All comment threads

This filing was submitted as an attachment. Open the document below to read the comment.

EMF such as comes from smart meters. Computet Hot spots, etc effects my health, causing ringing in ears, headaches, dizziness, etc. It effects people who are sensitive to EMFs & especially kids. We need testing & regulations. We need to stop all these untested data centers that are harming people, animals & environment.

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court.

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because I have small children and new towers go up around our house all the time. There is no escape and I worry about the long term effects of the constant exposure. The laws and research have not caught up and we are being exposed 24/7 without being fully aware of the consequences. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.

headaches- nausea- dizzy- ear ringing- weakened immunity- irritable- mood disorder after prolonged use- fatigue- restlessness- and a plethora of other isues-brain damage- it must come to and end- phones need a red box warning- like we do for cigarettes- and prescription meds- kids brains are being fried- concentration is non existent- test scores are low- its a huge distraction. plus the EMF,s are so bad for you. it poses a serious health risk.

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: The rwdiation have been proven to be harmful to humanity, including but not limited to, biological and biochemical dysregulation. We the people have not voted on this and do not support this harm being positioned on our communities. I urge the FCC to give meaningful consideration to the experiences and evidence before it and to fully address each of the issues identified by the court.

EMF is dangerous and there is not enough public education about it horrible impacts on the human biology.

I am writing regarding the FCC’s response to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ remand concerning its decades-old radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines. The Court directed the FCC to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect humans against harmful effects of RF radiation unrelated to cancer. Specifically, the court required the FCC to address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure, the ubiquity of wireless devices and technological developments, impacts on the environment, and the adequacy of the FCC’s testing procedures for cell phones and other portable devices. The FCC should fully consider evidence and real-world experiences concerning the health and environmental impacts of wireless radiation, including non-cancer health effects, impacts on children, long-term and cumulative exposure, cancer, and impacts on wildlife and the environment. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have expertise in medicine, biology or public health. Yet, the agency continues to assert authority over RF exposure standards and is preparing to reach conclusions about whether its existing guidelines adequately protect the public. I urge the FCC to recognize the critical role of federal health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and to rely on appropriate health and biological expertise when addressing the issues identified by the court. This issue matters to me personally because: I have recently experienced anxiety and insomnia I feel they are directly related

Our 15 non-profit schools grealy need the e-rate program for our internet and technological needs. We have relied on it since e-rate's inception. Please continue the program for the benefit of all of our students.

Dear Ms. Marlene Dortch: We are writing regarding the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the E-Rate program, and we appreciate the opportunity to comment ahead of the October 13, 2026 deadline, asking the FCC to preserve the current E-Rate program. Our students have reliable internet access at our school because of E-Rate. Without E-Rate funding, we would have to cut core services, programs, and operations to maintain the internet service our school requires. High-speed, reliable internet is central to daily learning at our school. We are concerned by proposals in this proceeding that would narrow the program's scope, including reducing support for schools in less-resourced communities, eliminating funding for certain special construction projects, or ending E-Rate eligibility for early childhood programs. Losing E-Rate support would severely impact our entire school budget, forcing difficult choices between funding essential technology and supporting other critical educational programs. Sixty percent of our internet budget is paid for through E-Rate, and we save several dollars on other technology. We are also concerned about proposed administrative changes that would add significant new burdens on schools without a clear corresponding benefit to students. Eliminating the "Kalamazoo exception" would require schools like ours to re-bid and re-sign existing, already competitively bid contracts more frequently, adding staff time and creating potential service gaps. As a small private school without dedicated E-Rate compliance staff, this change would fall disproportionately hard on us compared to larger districts with dedicated procurement teams. Similarly, requiring a new annual consultant disclosure form (Form 5654) from every applicant, even schools that do not use a consultant, adds a filing requirement with no clear purpose for schools that manage their own applications. E-Rate is an essential program, and we ask for the FCC's continued commitment to ensuring that schools across the nation have access to the federal funds needed to provide secure, scalable, future-ready connectivity that supports the current and evolving needs of our community. We also urge the FCC not to impose overly restrictive mandates or administrative burdens, particularly around screen use and content-monitoring requirements proposed in this proceeding, as they will undermine the flexibility schools need to deliver high-quality, digital learning. Our school has already developed its own internet safety and technology policies tailored to our students and our educational mission, and we ask the Commission to preserve that local flexibility rather than impose a one-size-fits-all federal standard. Respectfully, Mark Peterson - Head of School Racine Christian School