710 Gap project scoping comments (demands for environmental impact areas of study) are due by April 14! Hand-deliver, or email to:
Ron Kosinski, Deputy District Director
Division of Environmental Planning
Caltrans – District 7
100 South Main Street, MS 16A
Los Angeles, California 90012
Email: Ron_Kosinski@dot.ca.gov

The Glendale Chamber of Commerce celebrates a ribbon cutting for the new Mission Pharmacy, 1131 N. Pacific Ave. at 10 a.m.

2011 Glendale City Council election results should be finalized. According to the Glendale News-Press, on Thursday “officials will count the remaining ballots at the Glendale Election Center, located in the Glendale Police Department, 131 N. Isabel St. Public viewing will be allowed for the preparations, processing and eventual count of the remaining ballots….Preparations are scheduled to begin at 9 a.m., with the count starting at 2 p.m.”

Ground-breaking for the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk park bike and pedestrian pathway and equestrian facilities, at Garden St. and Paula Avenue, noon-1:30 p.m., with elected officials, the Army Corps, North East Trees, and staff and managers from Glendale Community Services and Parks.

Glendale City Clerk Ardy Khassakhian is the featured speaker at the Glendale Democratic Club meeting, 6:30 p.m.; he will be discussing the recent municipal election. The program will include a Q&A session, and is open and free to the public. Pacific Park Community Center, 510 S. Pacific Ave.

The Bully Me Not Coalition, at a special assembly headed by the Glendale Sunrise Rotary with celebrity Fritz Coleman on hand, will present $3000 of books to the Glendale Public Library at 6:30 p.m. (Glendale Central Library Auditorium).

Across the San Rafael hills:

Denny Strigl, former CEO of Verizon, is Drucker Business Forum’s morning speaker at KPCC Studios in Pasadena. Breakfast starts at 7:45 a.m.; program starts at 8:30 a.m. (Link for tickets.)

And 5 hours north:

Julius Genachowski, FCC Chair, will discuss net neutrality and spectrum issues at the Commonwealth Club of California, 6:30 p.m., Computer History Museum, Mountain View. (Link for tickets.)

The tower, approved by a single Conditional Use Permit in 1960 and currently owned by American Tower Company (ATC), is host to over 60 antennas that have been installed over the past 50 years without the required permits. ATC’s failure to live up to the conditions imposed by a 2009 CUP that allowed T-Mobile antennas on the tower played a major role in the Board’s decision to deny Clearwire a permit at this location.

Before its vote on the CUP appeal, the Board rejected residents’ request for environmental review of Clearwire’s project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

According to local advocate Doug Loranger, “While there was a strong legal case for CEQA review, the resulting delays in Clearwire’s build-out of its network across San Francisco would have cost the company millions of dollars and it therefore brought in some powerful local lobbyists to stave off a vote in favor of CEQA. Nevertheless, local Bernal Heights residents did an outstanding job of bringing ATC’s various permit, code and tax violations to the attention of the City and organizing their neighbors to achieve yesterday’s result.”

This Friday, November 19, Oakland, California residents plan a demonstration and march against Verizon antennas scheduled to be installed directly across the street from an elementary school. They raised $1,000 to appeal the installation, and lost, but are not giving up. The San Francisco Chronicle reports today:

The parents have two options left. On Friday, they will appeal to Verizon’s “corporate conscience” with a march from the schools to the wireless provider’s local retail store, said Jen Schradie, whose two children attend the charter school.

They also will seek to arm themselves with science, conducting their own health study – a costly, time-consuming endeavor, but one that could provide the proof they say they need to stop such placements in the future.

“It’s going to be a long-term process, but we’re definitely going to be involved in conducting the study,” said Schradie, a sociology doctoral student at UC Berkeley. “We’re not willing to sit back and cross our fingers.”

Will a net-neutrality policy inhibit or promote wireless broadband? Almost no one asks this question specifically, although AT&T and Verizon are warning that such regulations will reduce their investments.

Wireless networks are currently strained by smartphone demand. FCC rules forcing carriers to provide equal access at the same price, no matter how bandwidth intensive, will require a lot more towers and signal but will discourage investment. A lack of regulation would allow carriers to charge heavy users greater fees, discouraging egregious network use and possibly discouraging egregious buildout of ugly towers and cell sites everywhere. Tough choice, and all but ignored. The focus now is on corporate control v. government control of information channels.

The latest agreement, hammered out privately between Verizon and Google, appears to be a proposal rejected by the FCC, and leaves open all the major issues with wireless networks. Most observers believe wireless networks, currently strained by inadequate infrastructure, will predominate in the future. This isn’t good news for those concerned about the long-term health effects of wireless transmission sites operating 24 hours a day throughout populated areas.

Major commentaries and explanations, under the Paperweight:

Net Neutrality, CNET Video interview with Larry Downes and Maggie Reardon – Focuses on reasons for resistance to the interference of the FCC. Key quotes:

“The real concern is what they might do in the future, like turn it into cable television.”

“Political groups in Washington see this as an opportunity to push other agendas that go along with it…it has been extremely politicized which has been very unhelpful.”

“The whole authority of the FCC to do anything here is being called into question.”

“Either these rules are good for the whole internet, or they aren’t any good at all.”

“Other countries have wired, fiber-optic networks…they have bigger fish to fry…control of internet content [etc.].”

I’m very suspicious and skeptical of the FCC; I think anyone who has looked at the FCC long-term recognizes that there are tremendous risks to introducing them into any industry or any piece of an industry.”

“We will certainly still be talking about this in six months.”

Google, Verizon and net neutrality: what does it mean? – PDA: The Digital Content Blog, August 10, 2010. Key quotes:

The internet today is, mostly, a level playing field. We pay a fee to have access to the internet. Web services pay to host their content and to for that content to be accessible. And internet service providers pay for the bit in between – the connection.

…the desktop is dying – wireless, mobile networks are the future. So the internet of the future will operate on the network of the future which will largely be a wireless one. Under the Google-Verizon proposal, wireless services would be exempt from all these requirements, which means ISPs would be able to discriminate against competitors and would be able to block access to a service even if it was legal. It’s the same principle as your mobile operator charing you more to call a friend on another network – but with everything from video, to email, gaming, music – anything you do on your phone.

A paper trail of betrayal: Google’s net neutrality collapse – ArsTechnica, August 11, 2010:

What’s all this about the “unique” character of wireless networks? Rob Frieden, a respected Penn State telecoms scholar, noted this week that “the rationale for exempting wireless does not pass the smell test… The technical and operational aspects of wireless strongly necessitate the non-discrimination requirement.”

Back in April, Google agreed. It strongly lobbied against this idea and the logic behind it. Wireless companies (like Verizon) that seek a nondiscrimination exemption based on the allegedly “competitive nature” of the wireless sector, “fail to acknowledge some relevant facts,” the company wrote.

Google and Verizon’s net neutrality proposal explained, EnGadget, August 9, 2010:

Now, we don’t know for sure what happened, but we’ve got a theory: the proposal reads to us like Verizon’s basically agreeing to trade neutrality on its wired networks for the right to control its wireless network any way it wants — apart from requiring wireless carriers and ISPs to be “transparent” about network management, none of the neutrality principles that govern wired networks will apply to wireless networks. That’s a big deal — it’s pretty obvious that wireless broadband will be the defining access technology for the next generation of devices and services.

What is clear from all the above is that very powerful corporations are fighting an all-out battle to retain financial and managerial control over commercial information networks, wired or wireless. Doesn’t the public deserve another option to big business or big government control over information networks?

Verizon’s Rule the Air ad stumps me, though. It looks like a nightmare for urban residents organized against rampant proliferation of cell sites, hidden or not, everywhere and in everything!

Tonight the Burbank City Council will hear a staff report on federal rules controlling wireless RF emissions, and limiting the ability of local agencies to regulate wireless facilities. Jonathan Kramer, an expert on radio frequency emissions and telecommunications planning, who was a consultant to the city of Glendale in developing its wireless ordinance, will give a brief presentation.

Oakland and San Francisco officials are confronting wireless controversies June 15:

Oakland residents are appealing to city council an approved Verizon plan to locate nine cellular antennas on an abandoned paint factory near an elementary school.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will again consider requiring labels on cell phones that specify Specific Absorption Rate, or radiation level.

Wireless carrier T-Mobile is now on the defensive in San Francisco after compelling testimony by residents against two antennas on a residential apartment building in the Marina District (the public hearing can be viewed on this video archive; scroll to item 14). According to Doug Loranger, “T-Mobile rep Lisa Nahmanson asked for and was granted a continuance until July 15 in light of what probably appeared to be an imminent vote against T-Mobile after an excellent case was presented by residents and their supporters from around the City.”

The company will also likely request a continuance at a June 17 hearing for a wireless permit application inside St. Matthew’s Church, which faces huge opposition from nearby residents. T-Mobile admits it is trying to expand local market share; residents argue that municipalities are under no obligation to approve cell sites based on a company’s market expansion plans.

An earlier review by the Small Business Commission added four conditions to the ordinance: education to retailers; two-tier implementation, with “formula retailers” such as Best Buy and cell carrier stores in the first tier, and all others in the second; assistance to retailers via Department of Environment materials; and delayed enforcement to give businesses time to comply.

Debbie Raphael, San Francisco Toxics Reduction Program Manager (who also presented the ordinance to the Department of Environment in January), went over these changes, the scope of the ordinance, and controversies surrounding the recently released Interphone study. She concluded that the jury is not in on cell phone safety, there is evidence of harm, and “This is a very measured approach to what could be a very large problem.”

The 30-or-so speakers at the hearing were divided evenly between small business retailers/representatives and citizens/public health advocates. Cell phone retailers focused on the ordinance’s economic impact, some arguing business was already bad, and all but one complaining the regulations would be onerous. Samples:

A business consultant’s testimony: “This is the worst time we should be discussing this. Everybody has a cell phone now; many retailers are closing their doors. This could be the straw that sends others out of business.”

A Verizon retailer stated customers’ questions and debates about SAR led to longer than average sales conversations. “Our expertise is about features and benefits of phones.”

A regional Verizon representative complained that the ordinance “will put store sales staff in the position of trying to explain science.”

Steve Falk, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce (who also wrote an op-ed on proposed state-level legislation), asserted that “SAR values were never meant to be something the public should analyze. [Safety] ratings have been addressed by the FCC. Today that standard has been set…Our government is telling us they’re all safe according to today’s standards.”

On the other side, testimony focused on consumer rights and public health information:

A representative from Cole Hardware (the only business in support of the ordinance): “We do not believe this requirement is burdensome. Cole Hardware provides similar information on products such as pesticides in its stores right now, and we let the customer decide.”

Renee Sharp, scientist with the Environmental Working Group: “Since the Environmental Working Group published SAR ratings of 1,000 cell phones in September, our site has received 4 million page views, and averages 5-10 thousand pageviews every day.”

A UC Berkeley researcher: “This legislation provides citizens with the most basic of democratic rights – the right to be informed.”

Steve Krolik, San Francisco resident: “The genesis of this problem goes back to the 1996 Telecom Act when the telecom corporatocracy convinced the federal government to not consider public health.”

A San Francisco parent: “Good choices require good information.”

After public comment, Supervisor John Avalos referred to one business advocate’s contention that “truly, this is a federal problem.” Avalos countered, “It makes sense given the power of telecoms to have stronger legislation at the local level. It is actually harder at the federal level because they have too much influence.” Supervisor Carmen Chu had concerns about costs to small business, but was convinced after the Department of Environment answered questions about material support and staffing for education. Chu admitted, “It would have made things a lot easier if the federal government had stepped in.” Supervisor Sean Elsbernd asked no questions, and was the only no vote on the committee.

The ordinance will go to the full San Francisco Board of Supervisors, with a recommendation to include educational materials in multiple languages. If approved, San Francisco will be the first municipality in the world to take this step.

Less than a month after an appeals court ruled the FCC lacked authority to regulate Comcast’s network management practices, FCC Chair Julis Genachowski announced a new strategy to push for net neutrality and the National Broadband Plan (touching on many of the themes above in the video announcement).

The Comcast v. FCC case in question concerned a cable provider, but bandwidth hogs are actually a greater threat to wireless networks.

Will a net-neutrality policy inhibit or promote wireless broadband? Almost no one asks this question specifically, although AT&T and Verizon are warning that such regulations will reduce their investments.

Wireless networks are currently strained by smartphone demand. FCC rules forcing carriers to provide equal access at the same price, no matter how bandwidth intensive, will require a lot more towers and signal but will discourage investment. A lack of regulation would allow carriers to charge heavy users greater fees, discouraging egregious network use and possibly discouraging egregious buildout of ugly towers and cell sites everywhere. Tough choice, and all but ignored. The focus now is on corporate control v. government control of information channels.

Check out these links under the Sunroom Desk paperweight for views on the dilemmas facing the FCC, carriers, Congress, and U.S. citizens:

FCC says it has compromise on key broadband rules – AP, in MIT Technology Review, May 6, 2010

Key US lawmakers back FCC on broadband policy, Telecom Engine, Thursday, May 6, 2010

The FCC Makes Its Move on Net Neutrality – Reason, May 7, 2010

Net Neutrality War Heats Up – American Thinker, May 8, 2010

FCC to U.S. Court of Appeals: Drop Dead! – BigGovernment.com, May 10, 2010

Net Neutrality and the Third Way – HuffingtonPost.com, May 10, 2010

First, the commission chair switched the agenda items, so an affordable housing project variance request (requiring 2 1/2 hours of testimony, public comment, questions, staff and applicant responses, and commissioner comments) was heard before the wireless ordinance. Because of the switch, consultant Rodney Khan, the development team, and the owner didn’t have to wait through a scheduled agenda item. (See the next post for notes on that case discussion).

Second, when the wireless ordinance did come up, staff only discussed Title 30 (zoning) changes to the Glendale Municipal Code, skipping Title 12 changes, which were of primary concern to residents and industry (and which were listed on the agenda for discussion!). Public Works Counsel Christina Sansone explained later that the Planning Commission only deals with Title 30 issues in Glendale, only City Council can approve changes to Title 12, but the commissioners needed to see Title 12 amendments for context.

Title 12 deals with the public right-of-way (PROW), and a wireless permit approval for a PROW installation was what caused the controversy over cell sites to erupt in Glendale. Although the commission couldn’t approve any Title 12 amendments, it served as a sounding board on PROW issues and seemed receptive to the idea of public hearings for all types of installations.

Notes from the meeting:

Glendale has a wireless telecommunications section within its Information Services Department, and its director has agreed to be an in-house resource for reviewing wireless permit applications.

Richard Roche of AT&T said that demand for wireless service has reached an all-time high and the company’s network engineers are scrambling to meet demand. He said the ordinance would increase the cost of doing business in Glendale, and thanked staff for “properly resisting setback requests” for PROW installations.

A Verizon representative said the new ordinance was beginning to resemble the health care bill, calling it “extensive” and “difficult”. She asked for uniformity in noticing requirements, not allowing staff discretion to expand notification for some permit applications.

A California Wireless Industry Association representative said people demand service the most in residential areas, usage has quadrupled, and wireless carriers need more capacity: “Hampering wireless services is not a laudable goal.” He predicted that many installations will have to be in sensitive areas such as residential zones.

Glendale’s legal counsel Jeff Melching said that Glendale staff considered a setback requirement for the PROW, but “came to the conclusion that we had generic tools available to address those situations. It is possible to put a presumptive requirement but then you’d have to create an exception if the carrier couldn’t provide coverage.”

Commissioner Stephanie Landregan commented toward the end: “I’m challenging the industry that there are better ways to do things and that you’ll do them.”

Chair William Kane commented that citizen calls for restrictions result from telecoms and federal and state authorities imposing too many restrictions at the local level – this is the inevitable push back. He also suggested that a simple rendering of any proposed site on a notification sign is a good idea.

Among them: Verizon-requested installations in the Camino San Rafael and Chevy Chase areas – 7 in San Rafael, 2 in Chevy Chase, and 2 in areas within 1,000 feet of those residential zones; and T-Mobile’s approved installation on hold in the Camino San Rafael area. T-Mobile’s original Cumberland Road installation was also listed as approved in Engineering as of this morning. T-Mobile terminated that project last year in this letter to the City.

The City is also holding six applications for private property installations. Under the proposed wireless ordinance, any resident can register to be notified of wireless permit applications filed in the City.

For a view of the proposed rules and wireless providers’ stake, check out this Network Computing review of the rules and its comment on wireless industry problems: “the real motivation behind killing the proposed rules is that the wireless carriers are offering Internet enabled broadband phones. The wireless broadband industry is very much in the same place that the ISP industry was in the late 90’s, with far more demand than they had capacity to meet.”

For more information, do a Google search or consult Save The Internet, which represents consumer users of the internet and asserts that “phone and cable companies have been busy stuffing the docket full of misinformation that could guide the FCC to make a rule that doesn’t serve the public interest. We have to counter their spin and misinformation.”