To G-5 or Not to G-5

Message from the CTIA, America’s Wireless Industry Association.

America invented the cell phone, the smartphone, and the app industry—and today’s 4G networks were deployed here first. We lead the world in wireless, and that leadership brings significant benefits. Today, the U.S. wireless industry supports over 4.6 million jobs and contributes roughly $400 billion annually to our economy—more than the auto manufacturing, agriculture, and oil and gas industries. No industry is more central to our daily lives.

But without swift action and sensible policies, America’s continued wireless leadership is at risk. The race to deploy tomorrow’s 5G networks is on—and we’re at a critical moment. The EU, China, Japan, South Korea and others are doing everything they can to seize our wireless leadership.

Message from The League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and the Rural County Representatives of California

SB 649 is a telecom power grab that gives them profits at the expense of California communities. A video is available at

City and county leaders and others are urging the Legislature to reject legislation that would severely limit local input on where telecommunications companies could install wireless equipment on public infrastructure. It also puts an arbitrary cap on reimbursement for the use of public property. Over 215 cities and dozens of counties oppose SB 649.

Slowing down the implementation of G-5 broadband slows down economic development in rural counties. The government wants a revenue stream they can count on rather than active economic development which is a larger risk. In the process, there is a possibility that rural communities will continue to isolate them selves from the digital world, of self-driving cars, automated agriculture, remote health care, better educations delivery and more opportunities for entrepreneurship.

I would like to hear from readers. What is your option?

One thought on “To G-5 or Not to G-5

  1. Russ Steele September 11, 2017 / 11:42 pm

    Here is an example of the opposition to G5 implementation in one Sierra community, Nevada City.

    Local governments typically encourage new technology, but this proposal goes too far by requiring local government to approve these “small cells” in all land-use zones, including private property, barring the public from decisions that will likely dramatically affect the aesthetics of the community, reduce property value, property tax, and the quality of our constituents’ health and environment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s