune function, and cancer, especially in at risk populations such as pregnant women, children, the elderly, and individuals with implanted medical devices; and

Whereas telecommunications industry leaders have publicly claimed that they have not conducted any safety tests to determine the adverse health and environmental effects from exposure to pulse-modulated microwave radiation transmitted by 5G-enabled “small cell” antennas; and

Whereas the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has continued to fail to update its human RF microwave radiation exposure guidelines since 1996, despite being advised to do so by: the above-referenced ruling; the US General Accounting Office (GAO); the American Academy of Pediatrics; and hundreds of medical and scientific experts from around the world; and

Whereas Swiss Re, the second-largest re-insurance company in the world, called 5G a “high impact” liability risk due to health risks in its 2019 SONAR emerging risks report; and

Whereas three (3) US Court of Appeals decisions in the last 3 years have granted new powers to governments to regulate the provision of internet service: (1) by requiring a NEPA (National Environmental Protection Agency) review over the placement and operations of all wireless telecommunications facilities;2 (2) by removing FCC from regulating Internet transmissions;3 and (3) by permitting state legislators to sue the state PUD for the return of $billions of illicit cross subsidies in order to provide fiber-optics to the premises (FTTP);4 and

Whereas the Idaho Commerce Department has been authorized by the Governor to head up the Idaho Broadband Advisory Board which has created an Idaho Broadband plan and has plans to seek grant funding from the NTIA, (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) which will fund fiber optics to the premises, coaxial deployment, aerial fiber deployment, and wireless via “small” cell towers, also known as “repeaters” in neighborhoods;5 and

Whereas, in 2022, the Idaho legislature passed HB640, which tasked the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) with setting rules for Broadband right-of-way on state highways;5 and

Whereas, the wireless industry has proposed for ITD a new definition for Idaho highways which would redefine them to include “every main traveled way publicly maintained when any part is open to use by the public for vehicular travel,” 6 including alleys, superseding previous Idaho law and local jurisdiction;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bonner County Republican Central Committee calls upon the 2023 Idaho Republican Party Convention, the Idaho State Legislature and the State Environmental and Telecommunications committees to protect the power of local governments in determining how broadband is delivered in their jurisdiction and to direct the Idaho Broadband Advisory Board and ITD to pursue wired broadband in lieu of wireless, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Bonner County Republican Central Committee encourages local governments to pursue wired broadband in lieu of wireless within their jurisdictions, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Bonner County Republican Central Committee encourages the House and Senate State Affairs Committees to use all relevant laws, precedents, and our state Constitution, to recover the approximately $1 billion from the state PUD designated for fiber optic to the premises (FTTP), and use it to bring the best fiber optic engineering to the homes of all Idahoans, while protecting public privacy, health and welfare, according to their oath of office.

Footnotes: Key Federal Judiciary Rulings:

1 Aug 13, 2021, EHT/CHD v FCC, Case 20-1025 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST, ET AL.,

Consolidated with 20-1138 CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE, ET AL: Court Demands FCC Reconsider Its Wireless Safety Standards. After dismissing evidence of potential harm during a public inquiry in 2019, FCC must now 1) provide a reasoned explanation why it hasn’t updated its testing procedures, 2) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, and the ubiquity of wireless devices, and 3) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.

https://wirecalifornia.org/case-20-1025-ruling/

2 Aug 9, 2019, United Keetoowah v. the FCC, Case 18-1129:  According to the three top NEPA-specializing attorneys at FCC: “Every new [wireless telecommunications facility (‘WTF’)] must undergo NEPA review”, and WTF applications cannot be batched for such purpose. https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/4001BED4E8A6A29685258451005085C7/$file/18-1129-1801375.pdf

3 Oct 1, 2019, Mozilla et al. v. FCC,  Case 18-1051: FCC willingly gave up its Title II regulation over Broadband Internet transmissions, changing Internet/Video/Gaming from Title II (regulated, and subject to TCA preemption) to Title I (unregulated).  Internet transmissions are best by energy-efficient Fiber Optic to the Premises (FTTP). https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FA43C305E2B9A35485258486004F6D0F/$file/18-1051-1808766.pdf

4 Mar 13, 2020, THE IRREGULATORS v. FCC, Case 19-1985: FCC applied fraudulent accounting methods for 20 years, allowing $50 Billion of Illicit Cross-Subsidies from State Wireline Utilities to Private Wireless Cos. States can now correct this.   https://scientists4wiredtech.com/?s=Irregulators+v+FCC

5 Idaho Broadband Bills

6 2022 Re-Definition of Highway “The entire width between the boundary lines of every main traveled way publicly maintained when any part is open to use by the public for vehicular travel, with jurisdiction extending to the adjacent property line, including sidewalks, shoulders, berms, and rights-of-way not intended for motorized traffic. The term “street” is interchangeable with highway. Also, roads, streets, alleys, and bridges laid out or established for the public or dedicated or abandoned to the public. Highways shall include necessary culverts, sluices, drains, ditches, waterways, embankments, retaining walls, bridges, tunnels, grade separation structures, roadside improvements, adjacent lands, or interests lawfully acquired, pedestrian facilities, and any other structures, works, or fixtures incidental to the preservation or improvement of the highways. Roads laid out and recorded as highways, by order of a board of commissioners, and all roads used as such for a period of five (5) years, provided they shall have been worked and kept up at the expense of the public, or located and recorded by order of a board of commissioners, are highways.”https://itd.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/RM_Utility_Accomodation_Policy.pdf