With only a month before oral arguments, challengers to the FCC’s new RF exposure standard managed to avoid imploding last week. Just barely.
It all started a couple weeks ago when Cellular Phone Taskforce President Arthur Firstenberg accused James Hobson, a D.C. lawyer for the Ad-Hoc Association of Parties Concerned about the FCC’s Radiofrequency Health and Safety Rules, of having a conflict of interest.
Firstenberg asked Hobson to step down from the RF case pending before a federal appeals court in New York. More briefs were filed last week. Oral argument is set for August.
Firstenberg’s June 28 letter to Ad-Hoc members triggered a July 6 response in which Ad-Hoc’s David Fichtenberg and Libby Kelley defended Hobson.
In its letter to members, Ad-Hoc also asked for individual member contributions of $100 and neighborhood group contributions of $500 to cover $30,000 of legal expenses.
Ad-Hoc said it hopes for IRS approval of tax-deductible contributions.
Both groups, as well as the Communications Workers of America, oppose the RF standard on grounds that, among other things, the public is not adequately protected by it.
The FCC and the cellular industry argue otherwise.
Firstenberg, unable to garner support from his own organization and under fire from Ad-Hoc, apologized to Hobson in a July 8 letter. A Hobson’s choice, no doubt.
Here was the basis of Firstenberg’s accusation: In addition to Ad-Hoc, another of Hobson’s clients is the National Emergency Number Association. On its face, this shouldn’t be a problem. Except for one thing: NENA appears to have allied itself with the cellular industry to support a House bill that promotes siting of the very antennas that worry the Ad Hoc and the Cellular Phone Taskforce. The bill’s advocates oppose using any money generated from the legislation for the the kind of federal cancer research that Ad-Hoc might like to see.
The bill’s proponents-championed by House telecom subcommittee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-La.) at the behest of the cellular industry-promise $1.5 billion for E911 system upgrades over five years. That may help explain how the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association secured support for the bill from NENA and the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials.
Indeed, John Melcher, director of information systems for the Greater Harris County 911 Emergency Network in Houston, wireless industry liaison for NENA, chairman of the 911 subcommittee of APCO and a holder of patents for emergency communications systems, testified in favor of H.R. 3844 on June 9.
Not surprisingly, the bill’s E911 proponents like the idea of getting a chunk of fees paid by wireless carriers to erect antennas on federal land. Never mind that the General Services Administration and the Congressional Budget Office believe the $1.5 billion/5-year projection is a bit high. Details, details.
