ISFT Testimony

Testimony Template


Dear (Council members/Commissioners/Suprevisors):

I am (NAME), a resident of (City/County) I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate, and within my personal knowledge.





I have expressed no ”concern” or any other non-substantive matter, only matters of fact and law. I accept your oath of office.

Signed this (DATE) day of (MONTH),(YEAR)


May 20, 2020 Person 1

Highway District Officials:

I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate and within my personal knowledge.

  1. I am (Name) , a licensed health care professional for over twenty years. I am a successful business owner. I live and work in Boise.

  2. ACHD, in §7400, is missing a golden opportunity to incentivize the completion of fiberoptics-to-the-premises (FTTP) by invoking its police powers over the public rights-of-way. Fiber optics provides broadband in ways that preserve the quiet enjoyment of streets in residential areas, something the ACHD must protect. Wireless broadband, in contrast, can pump excessive Effective Radiated Power into residential neighborhoods if it is not sufficiently regulated by the ACHD. Think of BIG DATA [loud] (Internet, video, streaming and gaming) via fiber optics and only small data [soft] (phone calls and texts) via Wireless.

  3. In 2020, nearly all wireless new facilities (WTFs) for Telecommunications service aren’t needed, because the existing telecommunications coverage is adequate. This has been simply demonstrated by citizens successfully making calls all over Ada County every day of the year. Wireless Applicants do not have rights to construct or operate WTFs without first establishing the need for them.

  4. The Ninth Circuit Court Court of Appeals ruled in 2005 in Metro PCS v San Francisco that “significant gap in coverage” must be proven, otherwise the County will not have to grant a new WTF license. Specific instructions can be added in §7400 that a neutral third-party RF professional, hired by the County (but paid for by the applicants) shall perform a drive test for all Telecommunications service frequencies for all carriers. This drive test can be required every six months and the cost of these tests can be paid for by the Wireless applicants.

  5. Further, §7400 could include the 2005 Ninth Circuit requirement that “If a significant gap in coverage is present, Then the telecoms may install . . . using the least intrusive means.” Thus, any licensing agreement must be worded to comply with this Ninth Circuit ruling, and §7400 must likewise be redrafted in compliance and in protection of the public against unnecessary WTF construction and operations.

  6. Thereafter, if another gap in coverage is proven by a neutral third party, only then, per the Ninth Circuit ruling, may the applicant apply for modification or an additional facility, and using only the least intrusive means. These requirements are missing in §7400. Let’s fix that before going forward.

  7. Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam stated in May 2018: :

"We have now busted the myth that [5G frequencies] have to be line-of-sight — they do not. We busted the myth that foliage will shut [5G] down . . . that does not happen. And the 200 feet from a home? We are now designing the network for over 2,000 feet from transmitter to receiver." This statement vacates the need for nearly all proposed sWTFs in public rights-of-way because existing macro towers can co-locate new 4G/5G antennas. That is the least intrusive means in Ada county.

  1. The public has the right to determine what we need as a community in §7400. In our fire-prone state, fiber-optics provides the best long-term, safe, secure, reliable, and energy-efficient solution for broadband. During the northern California fires, those with landlines received notice and got out. Those with only wireless phones, got no alerts and died in greater numbers. An electrical box owned by the utility PG&E started that fire. To avoid fires, PUT EVERYTHING UNDERGROUND.

I’m asking you to postpone the vote on this unfinished legislation, or if you do vote please VOTE “No” until §7400 complies with federal laws and precedents.

Ada County can lead the way: let’s do our best for all Idahoans. With collaboration, we can create a ground-breaking law that meets our needs and values.

I have expressed no matter of mere concern but solely matters of substance, fact and law.



May 20, 2020 Person 2

I attest and affirm that the following statements are true, accurate and within my personal knowledge.

My name is (NAME), a certified Building Biologist and Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist, practicing in Ada County. I am an expert in measuring and mitigating radiofrequency/microwave (RF/MW) radiation exposures.

My business has been booming ever since Boise started installing so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in the public rights-of-way because RF/MW exposures from sWTFs is actually tens of thousands of times higher than RF/MW from Macro Towers. This is because the sWTFs are so much closer. It is the proximity to homes and businesses that is so hazardous.

I use professional, certified, calibrated RF meters and always measure the peaks of RF/MW radiation, which is thousands of times higher than averages because the peaks of RF/MW are what really matter.

People in ADA county are facing safety, privacy and property value hazards simply because the ACHD — to date — has failed to sufficiently regulate Vertical [pause] Horizontal [pause] and Power for sWTF antennas. Vertical is the number of feet off the ground), Horizontal is the number of feet away from homes and Power is the Maximum Effective Radiated Power (Watts ERP) that the antenna can output.

It is easy to calculate EPR from the antenna spec sheet. You multiply maximum power input by antenna gain for each channel and then sum the total.

When the original Macro Towers were constructed on hillsides, they had antennas with 200 feet of Vertical and 3,000+ feet of Horizontal. This VHP recipe allows the RF signal to waft into residential areas at a low enough level to enable calls and will not ruin the quiet enjoyment of streets.

But, when cell tower antennas have only 30-50 of Vertical and only 20-50 feet of Horizontal, then we have a real disaster. This means the ACHD needs to cap the maximum output power of these close-in sWTF antennas to that which enables phone calls, but will not ruin the quiet enjoyment of streets – just like the larger Macro towers.

Because the ACHD is not paying attention, this proposal today is allowing sWTFs to deploy 15,000 to 22,000 Watts ERP 20 to 50 feet from our homes, when only 0.1 Watt of ERP is needed to go down the street for half-a-mile, provide 5 bars and a cell phone and 3,000+ people can simultaneously make a call.

None of my clients would want their children to sleep in the RF/MW radiation of a macro tower that is only 20-50 feet from their bedroom windows.

Our legislators understood this back in 1996 when they wrote the conference report explaining the legislative intent for the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

The 1996-TCA Conference Report states:
“[T]he conferees do not intend [pause] that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor’s 50-foot tower in a residential district.”

An ERP Limit of 0.1 Watt for WTFs for all frequencies transmitted from a WTF can be enforced 24/7 with a fuse under a locality’s lock-and-key, and can then allow a locality to levy fines for ERP violations.

Localities can use their police powers over the public rights-of-way to preserve the quiet enjoyment of streets by requiring a fiber optic sharing box on every WTF. A third piece of equipment can filter out the dirty electricity induced in the local electrical lines.

ACHD has an opportunity to include rational VHP regulation in section 7400 . We are fortunate to have a simple, cost-effective and revenue-generating solution. I urge Commissioners to not vote the current draft through tonight, revise it to include such regulation and bring it back in a few weeks.

Thank you.

I have expressed no matter of mere concern but solely matters of substance, fact and law.

May 20, 2020 Person 3

Correct insurance for ACHD covers all liabilities that can be generated by a Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (of any size and any G) installed in the public rights-of-way.

WTF antennas emit pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR), a health hazards that have been scientifically established by tens of thousands of non-industry funded studies. Therefore, it is crucial to obtain complete third-party insurance coverage for illnesses and injuries caused by RF/MW radiation. General Liability Insurance may be required as part of a use-permit or as a condition of any Master license agreement for deployment of WTF infrastructure.

The precise kind of insurance needed is called “Pollution Insurance”. Most General Liability Insurance policies, however, have a "pollution exclusion": under this exclusion, RF/MW radiation and EMFs are listed as pollutants). The ACHD must demand that any permit of any kind that allows a Telecom to install WTFs in the public-rights-of-way must include specific pollution coverage in the master licensing and other licensing agreements. This insurance must be obtained from a licensed third-party insurance company, not from a self-insured indemnity substitute named by the Telecom.

To protect the health and well-being of their county residents, and to avoid possible lawsuits by the residents against the ACHD, the District must reject any offer of self-insurance or indemnity made by the installing company as insufficient.
What the ACHD Should Add to §7400:

Demand a copy of the actual third-party insurance policy. Consider applicants to be in breach of the permit until proper Pollution insurance is obtained.

Every cell phone company defines electromagnetic fields, microwaves, and all artificially produced non-ionizing radiation as “pollutants” and refuses to cover the phone for damages from such pollutants. This applies to wireless infrastructure, as well.

Quote from CFC Underwriting LTD in London, the UK agent for Lloyd’s of London:

“The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.”

AT&T Mobile Insurance Exclusions:

  • “Loss caused by or resulting from the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of Pollutants”

  • “Pollutants” means: Any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acid, alkalis, chemicals, artificially produced electric fields, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, sound waves, microwaves, and all artificially produced ionizing or non- ionizing radiation and waste. Waste includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed.” (pg. 4) AT &T Mobile Insurance Policy, February 2014.

It is crucial, that the ACHD deal with the health effects of RF-EMR/EMF pollution, and they may do so when the subject is proper insurance. This is not the same as rejecting a WTF installation for health effects, (47 US Code 332(c)(7)(B) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ).

The City can simply state it is:

  • protecting the health of the citizens from a known hazard, and
  • avoiding any liability from lawsuits that may develop from parties who claim injury from RF-EMR/EMFs from Wireless infrastructure.

Since neither the City nor Big Wireless Cos. are able to obtain the proper Pollution Insurance from third-party companies, the Big Wireless Cos. will attempt to offer other forms of insurance with the pollution exclusion, or will offer indemnity (self-insurance).
This indemnity will not be offered directly by the Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, but rather by another company which will be installing the equipment (a variety of LLCs, Limited partnerships or other business entities such which may be listed as “dba Verizon”, “dba AT&T” or dba "T-Mobile".

The Big Wireless Cos. are well aware that RF-EMR/EMFs is a known hazard and admit this fact to their shareholders in annual reports and also state this in their own insurance exclusions to their customers. Therefore, the ACHD requiring third party insurance in § 7400 is the only way to insure proper handling of this issue.