Petition update

Council Tries to Help Verizon Establish Monopoly Before Establishing Dig Once Policy

Jon Humphrey
Bellingham, WA, United States

Mar 13, 2018 — Last night I spoke again at a city council meeting on small cell wireless for the inadequate 3 minutes I was given and had my 1st Amendemnts rights violated on behalf of big telecoms by Roxanne Murphy. The city council was trying to rapidly push through small cell wireless technology without establishing a Dig Once Policy for public use. After my talk Verizon panicked and started texting its customers to call the city council and support small cell wireless. I will explain why that happened and why you should wait, at least until after a public hearing on the topic, to weigh in. Here is the video on the topic. https://meetings.cob.org/OnBaseAgendaOnline/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=1640&doctype=3
Essentially, they are trying to allow big, anti-net neutral, anti-first amendment, telecoms to use existing public infrastructure without giving the public access to it. Again! This is doubly annoying because doing any telecom improvement without establishing a Dig Once Policy is insane.
I spoke on this issue last night and when I mentioned that Ajit Pai was a Verizon investor, council member Roxanne Murphy violated my 1st Amendment rights and told me NOT to mention people like Doug Ericksen and Ajit Pai by name. Again, she did this as soon as I mentioned the word Verizon. This is of course not legal. I'm calling it "Roxy's Rage".
What are small cells. Small cells help augment the larger towers that we have in town. You see, with standards like 5G the waves are very small and bounce off of things a lot, so small cells help pass their signals through cities. It is, of course, obscenely complex and not nearly as reliable as fiber, plus you need fiber to backup the small cells. If the fiber is public then we'll have competition, if not (like the council is suggesting) then you get another monopoly.
The rate it currently costs to rent poles from PSE (who owns about 70% of them) is about $600 a pole, meaning that only the big telecoms can really afford to do it. So the council, on the recommendation of the public works director Ted Carlson, tried to rapidly pass a bill including the removal of any reasonable land use policies in relation to installing small cells to support big anti-net neutral telecoms. Fortunately, they agreed to hold a public hearing first instead. However, they did this before with CenturyLink and ended up passing a franchise agreement for the anti-net neutral telecom unanimously anyway. No matter their political alliances, on the whole they seem not to be too concerned with setting up big anti-net neutral monopolies, and virtual monopolies. Yes, WA state passed net-neutral legislation recently, but the big telecoms are already trying to get around it by arguing federal preemption.
This puts the most liberal council members on par with the most irresponsible "conservatives" when it comes to your rights and telecom. So Roxanne is now keeping company with Doug Ericksen, Ajit Pai and Donald Trump. That's funny, I thought they cared about your rights? Hmmm....
While there will be a public hearing on the topic, it is obvious that no one on the council (with the exception of Michael Lilliquist) has listened to any impartial expert or is even considering the many potential health concerns that are coming up around 5G technology as you'll see in the article. By the way, you can do almost everything speced out on the 5G standard with existing, safer 4G LTE technology. Our problems are not on the front end with wireless, they are that we don't have enough fiber to backup the small cells or anything else, so we create big bottlenecks on the back-end. For more on this please see https://www.wired.com/2016/08/the-next-generation-of-wireless-5g-is-all-hype/ or the book "The 5G Myth" by William Webb.
Also, please recall that Roxanne Murphy is the council member that gushed all over CenturyLink in July (a video that has disappeared from the archives, they say they're updating them). She says that she prefers to wait for services from this anti-net neutral, Louisiana based company to using one of our net-neutral local providers. Now she's protecting Verizon at the expense of our 1st Amendment rights. If this doesn't give us a clear picture of what's going on behind the scenes, I don't know what does. Again, they're doing the totally illogical thing of pushing this before a Dig Once policy. It makes no sense unless.... (I'll let you fill in the blanks here.) Also, wireless networks have been proven to cost more in the long run, and are less reliable, than fiber networks and you need fiber to back them up anyway.


Keep fighting for people power!

Politicians and rich CEOs shouldn't make all the decisions. Today we ask you to help keep Change.org free and independent. Our job as a public benefit company is to help petitions like this one fight back and get heard. If everyone who saw this chipped in monthly we'd secure Change.org's future today. Help us hold the powerful to account. Can you spare a minute to become a member today?

I'll power Change with $5 monthlyPayment method

Discussion

Please enter a comment.

We were unable to post your comment. Please try again.