- Goal 1: At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second.
- Goal 2: The United States should lead the world in mobile innovation, with the fastest and most extensive wireless networks of any nation.
- Goal 3: Every American should have affordable access to robust broadband service, and the means and skills to subscribe if they so choose.
- Goal 4: Every community should have affordable access to at least 1 Gbps broadband service to anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals and government buildings.
- Goal 5: To ensure the safety of Americans, every first responder should have access to a nationwide public safety wireless network.
- Goal 6: To ensure that America leads in the clean energy economy, every American should be able to use broadband to track and manage their real-time energy consumption.
- The National Broadband Plan Wireless Broadband Access Task Force
- FCC News Release, November 18, 2009, FCC ISSUES DECLARATORY RULING ESTABLISHING TIMEFRAMES FOR STATE AND LOCALITY PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR WIRELESS TOWERS; text includes:
- Washington, D.C. – In a Declaratory Ruling (“Ruling”) adopted today, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) cleared the way for broadband deployment by establishing timeframes of 90 days for collocations and 150 days for all other tower siting applications reviewed by state and local governments. This action will assist in speeding the deployment of next generation wireless networks while respecting the legitimate concerns of local authorities and preserving local control over zoning and land use policies.
- Congress specifically requires that state and local authorities act “within a reasonable period of time” on requests for tower siting. The deployment of next generation mobile broadband networks promises tremendous benefits for American businesses and consumers and realizing these benefits will require new physical networks, including many new towers.
- While most state and local jurisdictions currently process tower siting applications in a timely fashion, the FCC found that there are many instances of unnecessary delays. In order to ensure a timely review of these applications and to prevent unnecessary delay, the FCC interprets a “reasonable period of time” under Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act as 90 days for collocations and 150 days for all other towers. If a jurisdiction “fails to act” on the application within this reasonable time period, applicants may file a claim for relief in court within 30 days of the failure to act. The court will then decide what action to take based on all the facts of the case.
- The FCC decision achieves a balance by defining reasonable and achievable timeframes for State and local governments to act on zoning applications while not dictating any substantive
outcome on any particular case or otherwise limiting State and local governments’ fundamental authority over local land use. The FCC stated that the timeframes adopted, and the requirement
that parties seek injunctive relief from a court, are consistent with preserving State and local sovereignty and the intent of Congress.
- The Ruling also finds that it is a violation of the Communications Act for a State or local government to deny a wireless service facility siting application because service is available from another provider. Finally, the Ruling denies CTIA’s request to find that it is a violation of the Communications Act for a State or local regulation to require a variance or waiver for every wireless facility siting.
- Qwest Corporation v. City of Santa Fe (2004 ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down the city’s telecommunications ordinance)
- Telecommunications Act of 1996 from the FCC website, officially cited as: “Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. LA. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996)” RELEVANT EXCERPT from TITLE VII (bold added, re-formatted for clarification):
SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS.
(a) NATIONAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SITING POLICY – Section 332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY-
(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY- Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.
(B) LIMITATIONS –
(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof –
(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and
(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request.
(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.
(v) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief.
(C) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this paragraph–
(i) the term ‘personal wireless services’ means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services;
(ii) the term ‘personal wireless service facilities’ means facilities for the provision of personal wireless services; and
(iii) the term ‘unlicensed wireless service’ means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303(v)).’.
(b) RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS – Within 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete action in ET Docket 93-62 to prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.
(c) AVAILABILITY OF PROPERTY – Within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the President or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal departments and agencies may make available on a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory basis, property, rights-of-way, and easements under their control for the placement of new telecommunications services that are dependent, in whole or in part, upon the utilization of Federal spectrum rights for the transmission or reception of such services. These procedures may establish a presumption that requests for the use of property, rights-of-way, and easements by duly authorized providers should be granted absent unavoidable direct conflict with the department or agency’s mission, or the current or planned use of the property, rights-of-way, and easements in question. Reasonable fees may be charged to providers of such telecommunications services for use of property, rights-of-way, and easements. The Commission shall provide technical support to States to encourage them to make property, rights-of-way, and easements under their jurisdiction available for such purposes.
- NIOSH Fact Sheet: EMFs in the Workplace (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health)
- uOttawa Wireless Communications and Health: General Considerations
Dated News and Materials
- (October 20, 2010) CNET, Critics urge FCC to forget Net neutrality
- (May 20, 2010) Santa Fe Review, George Johnson, Electromania 5, watch his Bloggingheads.tv conversation with John Horgan
- (May 13, 2010) Santa Fe New Mexican, “Hearing planned on tel-com law” (scheduled for June 9, 7:00p, current proposed ordinance)
- (May 12, 2010) Santa Fe New Mexican, “Fiber-optic firm drops S.F. project”
- (April 27, 2010) Santa Fe Review, George Johnson’s Standing Electromania Archives
- (April 23, 2010) Bill Moyers Journal interview with FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps regarding Net Neutrality and FCC regulation of broadband “telecommunications”
- (April 21, 2010) Santa Fe Review, “On Top of Microwave Mountain”
- (April 21, 2010) Slate.com, by George Johnson, “On Top of Microwave Mountain: I tried to saute my brain at the base of a cell phone tower. It didn’t work.”
- (April 19, 2010) New York Times editorial, “The F.C.C. and the Internet”
- (April 1, 2010) KSFR 101.1 podcast, interview with City Councilor Miguel Chavez regarding proposing moratorium, “Is Santa Fe headed toward cell tower moratorium?”
- (March 10, 2010) Santa Fe’s New Telecom Law (by George Johnson, Santa Fe Review)
- (March 2010) Draft Telecommunications Ordinance for the city of Santa Fe
- (March 7, 2010) Telecommunications Ordinance: Three firms aim to build wireless blanket downtown (Santa Fe New Mexican)
- (March 6, 2010) Telecommunications Ordinance: Franchise questions force city’s decision (Santa Fe New Mexican)
- (March 4, 2010) The Who Was Allergic to Radio Waves (Popular Science Magazine)
- (March 2010) Cellular Antennas, Shot Clocks and Zoning: An Update on Federal Law (Illinois Municipal League website)
- (February 10, 2010) City Council delays decision on Wi-Fi (Santa Fe New Mexican)
- (February 2010) Warning, Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Heath (GQ Magazine)
- (January 2010) Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (formerly ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity’): An updated systematic review of provocation studies. (Bioelectromagnetics)
- (December 7, 2009) City panel OKs rewrite of telecommunication ordinance (Santa Fe New Mexican)
- (November 18, 2009) FCC Releases Order on Shot Clock for Wireless Facilities Siting Applications (National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, NATOA)
- (November 18, 2009) FCC Declarative Ruling in the matter of Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance [also referred to as the “shot clock order”]
- (November 5, 2009) Changes rattle wireless opponents; city considers telecommunications ordinance as firms look to update systems (Santa Fe New Mexican via thefreelibrary.com)
- (June 2008) Nonionizing Radiation Exposure to Technicians at a Satellite Communications Facility (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
- (December 2007) FCC Information Sheet for Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule , Preemption of Restrictions on Placement of Direct Broadcast Satellite, Broadband Radio Service, and Television Broadcast Antennas
- (October 2007) Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Real or Imagined?
- (March 2007) What Science Really Knows About Wifi, by George Johnson, The Santa Fe Review
- (May 2006) Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health (World Health Organization)
- (2005) Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: A Systematic Review of Provocation Studies (Psychosomatic Medicine 67)
- (March 9, 2010) KSFR (Santa Fe public radio) “debate” about the local issues regarding a new telecommunications ordinance with three spokespersons: 1) Victoria Jewett is with a group named Santa Fe Alliance for Health and Public Safety; then 2) Patti Ringo, representing Extenet Systems, a company proposing a wireless system; and 3) John Brown, representing CityLink Fiber Optics, an Albuquerque company seeking to install a fiber optic network in Santa Fe.