Hi ,

We hope you're having a great week. This is not a regular occurrence, but tonight we're putting the registration link for the Friday, March 11th National Call for Safe Technology AND the follow up from the February 25th call in the same email!

So first, let's start with the registration link for THIS Friday's call at 1pm EST/10am PST:
https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwodeypqTopGNX-2jciP0AtUXlIhvwj0qnT 

And now let's get into a recap of the last call! Here is the replay of the National Call for Safe Technology from Friday, February 25th: https://youtu.be/ZIZvc23qtbI

Our first speaker was Mary Bauer who talked about what happened during the last listening session for the NTIA. A general inquiry was made on the to see if anyone else would consider responding to the comments made by Mr. Bayliss that wireless is safe and every concern that was brought up was not true. Here is the listening session (comments discussed are at the end): https://youtu.be/UNkQgDgxu8E

In case you missed our previous email, here is a recap of the necessary info:

Mark Bayliss, a member of the FCC's newly formed Technological Advisory Council (TAC) who made some factually incorrect statements on this week's NTIA call claiming that "wireless broadband is completely safe" and pointed out that at least 2 people who previously spoke from our movement were wrong when they claimed that it is unsafe and therefore should be precluded from receiving capacity grant monies for broadband.

Next we heard from Richard Frank with Niacom, a Fiber Optics operator in New York who talked about the price increases for fees and licenses fiber optics providers are experiencing. Richard is expanding his operation outside of NY into different areas of the country and asks that anyone interested in trying to bring fiber to communities expanding their broadband contact his company.

Niacom's website is here: https://www.niacom.us/

Richard also mentioned two really good resources which track and map all fiber in the United States:

https://www.geo-tel.com/

https://www.fiberlocator.com/

Neil McDougall from the UK updated us on their efforts to challenge the extent and limits of the localities' jurisdiction for an affirmative response to protect public health.

Neil says they are using the 'orthodoxy/counter-orthodoxy' argument (see below):
ii) Challenging Ofcom as the EECC National Regulatory Authority
and,
iii) Touching on the Europe wide (((Stop 5G))) Stay Connected but Protected campaign see:
https://signstop5g.eu/en/news/the-most-pervasive-threat-to-health-environment-and-privacy-ever

Neil touched on the difference between:

i) the quality of guidance on the health impacts of RFR exposure,

and,

ii) how decision makers act given that the guidance is unreliable. The 'orthodoxy' argued by lawyers (acting on behalf of the decision makers) responding to the jurisdiction questions Neil's raised over the last year is that they have no option but to apply the guidance in accordance with Government policy.

The 'counter orthodoxy' (which is built on legal rather than policy grounds) identifies the mechanisms that decision makers have to apply given the unreliability of the guidance and their prerogative powers. The less reliable the guidance (and the 13th August ruling re: the FDA exposes unreliability) the more careful the decision maker has to be if the 'counter orthodoxy' is asserted successfully.