26110080128
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110080128

Before addressing the core matter of this submission, I must formally object to the absurd and needlessly restrictive architecture of the FCC’s public comment system. It is painfully obvious that this interface is designed to suppress public participation rather than encourage it, effectively shutting out the average citizen from participating in having their concerns heard and considered. Unlike the Department of Health and Human Services, which transparently routes public feedback through their centralized, user-friendly Regulations.gov portal, the FCC forces the public to navigate its own proprietary Electronic Comment Filing System. The FCC’s system does not even allow simple keywords and instead the user must use a highly specific numeric docket number (13-84) just to find the submission box. Unless you are actively tracking the court transcripts of current lawsuits against this agency, you will not know about this bracket number. By burying public comment portals behind an obscure and independent interface, the FCC has built a systemic barrier to entry. If a regulatory agency genuinely cares about public input, its systems should be built for the public, not just for corporate lawyers in insider litigants. But this is not merely a problem with how the FCC receives public comments. It is a problem with what happens when those comments are made and the agency fails to adequately respond to the human consequences. My complaint is real. It is personal, documented, and ongoing. As you are fully aware, the current RF exposure guidelines date back to 1996. In more than 30 years since those guidelines were established, wireless technology and the number and proximity of wireless transmitting facilities have changed dramatically. Yet the regulatory framework governing RF exposure has not kept pace with those changes. I live in Florida where state law allows communication facilities, including small wireless facilities, to be placed within public right of ways; Florida Statute 337.401. In my case, that regulatory framework resulted in a 5G small cell installation being placed on the swale adjacent to my property, 32 feet from my bedroom window. The combination of expansive telecommunications citing laws and outdated RF exposure standards has had a real consequence for my family. We have been forced to move from our home due to sickness directly related to RF exposure. I contacted the FCC directly. I explained my circumstances, documented my concerns, and provided two independent third-party reports specifically addressing the RF exposure situation at my property. I asked the agency responsible for this technology, you…the FCC, to consider what was happening to my family. I received no intervention. Looking back, you know what the court ordered you to do. The D.C. Court of Appeals found that the FCC had failed to provide a reasoned conclusion that its RF exposure guidelines adequately protected the public from harmful effects. You were directed to address those deficiencies. Yet five years later, I am living with the consequences of a regulatory system that has failed to adequately account for those concerns. I am asking the FCC to recognize that this issue is no longer theoretical. Families are living in close proximity to increasingly ubiquitous wireless infrastructure, and existing regulations must account for the realities of that environment. The public should not have to sacrifice access to their homes in order to accommodate an expanding wireless infrastructure. The FCC must comply with the law, meaningfully address the scientific evidence before it, and consider human consequences of its regulatory decisions. Public safety cannot be treated as an afterthought. -Amanda Albertelli