Just before 9pm tonight, the California Senate passed Senate Bill 649. The Bill now moves on to the California Assembly. The vote was 31 aye and 1 nay (Sen. Glazer was the only one voting against the Bill).
If you’d like to listen in on a tad over 13 minutes of misrepresentations and double speak, you can click on the audio player below.
This fight now moves on to the Assembly.
After reading Lydia Beyoud’s Event-Driven.com Sprint/Mobilitie article while returning from a lecture Tripp and I presented in Cleveland, something occurred to me: the common connection between smoke and fire.
Presuming the existence of the email at the source of Lydia’s article, it documents the end of an experiment to bypass some government permitting requirements to build small cells. This strongly suggests, based on a presumption of the existence of the Sprint memo, that there must be other, earlier and coincidental documents within Sprint and Mobilitie, and ‘at-risk’ and other memos to and from their contractors, that further describe the scheme’s planning and execution.
However the alleged Sprint memo from last week made its way to Ms. Beyoud, one certainly wonders whether other documents will surface to help flesh out the details of what is looking like a odious, if not illegal, plan.
Jonathan
Lydia Beyoud of Event-Driven.com posted an article this afternoon that alleges that Sprint and Mobilitie planned and tested a program to bypass some local zoning requirements, 1) to essentially put up some cell sites without first obtaining all required government permits, and 2) without requiring some other site prerequisites such as power and backhaul solutions.
The article cites an alleged internal Sprint engineering memorandum dated April 25, 2017 by Chris Mills, Vice-President, Network Deployment at Sprint. The memo appears to be addressed to senior engineering staff at Sprint, as well as Mobilitie, describing the results of a trial where Sprint allegedly allowed Mobilite “to commence construction [of cell sites] without fully completing regulatory compliance (power design, NEPA, SHPO, etc.)” concluding that “commencing construction prior to all regulatory approvals exposes both Sprint and Mobilitie to reputational risks without enjoying any tangible on-air benefits.”
If the memo is true, it raises important questions as to whether Sprint and Mobilitie, and the contractors who work for them, conspired to violate civil or criminal statutes or regulations.
Determining whether this memo is accurate, and taking action if it is, should be a very high priority for state and local governments, the FCC, the SEC, and various state licensing boards.
Here is a link to the full story:
https://event-driven.com/sprint-approved-trial-for-contractor-mobilitie/
Jonathan