FCC: Please Submit a Comment by April 11th
The FCC asked: "Are there existing rules that could give rise to a risk of regulatory capture?" Yes, they really did.
Captured Agency
“Give Thanks for Unknown Blessings Already on Their Way”
(but please submit a comment by mail or via FCC form online)
The FCC is a Captured Agency: Commissioners are Former Wireless Industry Insiders - Environmental Health Trust
Download available at Alster, Norm. “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates,” 2015
Testimony Matters
Massachusetts activist Kathy Levin printed out the 11,000 pages of evidence (FCC Docket 19-226 Submissions) that the court reviewed when it issued a remand calling for the FCC to justify why it was still relying on its 1996 exposure guidelines in August of 2021, which the FCC has ignored.
Nearly 200 commenters who submitted testimony about injuries and disabilities to the FCC docket from 2013 to 2019 had no idea at the time that their testimony would be used in a future legal action.
AI will enable easier sorting of testimonies (for example smart meters, health, quality of life, regulatory capture) and numbers count.
(In the investigation of other products on the market and subsequently found to be unsafe, the written record has played a role.)
The proceeding is attracting industry commentary in favor of deregulation.
Radio World: “Interested parties should prepare to participate in this proceeding, whether to defend existing regulations or to propose changes.” There are currently 232 comments already submitted.
DEADLINE April 11 Summit Comment to the FCC to “Delete, Delete, Delete”
Public Notice | Federal Communications Commission
“The FCC seeks comment on deregulatory initiatives that would facilitate and encourage American firms’ investment in modernizing their networks, developing infrastructure, and offering innovative and advanced capabilities.” - Could this free up innovation to include the advanced capabilities of protecting power quality and protecting human health from non-thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation?
“We encourage commenters to consider certain policy factors, as described below and consistent with standards and objectives set forth in recent Presidential orders as well as statutory and regulatory retrospective review standards. We also invite more general comment on rules that should be considered for elimination on other grounds.” - The health and environmental complaints of harm need additional oversight via another agency?
"Are there existing rules that could give rise to a risk of regulatory capture?"
“We also invite more general comment on rules that should be considered for elimination on other grounds.”
“ [] cost-benefit considerations can be relevant in their own right, such as where a rule when originally adopted was not grounded in a proper assessment of the relevant costs and benefits of the requirement, or where the initial cost-benefit evaluation was highly uncertain. We thus broadly seek comment on cost-benefit considerations relevant to our analysis. Are there existing Commission rules for which the costs exceed the benefits? Are there rules that, if eliminated or modified, could result in greater benefits relative to the associated costs of the new regulatory framework?”
The Order: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-219A1.pdf 6 pages
DA 25-219 RE: DELETE, DELETE, DELETE is GN Docket No. 25-133
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-219A1.pdf
Note: Your comment must be submitted mailed or submitted via the website form as an express comment or attached as .docx, .doc, .pdf, .xlsx, .xls, .txt, .pptx, .ppt, .rtf (overall file(s) max size: 100 MB per submission)
“Through a series of Executive Orders, President Trump has called on administrative agencies to eliminate regulations. By this Public Notice, the Federal Communications Commission is taking action to promote the policies outlined by President Trump in those Executive Orders. Specifically, the FCC is seeking public input on identifying Commission rules for the purpose of alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens. The FCC seeks comment on deregulatory initiatives that would facilitate and encourage American firms’ investment in modernizing their networks, developing infrastructure, and offering innovative and advanced capabilities. [GN Docket No. 25-133. Comments Due: Friday, April 11, 2025. Reply Comments Due: Monday, April 28, 2025.] Summary on Benton.org
The order: DA-25-219A1.pdf 6 pages
“We encourage commenters to consider certain policy factors, as described below and consistent with standards and objectives set forth in recent Presidential orders as well as statutory and regulatory retrospective review standards. We also invite more general comment on rules that should be considered for elimination on other grounds. Submissions should identify with as much detail and specificity as possible the rule or rules that the commenting party believes should be repealed (or modified) and the rationale for their recommended action. Commenters whose comments raise issues related to other open Commission dockets should file their comments in all relevant dockets.”
Submissions should identify with as much detail and specificity as possible the rule or rules that the commenting party believes should be repealed (or modified) and the rationale for their recommended action. Commenters whose comments raise issues related to other open Commission dockets should file their comments in all relevant dockets.
TOPICS:
Cost-benefit considerations,
Experience gained from the implementation of the rule,
Marketplace and technological changes,
Regulation as barrier to entry.
Changes in the broader regulatory context. Rules do not exist in isolation, but operate against a backdrop of other FCC rules, other federal rules and requirements, relevant state and local laws, and industry self-regulatory efforts including the adoption of technical standards or best practices.16 We seek comment on whether changes in the broader regulatory context demonstrate that particular Commission rules are unnecessary or inappropriate. For example, have the imposition of new rules or other regulatory requirements rendered a given Commission rule no longer necessary?
Changes in, or other implications of, the governing legal framework. []it is appropriate for the agency to revisit the rule to determine if its repeal (or modification) would better effectuate the newly-governing statutory scheme. We seek comment on any examples of Commission rules that should be revisited on that basis. [] Finally, we observe that on occasion provisions of the Communications Act and/or Commission rules have been found to be unconstitutional.
Other considerations relevant to the retrospective review of Commission rules. We seek comment on any other considerations relevant to our identification of existing rules that are unnecessary or inappropriate.
Ex Parte Rules.
Filing Requirements
Filing Requirements. Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. o Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. o Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC’s mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. o Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. o Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).
“Deletion” Considerations
JDSUPRA: For longer submissions:
Along with welcoming more general comments on rules that should be considered for elimination, the Notice encourages public commenters to consider several policy factors. First, “cost-benefit considerations” should be reviewed , asking whether rules could be eliminated or modified to create “greater benefits relative to the associated costs of the new regulatory framework.”[6] Second, commenters should consider “whether experience gained in the implementation of a given rule provides reason to believe that the rule is unnecessary or inappropriate, whether in its current form or otherwise.”[7]For example, if a rule has harmed entrepreneurs or small businesses, it might be unnecessary.[8]Third, if marketplace and technological changes have rendered a rule unnecessary or inappropriate, the rule may need to be eliminated because it may have “outlived [its] usefulness [and] . . . become outdated.”[9] Fourth, commenters should consider whether the regulations in question function as a “barrier to entry” into the communications marketplace, unfairly imposing costs on businesses.[10]Fifth, rules should be evaluated in terms of whether the “broader regulatory context” renders them unnecessary. Perhaps new rules have made an existing rule irrelevant, for example. Sixth, if a statutory provision has changed since a rule was adopted, the rule may not effectuate the new statutory scheme. For example, the Notice specifically mentions the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision and calls for comments on FCC interpretations of statutory language that should be revisited in light of its overruling of the Chevron framework.[11]And finally, commenters should consider any other considerations that would render a rule ineffective or unnecessary.[12]The Notice also says the FCC is seeking feedback on any court decisions that may have removed a rule’s foundation.
To Submit Online:
Go to: ECFS - Search Filings to the FCC.
Click on the button “Submit a Filing” in the very top toolbar.
Under proceeding:
type 25-133 - delete delete delete will appear to confirm that you have the right proceeding number. The X will auto-fill in the case that you have the wrong file number. Use your tab or enter button to forward on the form, and not your mouse, or it will not enter.
Note: Your comment must then be submitted via: Click or drop files here:
.docx, .doc, .pdf, .xlsx, .xls, .txt, .pptx, .ppt, .rtf (overall file(s) max size: 100 MB per submission) or it may be mailed. You may post more than once especially if you are submitting attachments due to the file size limit.
Standard filing or express comment
Express comment –
Proceeding: 25-133, press enter, 25-133 press enter
Name of filer: you
Primary contact email: your email address (not required)
Address:(required)
Brief comments: either type in your comments or paste your comments into the screen-- there may be limits to how many words. (If you make a mistake, you can hit Reset)
Press, Continue to review screen
If okay, submit your comments
Print out confirmation page for your records
Standard filing – fill in these blanks --
Proceeding: 25-133, press enter, 25-133, press enter
Name of filer: you
Primary contact email: your email address (not required)
Type of comment: comment or reply comment
Address (required)
Upload your comments – as a doc, pdf, or other listed file type; you can attach more than one document (If you make a mistake, you can hit Reset)
Press, Continue to review screen
If okay, submit your comments (you may have to wait a bit for it to go through)
Print out confirmation page for your records
At the bottom of the form you will be asked if you wish to receive a confirmation email.
Ideas for Testimonies:
If helpful, remember that you are addressing those in favor of your viewpoint at some point in the future. Rants and attacks are not as helpful as a respectful, fact-based tone.
Fred Sinclair: You do not need to defend the truth.
If you feel comfortable identifying impacts on your health, something like:
I was injured by smart meters in CA in 2010. I have been experiencing adverse health effects and lack of accommodation for 15 years. This information can be sorted by state, mechanism of injury, and length of years of impacts, for example to support future political advocacy and/or investigation. Can include issues with travel, medical care housing, etc.
OR: As a cancer patient, (MCS, chronic lyme, chronic covid, MS, etc.) the FCC’s inaction concerning smart meters/celltowers, etc has made it/will make it impossible for me to reduce my exposures, secure appropriate safe housing, participate in civil society, etc. therefore diminishing my health and quality of life.
The information submitted can be sorted by mechanism of injury, length of years of impacts, state, etc. for example to support future political advocacy and/or investigation.
The Order: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-25-219A1.pdf
Resources to quote:
If you want to be more technical you can also include/quote testimonies from the earlier court case:
FCC Lawsuit Update: The FCC Fails to Protect the Public - Environmental Health Trust
Here is a good one from 2013: 7520958706.pdf
The cities of Boston and Philadelphia in their joint submission to the FCC on November 18 accused the FCC and Federal health agencies of negligence for failing to investigate whether electrosensitive persons are harmed by cell phone radiation:
"The FCC admits its own lack of expertise in the field. But the overlap of federal agency responsibilities for RF radiation protection and the merely advisory status of the Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group often leaves leadership unclear and encourages a pass-the-buck attitude ...
The 1999-2000 judicial challenge to the FCC’s 1996 rules never reached the issue of “electrosensitivity” as a cognizable disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (“ADA”) Here again, an agency responsible for ADA implementation acknowledges that the impairment may be disabling but has promised merely further inquiry. After more than a decade, that investigation remains unopened. The dockets here have been updated with massive additional evidence of the crippling effects of RF radiation on an admitted minority – but a suffering minority – of U.S. citizens. The FCC and its sister regulatory agencies share responsibility for adherence to the ADA and should replace promises with serious attention to a serious medical problem. This is one area where the FCC could lead in advice to electrosensitive persons about prudent avoidance."
(They are also responsible for making certain that devices are accessible.)
If you want to be more technical, you can note in your own words:
“Not only is the FCC’s lack of regulation for the protection of human health causing EHR-S or EHS, but the disabled population is excluded in: PART 14—ACCESS TO ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT BY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-14
Appropriate regulation would foster further innovation in safer and/or hard-wired technologies that do not interfere with human bioelectricity.
The issues of discrimination and lack of regulatory response to reported harm should be reviewed by the Department of Justice, including economic risks posed by the installation of unsafe infrastructure, including the utility grid.”
Creating Critical Mass: Please attach the Captured Agency report to your testimony. Envision Hundreds Doing the Same
You will need to download the Harvard Captured Agency report and then upload it to the FCC site. If that is not manageable, you can mention it.
Download available at Alster, Norm. “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates,”
Consciousness is the Currency
Please feel free to speak from your heart, and tackle any of the topics where you can contribute your consciousness to the equation. Add other studies/docs if desired.
Please post a comment, ask at least one other person to do the same, and share this action item widely.
Thank you for being on the right side of history.
Note: It appears that many of the direct links to testimonies no longer work at the FCC site. For example, this list: Electromagnetic Radiation Safety: Everything You Wanted to Know about Cell Phone Radiation You will have to look up the proceeding by number and the testifier.
Edit: The post was corrected on March 28 to reflect the correct number of comments already submitted to the FCC docket.