New SB 649 Amendments: Lipstick On a Pig

I’ve just seen the latest set of 61 amendments to SB 649. They’ll be published tomorrow (Thursday). Most of them are word corrections. A few are substantive and make SB 649 even worse for the citizens of California. No fix to the wireless digital divide. No fix to the unfunded state mandate. No fix for the gift to cable TV operators. No fix to the gift to wireless and cable TV company shareholders. In essence, the most current round of amendments can best be described thus:

SB 649 remains the “Gift of Public Funds and Public Property to the Communications Industry Act.”

JLK

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

More Fun with the IRS Collections Department

Apparently the ‘IRS’ still wants me to pay them $4,000.

Dang, I knew I should have cut back on the Starbucks and put those dollars in a piggy bank. I could have paid off the ‘debt’ in just a few weeks! Ahem.

Well, here for your listening pleasure for about the next 30 minutes are the computer-generated demand call and my call back to the ‘IRS Collections Unit’ located somewhere on Earth really, really far away from Los Angeles.

Oh, yes, for my wireless industry friends, there are some golden nuggets in the call you’ll certainly enjoy!

Jonathan

If you’d like to listen in on a prior call I had with the ‘IRS agents’ just CLICK HERE.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

SB649 Unfunded Mandate; Not Equitable: CA Dept of Finance Opposes

The California Department of Finance quietly released its analysis report last week determining that SB 649 is likely to create a million dollar unfunded mandate, fails to cure basic wireless digital divide issues; and is fails to address important issues of community aesthetics.

If this bill is enacted and a test claim is filed with the Commission on State Mandates, the Commission may determine the bill imposes reimbursable, state-mandated costs on local agencies.

The potential state mandate would stem from (1) the bill’s $250 limit on the annual lease charge that cities and counties can impose on each small cell device attached to its vertical infrastructure, and (2) a formula that limits the annual attachment fees that cities and counties may charge for each small cell device attached to its vertical infrastructure. If the Commission determines the lease and fee revenue derived under these caps is insufficient to fund the claimants’ actual inspection and maintenance costs, the difference would be state-reimbursable.

While the extent of the potential mandate is unknown, Finance believes it can easily approach $1 million per year.

The Department of Finance did not mince words:

Finance opposes this bill. While statewide uniform rules can help the expansion of new technologies, this bill goes too far by usurping city and county zoning authority for infrastructure development, and it potentially imposes reimbursable, state-mandated costs on cities and counties.

The DOF noted some of the key basic inequities in SB 649, including the fact that this bill does NOTHING to reduce the wireless digital divide in California:

We also note the bill poses equity and access concerns. The bill gives telecommunications providers the power to determine where they deploy small cell technologies, which can be highly localized. Providers may cover high-demand neighborhoods first, while low-income neighborhoods may be left underserved. This arrangement follows in the path of high-speed internet service, which has led to uneven access for rural and lower-income areas. Under current law, cities and counties can require, as part of their permitting process, that small cell providers incorporate rural and lower-income areas into their service networks. By pre-empting local government authority, this bill also limits city and county tools to address those equity issues.
. . .
This bill also prevents local governments from addressing community concerns about small cells, such as the aesthetic impact small cells may have on a locality.

This ill-conceived and poorly thought-out wireless industry give-away is the wrong bill for California. There is a right bill, but this is not that bill.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FULL DOF SB 649 ANALYSIS.

Contact your Assembly Member and State Senator TODAY…RIGHT NOW…and tell them why SB 649 is a wireless industry give-away that hurts all Californians.

#StopSB649
#SB649
#OpposeSB649

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Dr. Kramer Presents Local Government Opposition to SB 649 at Assembly Appropriations Committee

On August 23, I was the only local government representative permitted to speak at the Appropriations Committee hearing of the California Assembly in opposition to SB 649, the statewide wireless deregulation bill.  The Chair allocated all of 2 minutes for opposition comments from local governments, and I was designated by the League of California Cities, CSAC, APA, the rural counties, the urban counties, and the Coalition of Concerned California Communities as the local government speaker for those 2 minutes.

Below are my prepared remarks:

I am Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer, here at the request of the League of California Cities, and a coalition of local government stakeholders including the APA, CSAC, APA, the rural counties, the urban counties, and the Coalition of Concerned California Communities.

I have been a telecommunications engineer in California for over 30 years. Nationally, I have worked for nearly 1,000 governments as a telecommunications engineer and safety inspector for Telecommunications facilities. I am also a telecommunications lawyer here in California.

Dr. Jonathan Kramer
Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer presenting local government opposition to SB 649.

Last year I completed my doctorate in law and policy at Northeastern University. My doctoral thesis studied, in part, economic impacts of cell sites in residential communities.

The local government stakeholders remain opposed to SB 649 as revised because –among other reasons–of its tremendous negative statewide economic impacts over the next five or so decades.

SB 649 remains an empty bag of promises.

A proper bill would require the deployment of a wireless network that would help to close the existing wireless digital divide in California.

SB 649 is devoid of any such requirement, much less a coherent and comprehensive plan to close that gap with 5G. Not even with 4G…or 3G.

It is obvious that wireless communications is a statewide economic driver, and a proper bill would ensure the economic benefits of wireless state wide.

Sb 649 is not that Bill. It ensures nothing of the sort.

There can be no argument that Public Safety is a statewide economic issue.

My firm has inspected hundreds of thousands of broadband and Wireless communications locations in California. In our experience, wireless and broadband providers violate safety codes north of 30% of the time.

As you’ll recall, the Malibu fire was caused by overloading of utility poles by wireless facilities. Certainly, a conflagration like that had an economic impact far exceeding Malibu.

A proper bill would never act to weaken public safety. Yet SB 649 on a statewide basis does exactly that by allowing some “small cells” to be installed by wireless companies and Cable TV operators without even having to obtain local permits and inspections. Not even traffic control permits! Boom, a cell site suddenly appears on a pole near you.

It is simply the most fundamental concept of public management of the right of way to know who and what are in those rights of way, and to make sure that facilities installed in the right of way are inspected to verify initial and ongoing safety code compliance.

A well thought out bill would never undermine public safety, but SB 649 is not a well thought out bill.

They properly crafted and well thought out bill would not–on a state wide basis –shift the economic burden of building a 5G network from the shareholders of the for-profit wireless carriers and shift that burden to the backs of California citizens by grossly sub-market rents and compulsory access to essentially every type of private property.

A proper bill would not incentivize wireless carriers to break their private property leases to go into the public right of way, all to the economic benefit of their shareholders but to the detriment of private wireless site landlords, and the citizens who paid for improvements in the right of way.

SB 649 is not that bill.

The wireless industry has been telling legislators that 5G is necessary for the deployment of an earthquake early warning system.  While that’s a political sounds-good argument, even if a technical misstatement of the industry, a properly crafted bill would require wireless providers to participate and in part fund statewide that earthquake early warning system as a condition of the incredible benefits that attach to deregulation.

SB 649 is not that bill.

A properly crafted bill would not reduce general funding sources that pay for police and fire services by artificially slashing rents to far below the fair market rental value of Government improvements to property paid for by California residents to benefit wireless company shareholders.

We ‘get’ that there can be tremendous value in wider deployment of wireless services to all of the citizens of California in all parts of our Golden State.  That should occur through a properly crafted, thoughtful wireless bill that at least tries to balance the equities.  We believe that there a path to that proper bill.

It’s just that there is no clear and obvious path through SB649 to that proper bill.

Thank you.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

A Bad Day In the Making For Mobilitie

I’m fairly sure that today will not be good for fine folks at Mobilitie in Newport Beach.

I’ve had a chance to preview various local government filings in the FCC wireless/wireline broadband proceedings. Those reply comments will be uploaded later today to the FCC’s ECFS.  Mobilitie will likely raise as a ‘star’ in a number of the local government filings…not because Mobilitie is a shining example of how to do small cells properly, but rather just the opposite.  Who knows…maybe Mobilitie’s alleged involvement with Sprint’s alleged scheme to build sites without benefit of local government permits will make it into some of the comments. You never know.

What I’m looking forward to is reading how the mainstream small cell industry treats Mobilitie in their own reply comments.  I suspect that the treatment will be to distinguish Mobilitie from small cell providers of truly small cells.  It’s hard to look at a Mobilitie 120′ tall … or 70′ tall …or 35′ tall … or even their pox-on-a-pole (or Walrus) design proposal and think they are truly small compared to, for example, T-Mobile’s Ericsson strand-mounted deployment shown below (this one being located in the City of Torrance, California).

Yup.  I think the folks in Newport Beach will be none-too-pleased about how they and their deployment actions will be characterized in some of the government reply comments to be filed later today.  Maybe Mobilitie is simply misunderstood.  Then again, maybe not.

That’s my opinion.

-Jonathan

PS: Of course, with Sprint looking to hook-up with the cable industry, the Mobilitie-created problem to mainstream small cell siting may be short-lived. That’s also my opinion.  jlk

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

CA SB 649 Passes Out of Assembly Local Gov Committee 6 aye, 1 nay, 2 not voting

Today SB 649 as most recently amended by the author passed out of the California Assembly Local Government Committee on a 6-1-2 vote.  If you’d like to listen to nearly 3 hours of hearings on the bill you can click below. Note that there is a few-minute-break about 30ish minutes in to the recording due to a technical glitch at the California Channel.

The next Assembly hearing is on July 12, 2017.

jlk

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Did Sprint and Mobilitie Conspire to Bypass Zoning Laws?

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

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

California SB 649 (‘Wireless Theft of Public Property Bill’) Reported Out of G&F Committee

This afternoon, SB 649 (the “Local Governments Give Up Their Property to Enrich Wireless Companies Act”) was heard in the California Senate Governance and Finance Committee.  With amendments not seen by the public, and clearly not understood by the Committee Members, the Bill was voted unanimously approved and voted out of that Committee.

The Committee also determined that they were best positioned to determine how much the industry should pay local governments for wireless industry access to local government property, so they appointed a subcommittee to do just that.

If you’d like to listen to 85 minutes of misleading industry testimony, concerns by local government and APA representatives, more concerns from a panel that worries about RF emissions, and back-peddling from the sponsor of the bill, you can stream the audio here:

Hopefully, the as-yet unseen amendments clearly not understood by the Committee will be out soon.

Jonathan

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

California SB 649: The Big Lie About Small Cells

The wireless industry’s push to bamboozle California Senate lawmakers through the ill conceived, horribly-written, and loophole ridden SB 649 requires they constantly repeat a critical big lie: That they are only dealing with “small cells” … small … can’t be large because they’re calling them ‘small.’

It’s perfect and perfectly misleading framing. Call something by a label enough time and it must be the truth.

So, what’s an inconvenient truth for the wireless industry?  That 22 cubic feet, or 28 cubic feet, or 32 cubic feet are examples of the volume of space occupied by a small cell…remember it’s small because they say so.

Let’s take their mid-size small cell, promoted to be 28 cubic feet.  What, exactly is 28 cubic feet?  We’ll to show you, rather than to lie to you, I built up a PVC frame that’s 7 feet tall and 2 feet for width and depth.  This is a size similar to commercial wireless equipment cabinets to be mounted on concrete bases.

If you’ve ever met me, you know I’m not a particularly small human, so the photo below of me standing entirely with a 28 cubic foot frame illustrates the industry’s big lie about small cells.

Dr. Jonathan Kramer standing inside a homemade 28 cubic foot “small cell.”  Yup, it must be small because what’s what the industry keeps claiming!  You are free to copy and use this photo in your presentations against SB 649.
Telecom Law Firm associate attorney and normal-sized human being, Rebekah Rounds better illustrates just how large a “small cell” is in reality. Normal reality…not the wireless industry’s altered view of reality.

If you’d like to build your own 28 cubic foot frame and take it to a meeting at City Hall, the County Board of Supervisors, or a meeting with your State Senator or Assembly Member, just follow the basic steps below.

The 1′ 10″ pieces, along with the side elbow outlet connectors, form the top and bottom of the frame. The 6′ 10 1/4″ pieces form the vertical members of the frame. For easy transport, glue the top and bottom frames, but don’t glue the vertical members.  This way you can put this frame together in from of a City Council in less than 30 seconds.  Very visual!

Gosh, this is great fun for kids of any age!  Unless, of course, you’re a wireless industry kid, in which case this will be far less than fun for you.

If you haven’t used PVC glue before, you should get help from an experienced adult who know he basics about ventilation and safety.  Don’t try using PVC glue if you’re not experienced or don’t have access to experienced help.

The industry word lies cannot withstand the light cast upon them by real facts…and real PVC frames!

Jonathan

PS: No alternative facts were used, much less harmed, in this posting.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Don Rickles Was a Fraud

The late Don Rickles was simply a big fraud.  I know this from first-hand experience having personally met him at his Malibu home in 1979.

At that time, I was the System Engineer for Warner Cable in Malibu. I was in charge of all technical operations for the cable system serving Malibu.

I clearly remember sitting in my office one day working on the detritus that was the paperwork that accompanied my management position, only to be interrupted by the loud buzzing of the telephone intercom.

Answering the intercom, I was greeted with the clearly jarred voice of Carolyn Loving, who was Warner Cable’s Office Manager at that time.  She said, “Jonathan… Don Rickles is on the phone, and he’s pisssssssed.”  Sucking in a deep breath, I punched the outside line button and said, “Mr. Rickles, I’m Jonathan Kramer, the system engineer. How may I help you?”

The reply came instantaneously and forcefully. “KRAMER!,” Mr. Rickles nearly shouted, “If you ever send Chas to my home again I’ll shove a ladder up his nose.”

Nonplussed, I glanced down at the daily jobs schedule at the edge of my desk.  I saw that my installer by that name was scheduled to perform some relatively easy work at a home on Malibu Road, which I deduced to be Mr. Rickles’ residence.

Mr. Rickles told me that my installer had acted very rudely towards him in his home.  Frankly, this didn’t surprise me because Chas had some personal issues going on at the time, but I didn’t think he would carry them over into his contacts with our customers.

My General Manager at Warner Cable in Malibu, Mr. J. Phil Franklin (a truly blessed memory), spent a lot of time guiding every person on staff on what he always felt was the most important thing for any service organization, immediately solving problems.  What differentiated Phil from most managers is that he empowered every one of the employees to do exactly that.

Phil’s training kicked in, and I instantly replied to Mr. Rickles’ rather forceful statement with, “Mr. Rickles, may I please come to your home immediately and solve the problem.”  “Okay.”  <Click>

The next thing I did was to call Chas on the radio and pull him off the job.

Grabbing my chief technician, Roberto, we headed directly to Mr. Rickles home. I remember Mr. Rickles home as if it were yesterday, rather than nearly four decades ago.

Walking in through the front gate on the left side of Mr. Rickles’ driveway, Roberto and I walked down a short set of stairs, then along the stone pathway which curved to the right in front of the front door.

Holding my breath, I rang the doorbell.

The front door opened.  Standing before me was Mr. Rickles in a suit, white shirt, and tie.  With nary a wrinkle to be seen nor lint to be spotted, he looked to me to be the most successful man in the world.

I introduced myself, and Roberto, and Mr. Rickles invited us into his home. Walking in, he said in a warm and quiet voice, “Please allow me to introduce the two of you to the other guests in my home.”  In fact that’s exactly what he did.

Only after all the introductions were made to the other guests in his home, which pointedly included his house staff, would Mr. Rickles and I spent a few minutes talking about Chas’s rudeness, and the work to be performed.   I offered my apologies for my staff member’s rudeness, and Roberto and I (but mainly Roberto) performed the work that Chas should have done in a very short period of time.

With the work done, we said our goodbyes to Mr. Rickles. He thanked us in a very warm and friendly manner as we were leaving, walking with us up the walk to the front gate.

Later, back at the cable office, I shared the story of how Mr. Rickles treated us as true guests in his home.  Several other members of staff who had been to his home over the years said that this wasn’t out of character or place. When you’re in Don Rickles’ home, regardless of your station or reason for the visit, you were a welcomed guest and treated as such.

To me, the true Don Rickles is the gentle and respectful man I met that day at his home so very long ago.  I consider it one of the great privileges of my life to have met that very real man.

A few times over the years I thought about writing to Mr. Rickles through his agent to share the sentiments I’ve penned above. While I regret never having followed through, and now never to have that opportunity, I hope my words serve as a small contribution to the memory of that public fraud and a perfect gentleman.

Jonathan

PS: I also remember repeatedly seeing Bob Newhart’s car parked in front of Mr. Rickles’ residence. The license plate? It read, “NO DON” -jlk

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail