STAMFORD – In 2021, Governor Ned Lamont’s office began mediation between Connecticut’s five largest cities and the state’s three largest telecommunications companies.
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile wanted to install fifth-generation (5G) mobile communications equipment on city-owned utility poles, according to a Stanford Law Office memo.
According to the memo, the telecom giant will take advantage of the Federal Communications Commission’s 2018 order that cities may not interfere with the installation of radios, antennas, transmitters, and other equipment on public streets to promote technological advancement. It is said that he was doing so.
Mr. Lamont is a full supporter of 5G mobile technology, which, prior to arbitration, will make networks significantly faster, more responsive, and capable of connecting 100 times as many wireless devices, a technology that will benefit residents and businesses. It was advertised as a breakthrough.
His office sought mediation to ease the process for cities, given that the federal government prevents cities from regulating the use of their own properties.
After a year and a half of negotiations, the administration has now brokered an agreement between two carriers, AT&T and Verizon, and the cities of Bridgeport, Stamford, New Haven, Hartford and Waterbury. The agreement, which creates a template for applications submitted by telecommunications companies to install 5G equipment in cities, is being submitted to local councils.
So far, the University of Bridgeport and the University of Hartford have approved this template. The cities of New Haven and Waterbury are expected to approve it soon.
But in Stamford, a committee of House members overwhelmingly rejected the deal last week despite warnings from a retired judge, the lawyer who mediated the deal, and the city attorney.
“End of discussion”
City representatives have expressed concern that 5G high-frequency wireless communications is a form of environmental pollution, saying the technology could damage human cells and harm wildlife and plants. expressed concern.
During the committee meeting, all three attorneys told city representatives that they had no authority in public health discussions. Lawyers say the board is certain to lose if the House of Representatives rejects the application to deploy 5G equipment and the carriers take the board to court.
Retired Judge Robert Holtzberg said Lamont asked him to arbitrate the agreement and told attorneys the city’s role in reviewing applications from carriers is very limited.
“There are clearly defined and accepted limits on the authority of local governments to regulate the location of 5G carriers,” Holtzberg said. “The rule is that when the FCC approves radio frequencies for carriers to use, that’s the beginning and end of the discussion.”
Mursa Kalina’s attorney, Al Smith, said the governor’s office asked him to represent the five cities in arbitration with the carriers. The process is “almost entirely ahead of federal law,” Smith said.
“Reasonable people may have different opinions about whether that is fair or wise, but the law is clear: carriers have a substantial right to install equipment on their land, but local governments have no right to do so. We have limited ability to regulate that equipment,” Smith said. “The law is stacked in favor of carriers.”
Bart Rosenberg, general counsel for the Stanford Assistant Corporation, told the committee that members “are reluctant to install 5G equipment based on concerns that the radio frequency emissions emitted by the equipment pose a threat to public health. ” sent a memo acknowledging that.
Rosenberg presented a document explaining a 2021 decision by the state Department of Utilities Regulation regarding Shippan Avenue resident Len Bukai, who claimed his health was threatened by installing 5G equipment on a utility pole in front of his home. provided.
PURA ruled against Bucay, saying the emissions were within FCC limits and met federal safety requirements, Rosenberg wrote.
AT&T “presented radio frequency emission measurements showing that the emissions were well below permit standards,” the city attorney wrote. “We would like to submit these documents to the Commission to demonstrate that PURA is taking vigorous measures to ensure the safety of its 5G facilities.”
But a panel of experts invited to speak to the Land Use Committee said the case brought forward by Rosenberg illustrates the problem of assessing the safety of 5G technology. AT&T had its own witnesses testify that AT&T’s radio frequency emissions were safe. State regulators accepted.
That’s happening at the federal level, said Kent Chamberlin, a professor emeritus at the University of New Hampshire who specializes in radio wave propagation and is vice chairman of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation. The commission, established in 2021, has criticized current approaches to regulating electromagnetic field exposure.
“The FCC is probably dominated by the industry it regulates,” Chamberlin said.
State Rep. David Michel of Stamford, an outspoken environmental activist, presented information from the Land Use Committee, which is considering approval of AT&T and Verizon’s application templates to install 5G equipment. A panel was convened to respond to questions.
Councilman Jim Grunberger asked how many more towers Stamford residents can expect to see.
“Could it be in the hundreds?” Grumberger asked.
Attorney Smith said that’s a possibility.
“I don’t think we should walk away from this because of the threat of litigation,” Grunberger said. “If we have to be a test case on this, we should be a test case.”
City Councilman Don Mayes said the opposite.
“If a city tries to violate FCC rules, the carriers will sue the city,” Mays said. “And I don’t want to expose this city to that.”
Mays said he would like to hear more about research showing that cell phones and cell towers are safe because radio frequency radiation levels are too low to cause harm.
City Attorney Rosenberg strongly agreed. He asked land use commissioners to continue discussions until their November meeting so they can “develop a PURA record of compliance with 4G and 5G radio frequency emission standards.”
“I would like the opportunity to present evidence that contradicts the evidence of the witnesses tonight,” Rosenberg said. What I represent is [Mayor Caroline Simmons] We have a right to due process. But if I’m not allowed to examine witnesses on behalf of the administration, in my opinion, you’re depriving the administration of its due process rights. ”
One expert, author and former New York Times science reporter Blake Levitt, responded to Rosenberg’s remarks.
“I want to point out to him, we are not witnesses. We are panelists invited to this committee meeting,” Levitt said. “This is not a courtroom, this is not the mayor’s office.”
Grunberger also responded to Rosenberg’s remarks.
“Attorney Rosenberg says he represents the administration,” Grunberger said. “But he is also the representative of the Board of Deputies.”
Councilman Terry Adams said Rosenberg should be given the opportunity to rebut the expert’s presentation and made a motion for the committee to hold a discussion. His motion was not supported and was put to a vote.
Committee members voted 8-1 to recommend that the full board reject the telecommunications agreement on the application for the installation of 5G equipment. Mr. Adams voted “no.” The board is scheduled to take up the matter at its Nov. 8 meeting.
The agreement requires AT&T and Verizon to notify city officials in advance of where the equipment will be installed. This sets a time frame for cities to respond to communications applications. Establishes fees that carriers must pay to install equipment on city property. Allows cities to determine the size and appearance of facilities and construction requirements to ensure safe installation and maintenance of utility poles.
—
Editor’s Note: Stamford State Representative David Michel is not a former member of the Stamford House of Representatives, as we have previously written. This story has been updated.
