UPDATE II: How can the Sioux Falls City Council approve 5G contract when the FCC is closed?

So I get an interesting call today from a guy in Florida who informed me that the new city contract for 5G cannot move forward (or at least it shouldn’t).

DOC: Verizon–Sioux Falls SD — Small Cell Master License (Execution Version).PDF

Besides his concerns about health to children, he brought up a bigger point. The FCC has been asked by two prominent congressional members to do a intensive study of the health affects of 5G. Why? Because nothing really currently exists. As I have pointed out in the past, I’m NOT sure if 5G is harmful, because the FCC hasn’t done research on long term affects;

Connecticut Senator Blumenthal and California Assemblywoman Eshoo have formally asked the FCC to provide scientific documentation about the safety of 5th Generation Internet connectivity, as the roll out of this new technology begins.  Their December 3, 2018 letter  refers to a Senate Commerce Committee field hearing, held in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, titled “Race to 5G, A View from the Field” on October 12, 2018.

It gets more interesting because this is a ‘Standing Request’ since the FCC is currently closed due to the shutdown;

Congress Members Ask for Proof of 5G Safety

Congress members Blumenthal and Eshoo then wrote a pointed letter to FCC Commissioner Carr asking for proof of safety, noting that “the current regulations were adopted in 1996 and have not been updated for next generation equipment and devices” and “The FCC’s Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits do not apply to devices operating above 6 GHz.” 5G frequencies will be from 6 GHz to 100 GHz and above. They highlight that the FCC has acknowledged that “The SAR probe calibration, measurement accuracy, tissue dialectric parameters and other SAR measurement procedures required for testing recent generation wireless devices need further examination.” A response was requested by Dec 17, 2018.

Besides the health concerns, what I find even more interesting is that there was NO testimony from the FCC before the contract was approved, well, because they are closed. The contract should have been deferred until the Feds reopen government and the FCC could have testified on the health concerns of 5G. There was NO testimony. Not from the FCC or Verizon.

A rate study is NOT allowed until after the first contract is expired, which is backwards. A rate study should have been done before we just implemented a $175 a year blind lease agreement. It would be similar to walking up to a rummage sale and asking the person running it, “What do you want for the microwave?” After a pause, he asks, “5 Bucks?”

The city council was told ‘they have NO choice’ but to approve the contract. Hogwash. There are many constitutional arguments that could be made that a city councilor DID NOT have to approve this contract AND the Federal Government CANNOT tell a municipality elected official HOW TO VOTE. The city attorney’s advice on this was ‘shady’ at best.

The federal government did not make the contract and cannot enforce it.  It is illegal for a private corporation to use public utility poles without a period of public comment.

I was very disappointed in the SF City Council last night for NOT challenging the rate study, NOT challenging the health concerns (should have had testimony from FCC) and NOT challenging the ratification of this contract since the FCC is currently closed.

The good news is there has to be a 50 (20 from city, 30 from FCC) day waiting period. Hopefully within that time the government shutdown will end, and we will get an explanation from the FCC.

It was a sad day in city government watching our local officials roll over like dogs, for an agency that is on an extended vacation. Unbelievable.

Dr. Davis runs this website about the health affects of 5G, ehtrust.org


#1 LJL on 01.09.19 at 5:50 pm

Ha….I match your so called Dr. expert with real experts.

#2 "Very Stable Genius" on 01.10.19 at 3:22 pm

Can’t we just get Sioux City to try it out for us first?

#3 l3wis on 01.10.19 at 3:40 pm

Maybe Pierre? Not sure if 5G helps with land lines? 🙂

Or maybe we should put some of these devices on a light poles outside of Thune’s and TenHaken’s houses in SF? If they think they are safe, man up and show us.

#4 "Very Stable Genius" on 01.10.19 at 4:28 pm

Maybe it would cause them to man up…. And I think they are already being used in Pierre. Else, what is their excuse?…. 😉

And hey, don’t knock land lines. If you have a long enough cord, there’re just fine….

#5 scott on 01.11.19 at 2:40 pm

put one outside ljl’s house too.

#6 LJL on 01.12.19 at 8:52 pm

You can already receive fixed wireless “5G signals” outside my house, the mayors house, Thune’s house and your house as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_wireless

As I’ve stated several times now, this spectrum and technology is already being used. Right now we have large high output cellular towers that feed sections of the city, the small cell units will feed neighborhoods with lower power. Cell devices have to take turns transmitting. Smaller groups of cell devices on a antenna means less sharing and more throughput.

If go in the Denny, or the Pentagon or many other large public buildings, you stood within feet of a cellular repeater, which is the same thing.

#7 l3wis on 01.13.19 at 9:36 am

LJL, you are exactly right. But it also has to do with how close the 5G antennae is to you. You should see the radiation you are receiving while living in a smart home. You would shit your pants.

#8 LJL on 01.13.19 at 6:08 pm

I have and it’s not anymore than an apartment complex or standing close to a microwave. Again you show how little you know. Smarthome homes devices use Zigbee and Wi-Fi signals not 5G or LTE cellular.

The newer 5G antennas are closer but much less power therefore the same amount of ambient signal your standing in right now.

Your just wrong on this and there are a lot of entities that do want 5G to take their revenue.

Leave a Comment