|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - cell
June 29th 2007, Apple released the 1st generation iPhone and the service was only available through AT&T. When it was released AT&T offered an UNLIMITED plan to all that signed a 2 year contract. I signed that contract in February of 2008, the first day the iPhone 16GB was released.
I have since then had every iPhone since and have loved my service through AT&T. However, last month (March 2012) I received the following message... "AT&T Free Msg: Your data usage is near 3GB this month. Exceeding 3GB during in future billing cycles will result in reduced speeds, though you'll still be able to email & surf the web. Wi-Fi helps reduced speeds."
Now, after I was on the phone for 40 minutes with the phone number they left me in a text message to call, I was given an explanation that they were trying to stop an overcrowding problem before it starts but when I asked "those who don't have the unlimited plan, will you slow their data service after they reach 3GB's?" and that's when they said "no because they pay for it and that money gets recycled back into the network."
A 95 foot Rogers cell tower is planned to be installed in the Hopedale residential area, at the Big Bear Plaza at 1461 Rebecca Street, unless residents band together to stop the installation.
However, this does NOT only affect the Hopedale residents as future towers are planned for other residential areas around Oakville, affecting not only the overall health of local residents but also property values.
The National Research Council of Canada issued a report stating their belief that cell towers should NOT be placed within 500m of residential properties, schools, hospitals and daycares. In the Oakville Beaver article, dated April 29th, 2011, MP Terence Young said the safety zone should be 1000m, similar to what some European countries have adopted, citing the Precautionary Principal which states that in the absence of conclusive evidence, the onus is on the person imposing a potential danger to prove that it is NOT a danger.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to be read which indicates the dangers of chronic exposure to low levels of electromagnetic radiation to people living within a 500m radius of a cell tower. This is ESPECIALLY TRUE OF CHILDREN because of their thinner skulls. In adults, the most vulnerable parts of the body are the eyes, testicles and breasts with an increase in cancer of these areas. Aside from cancer, chronic exposure to this type of radiation causes sleep disorders, attention disorders, anxiety disorders and immune system diseases. The World Health Organization (WHO) recognized electro-sensitivity as a bonafide disorder in 2005.
Non-government funded research indicates the potential threat to human health. Government funded research points in the opposite direction. The Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association reports "The members of the CWTA pay license fees in excess of $150 million each year - more than two-thirds of the total fees collected by Industry Canada from all spectrum users". Industry Canada gets the final word on tower placement. Conflict of interest??
Citizens across the nation have been speaking out for the last eleven+ years to no avail. The illnesses related to chronic exposure are now surfacing and the evidence is terrifying.
Email, write and call NOW, before it is too late to say NO:
Mayor of Oakville - Rob Burton - (905) 338-4173
INFORMATION ON THE COUNCIL, WARD MAPS AND FURTHER CONTACT INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND AT:
Ward 1 Councillors:
Alan Johnston - (905) 825-9586 - firstname.lastname@example.org
Ralph Robinson - (905) 827-7659 - email@example.com
*ward 1 represents QEW south to the lake, and Burloak to Third Line
Ward 2 Councillors:
Cathy Duddeck - (905) 815-6003 - firstname.lastname@example.org
Pam Damoff - (905) 582-4237 - email@example.com
*ward 2 represents QEW south to the lake, and Third Line to 16 Mile Creek
Ward 3 Councillors:
Keith Bird - (905) 844-5571 - firstname.lastname@example.org
Dave Gittings - (905) 844-5513 - email@example.com
*ward 3 represents QEW south to the lake, and 16 Mile Creek to Winston Churchill Blvd.
Ward 4 Councillors:
Allan Elgar - (905) 827-6056 - firstname.lastname@example.org
Roger Lapworth - (289) 837-1346 - email@example.com
*ward 4 represents QEW north to the border of Oakville, and Oakville/Burlington border to 16 Mile Creek.
Ward 5 Councillors:
Jeff Knoll - (905) 815-6000 - firstname.lastname@example.org
Marc Grant - (905) 815-6001 - email@example.com
*ward 5 represents QEW north to the border of Oakville, and 16 Mile Creek to Trafalgar Road.
Ward 6 Councillors:
Tom Adams - (905) 849-7915 - firstname.lastname@example.org
Max Khan - (905) 845-6601 - email@example.com
*ward 6 represents QEW north to the border of Oakville, and east of Trafalgar to the east border of Oakville.
Julia Jackson - (647) 747-7081 - firstname.lastname@example.org
MP Terrence Young - (905) 338-2008
David Lea - (905) 845-9742
Owner and Property Manager of Big Bear Plaza, where the proposed tower is planned to be installed:
Amer Taha - (289) 237-0462 or (905) 304-9600
In 2009 Canada's Globalive, with the financial backing of Orascom attempted to launch Wind Mobile in major Canadian centers. At the time, the CRTC ruled that Orascom in effect ran Globalive due to the size of their investment in the venture, effectively preventing them from operating.
However, the Governor in Council (acting on suggestion of Tony Clement, Industry Minister of Canada) concluded that since Canadians owned 66% of the voting shares, that they were controlled by Canadians, and allowed them to launch Wind Mobile.
In little more than one year, Wind Mobile has launched in 5 major cities across the country, has signed up over approximately 300,000 subscribers, invested hundreds of millions in our economy during an economic downturn, and has provided competition and more choices for wireless customers.
On February 4, 2011, the Federal Court ruled in a suit brought by competitors Public Mobile and Telus, that the Governor in Council's decision overriding the CRTC's decision was improper. Wind was granted a 45-day stay of the decision to file arguments.
There are thousands of jobs that are at risk, as well as the unlimited plans with no surprise fees that Wind Mobile has provided since their launch.
This petition is related to the proposed construction of a cellular communications tower by a Proponent, to be situated on top of the ridge between the Stonepine and Elbow Valley communities, on either the Westridge Utilities Building site or the municipal land beside it. (View Tower Location Map)
We have chosen not to identify the cellular provider (the Proponent) so as not to introduce identity bias to this important issue. If you have questions concerning the petition, please use this Contact link to submit an email. To sign the petition, use the "Sign the petition" button at the bottom of this page after reading the background information and the petition.
For familiarization, an existing tower to the east of the proposed site is pictured below (located on 101st St. SW, 200 meters north of Highway 8).
FINANCIAL & QUALITY OF LIFE IMPACT ON HOME OWNERS
Although there are various other location and co-location alternatives that will not negatively impact the community, the Proponent is choosing the route of the easiest and least costly alternative, with little concern displayed to date for the financial consequences or the impact on quality of life of home owners in one of the most exclusive residential neighbourhoods in Canada. The locations preferred by the Proponent (either a right of way at the top of Stonepine Drive, or the Westridge Utility site at the same location) will cause severe financial damage to nearby homeowners and carry-over damage to owners throughout the community.
In addition to an estimated $10 million to $20 million in total damages (for which Westridge and its owner may be open to civil action should they allow the tower to be built on their site), there is a significant possibility that the ridge top location and proximity to Springbank Airport will require strobe lights to be installed on the tower. If this turns out to be the case the flashing lights on a tower at that location will impact night-time quality of life, not only for everyone throughout Stonepine and Elbow Valley, but for all homeowners within visual range in the Highway 8 corridor and to the north in central Springbank. Low-intensity, limited placement, lighting is currently in use in the community in order to minimize light pollution and retain the rural experience of living outside the city, and, due to this, the negative impact of flashing tower lights on the community will be amplified many times in comparison to areas where ambient light levels are higher.
The VISION of this very special country residential community DID NOT include an obtrusive cell tower and its subsequent impact on quality of life, financial impact on owners, and fears of possible health effects on our children.
HISTORY OF LACK OF COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY
The cellular industry in general has a history of choosing tower locations on the basis of operational efficiency without consideration of 'fit' with surroundings or impact on neighbouring residents and often without proper process with the local Land Use Authority or notification of affected residents as required by Industry Canada policies. By the time nearby residents realize what is going on, it is too late and the tower has been built.
Based on actions to date, it appears that the current Proponent is choosing to ignore Industry Canada guidelines that request companies to co-locate their antenna on towers that are already built, wherever possible, to reduce impact on surroundings. The actions suggesting this may be a valid conclusion are that, instead of utilizing part of the unused capacity on the large tower at the NE corner of Highway 8 and 101st St. SW (originally constructed without notice to adjoining residents), the Proponent plans on building a new and similarly sized tower on private property on the SW corner of the same intersection. There appears to be little or no legitimate need for this second tower, and similarly there appears to be little or no legitimate need for a tower at the proposed Stonepine Rd./Westridge Utility location when there are currently existing towers and capacity elsewhere in the region that the Proponent can utilize, in addition to alternate choices for new-tower locations that will not cause damage to existing residents. This strategy of duplicate tower locations creates the appearance the Proponent simply wishes to create their own network of towers that may be leased in the future as a profit center, without regard for the financial or quality of life consequences to owners in the area who have spent between $1.5 to $7 million to build or purchase homes in a unique, very special location.
The issue at hand is not that network expansion should be prevented (the Proponent is entitled to conduct and expand its business), the issue is that there are many alternatives to co-locate on existing towers or position new towers in alternative locations that will not negatively impact current residents of the community, and these options are being ignored. In addition, the proposed Stonepine/Elbow Valley location will be in direct contravention of Rocky View Communication Tower Policies designed to protect residents from being adversely affected by inappropriate tower placements, as described below.
Rocky View communication tower policy states that communication towers greater than 20 meters in height may not be placed closer than half a kilometer (500 meters) to residential development. Depending on final siting, the currently proposed location(s) will place a large tower within an estimated 30 to 80 meters of existing homes, one-tenth the required buffer distance. Rocky View guidelines also state that “rural vistas of the municipality should be respected”… “for the protection of views.” In line with this, current zoning does not permit communication towers as an allowable land-use in the area. Although federal guidelines allow towers to be built closer to residential development, federal policy states that where local Land Use Authorities have specific policies in place (View Rocky View Communication Tower Policy) the Proponent must determine what the local requirements are and respect and follow local policies and guidelines, including those concerning notification and consultation with local residents (in reality, inadequate, or a complete lack of, proper public notification and consultation is a tactic that can be effectively used to minimize negative feedback. Federal approval is subsequently quickly gained if a cellular provider can show there is little or no opposition to the tower). The Proponent is also required to obtain written concurrence with the proposal from the local Land Use Authority prior to gaining final federal approval.
In addition to not allowing towers taller than 20 meters to be located within 500 meters of residential development, Rocky View guidelines further dictate that all residents within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) must be notified of the proposed tower as part of the public consultation process, followed by a period to allow for feedback from residents within the affected area. In a telephone conversation, however, the Proponent’s technical representative indicated they will not be adhering to the 1.6 km notification requirement and will instead notify only the residents closest to the proposed tower location (tens of affected homes versus over 800 homes, i.e. 100% of Elbow Valley, 100% of Stonepine and 50% of Elbow River Estates).
Although Rocky View policies against such a tower are clear, Industry Canada policy allows the proponent to challenge and potentially overrule the local regulations. If a strong, anti-tower reaction is not mounted by affected residents, then the County communication tower policies designed to protect property owners will be ignored and the tower will be built as planned.
NOTE: Regarding Federal approvals, Industry Canada will allow a proponent to submit a site plan for 'Technical Pre-Approval' prior to the public and LUA consultation process so they have assurance they won't be turned down later on technical grounds after expending time and effort going through the consultation process. Such a technical pre-approval can be (and has been) used in the industry to mislead the local Land Use Authority into believing that the proponent has approval to build the tower from Industry Canada and that there is nothing that can be done to influence the site location or tower design. Initial Industry Canada ‘Technical Approval’ of an application does not mean that the Proponent has automatic approval for the construction of a tower. If a negative stance from the local Land Use Authority and local residents occurs and a permit and letter of concurrence is not issued (by Rocky View), the Proponent must appeal to Industry Canada for resolution. At this time, the argument against installation of the tower will be considered and a final decision made. It is not possible to obtain approval for construction of a tower without evidence of conducting prior public and local Land Use Authority consultation, and a letter of concurrence from the local Land Use Authority. (View Federal Consultation Process Chart)
(View complete Federal Guidelines)
We the mobile telephone consumers of Ghana have embarked on a demonstration to protest the sub-standard services being offered by the mobile telephony companies in Ghana. This demonstration has become necessary because these companies have turned deaf ears to numerous complaints from individual consumers and the collective voices through the Consumer Protection Agency (CPA).
The time has now come for consumers to demonstrate and send a clear signal to the mobile companies that Ghanaians will no longer tolerate the shoddy services by these companies. By this petition we are inviting the Government through the Ministry of Communications and and the National Communications Authority to swiftly intervene to ensure that the following cocktail of consumer complaints are addressed without further delay;
1. GHANAIANS DEMAND PORTABILITY NOW BUY NOT IN 2 YEARS AS ANNOUNCED A FEW MONTHS AGO (right to switch between networks & still keep our numbers)
2. GHANAIANS DESERVE LOWER PHONE RATES AS PERTAINED IN THE HOME COUNTRIES OF THE TELEPHONY COMPANIES
3. GHANAIANS ARE TIRED OF LOW-GRADE SERVICE SUCH AS CALLL DROPS, OUT OF COVERAGE AREAS, REPEATED UNINITIATED TEXT MESSAGES, ETC.
4. GHANAIANS ARE SICK OF PHONY PROMOTIONS THAT ARE NOT MONITORED AND AUDITED BY THE NCA.
5. GHANAIANS ARE FATIGUED OF BEING OUT OF COVERAGE AREA WHEN THE PEOPE YOU CALL HAVE THEIR PHONES SWITCHED ON, AND IN FACT ARE AROUND THE CORNER FROM YOU.
6. GHANAIANS MUST BE PROTECTED FROM THE INDISCRIMINATE CONSTRUCTION OF MASTS THAT MAY BE HAZARDOUS.
With the telecom companies we have in Canada doesnt give us much of a choice of services and they all have the same problems. I am looking to get as many signatures as i can before i send this to Consumer Affairs.
We must get other companies to Canada so we as consumers have many choices on what services we use and how much we pay.
We Satio users have been waiting a long time for an update for our Satio's that justifies its high price tag. We Satio users also want the basic features to be fixed e.g. kinetic scrolling added to whole UI; RDS added to radio; etc....
WHY is this phone entertainment LIMITED when its supposed to be entertainment UNLIMITED?
An application to the city of Windham, NH has been submitted to construct a 150 foot Cell Tower in a residential neighborhood.
The perceived reduction in property values, as well as health concerns to just children living and playing near the tower need to be reviewed.
Please join us in our fight against Verizon Wireless and the Land Owner constructing intrusive towers that will forever change the landscape of Windham, NH.
Many groups have done research on the subject like The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society which determined that, “Cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year.”
In addition, in a 2007 survey done by Nationwide Mutual Insurance they recorded that, “73 percent of drivers talk on cell phones while driving.” That poses a real danger to everyone on the roads given the previous statistics.
Stem cell research is a very promising thing. Especially embryonic stem cells :) Stem cells have endless possibilities and have amazing potential in this world. They have the ability to divide infinitely. They are "blank" cells that can transform themselves into any type of body cell. They have the potential to treat and cure every disease and condition. The only thing stopping this is the stupid controversy which is totally pointless.
People who are against stem cell research are usually against abortion. They think that embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong because it's "killing a baby" (said in a mocking voice) It's far from it. The embryos they use are already in storage for in-vitro fertilization. If not used for stem cell research, they await deep freeze or death anyway. And it's NOT a BABY!!! It's a few dozen cells, maybe less. It isn't conscious, and it doesn't even have the ability to think or feel pain or love.
People are making it seem like the equivalent of slaughtering a small child or baby. The embryo isn't a BABY! It's not even a fetus yet for crying out loud. The thing is MICROSCOPIC and is farther away from being human-like than an insect. Jeez. So people who think it's "killing a baby" need to step aside and let people who realize the full potential and harmless nature of stem cell research go on and experiment with it.
This petition is against President Barrack H. Obama's promise to lift the ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research (hESCR.) Note: hESCR is NOT illegal. But it does, however, have restrictions that prevent clinics to use and destroy large amounts of embryos for the benefit of medical science.
But now, Obama wants to lift these restrictions so that we can find new cures for diseases. However, while it may seem as a great success, it's killing thousands of embryos within the first couple of days of conception.
Did you know that Telecom is erecting a cell phone site in Onehunga?
Above Tin Tacks Dairy
164-172 Trafalgar St
Telecommunication companies say cell towers and electromagnetic radiation are safe. Most independent experts around the world say it is not. Many governments and world experts are advising that far more caution should be taken.
No-one knows what the long term effects of EMF radiation will be to Children.
Residential cell phone sites currently require no consultation or any notification to be erected.
NO CELL PHONE TAPPING. Leave our cell phones alone! Give us our privacy back.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation can now hear everything you say even when
the cell phone is turned off. By using your phones tracking device, authorities can now activate the microphone inside of the phone allowing them to eavesdrop on you and your conversations. This is serious business.
The FBI is using this to keep tabs on critical conversations by people the FBI calls "known members" of the mafia.
Experts say the only way around it is to take your battery out.