FCC Changes Rule to Allow 5G Repeaters on Private Properties Without Neighbors’ Consent
On February 26th, 2021, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed another lawsuit against the FCC. This one is in response to a recent “small” alteration the FCC made to their “Over-the-Air Reception Devices” rule (also known as OTARD) that would make it quick and easy for a wireless provider to contract with a private individual to place a “hub and relay” wireless antenna on the individual’s property.
Previously, the rule only allowed individuals to have wireless receivers installed on their houses for their own personal service, not transmitters. The new rule would allow individuals who are utilizing the service of a wireless provider to host antennas that are not just receivers, but also transmitters, acting as a “hub” of wireless service to “relay” faster and more direct service to surrounding homes that are also subscribed to the same service network.
The FCC insists this is now necessary because the higher speeds and increased data transmission of 5G wireless service require significantly denser antenna networks, since higher frequency 5G signals will not reach nearly as far as the comparatively longer and broader 4G wavelengths, and are easily obstructed by solid objects like trees and buildings. Their only way around this is to place antennas in as many places as possible. It seems that they realized they could only get so far with antenna placements in public jurisdictions (which their laws already allow them to do, prohibiting local governments from objecting in most cases), and now they have to go after private property locations, especially in rural areas where their coverage is currently low or spotty.
Sadly, many individuals who own or lease property will be happy to host these antennas, in exchange for monetary compensation by the wireless providers, or a discount on their service. The new rule overrides local zoning ordinances and neighborhood association rules, and does not require public notification before a contract is signed between service provider and individual. So in most cases, neighbors will not even know about the new antenna. If a neighbor notices and objects to the antenna, under the new rule they have no recourse, even though a wireless repeater/relay antenna could irradiate their home with dangerous close range radiofrequency radiation.
What Could Go Wrong?
To get an idea of what could easily happen, and will happen in rural areas if this rule is allowed to persist, imagine a house with one of these hub and relay antennas installed on the roof. Let’s say their neighbor two doors down also subscribes to the same wireless service. With this new antenna placement, the signal will come from a larger antenna or tower further away, straight to the new antenna/repeater, then relayed directly to the home of the neighboring subscriber.
What about the house in between? Let’s say this house doesn’t want the service, because they already have a fiber optic or copper internet connection, or maybe they are okay with their older, slower 4G cell service. Let’s say this family recently moved to a rural area because one or more members experience radiation sickness when they’re around high levels of microwave/radiofrequency radiation. For their health, they had to leave the conveniences of the city and live a slower paced rural life. Their home is their sanctuary from the wireless madness that’s increasingly permeating population dense areas.
There are many people in this situation, and the numbers are increasing all the time as EMF sources and levels multiply. This new rule could make their lives unlivable, and there is no allowance for them to contest the change, violating their bodily autonomy and private property rights.
FCC Rule Is Adopted, Violating Numerous Personal & Property Rights
The lawsuit by CHD was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals, and asserts that the FCC’s amendment violates constitutional rights and common law personal and property rights. The rule also preempts federal and state civil rights laws that protect the disabled. Microwave sickness is a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a handicap under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
Dafna Tachover, director of CHD’s 5G and Wireless Harms Project, said:
“This rule will create a wireless ‘wild west.’ Because of the extensive preemptions and how easy OTARD makes it to install antennas to propagate the signals, the rule will likely lead to the most significant and fastest proliferation of 5G by using homes and private properties for the deployment.”
CHD first became aware that the FCC intended to adopt the new rule early in 2020, and filed a 22-page letter with the FCC detailing the legal and moral transgressions it would allow, and urging them to reconsider. The letter was joined by 15,090 people, many of whom experience debilitating microwave sickness. Parents wrote about their children’s sickness with cancer, and how wireless radiation aggravates autism symptoms and causes seizures in their children. The FCC’s proposed rule was objected to by municipalities, the Real Estate Association, and the Conference of Mayors.
The Conference of Mayors argued in their official comments that the FCC lacks the legal authority to expand the OTARD rule to include hub and relay antennas, stating that hub and relay antennas fall under exclusive jurisdiction of state and local governments. Many others agree with their sentiments, including CHD. It is clear that the FCC is attempting to gradually remove any and all decision making power over cell tower and antenna placement from the local communities that will have to suffer the variety of consequences of their existence, and who may not even desire their service at all.
In the FCC’s Report and Order that officially approved the new rule on January 7th, their usual style of callous disregard of public objection was clear once more in the brief and unconvincing counter-arguments they included almost as an afterthought, close to the very end of the order, dismissing tens of thousands of objections with lazy conjecture. As usual, they dismiss the mere possibility of harm from radiofrequency radiation, ignoring the mountain of significant and conclusive evidence proving its existence and prevalence in the population.
CHD attorney Scott McCollough warns, “approval of this rule will lead to massive suffering, extensive litigation and likely public protest.”
Stay Tuned for Progress on CHD vs. FCC Cases
Here at Blushield, we closely follow the activities of Children’s Health Defense, and strongly believe in their tireless pursuit to protect the health of our children from the variety of toxic exposure sources plaguing society today. We donate monthly to CHD to directly support their fight against unethical legislation allowing the proliferation of harmful microwave radiation and 5G.
This is the second lawsuit that CHD has filed against the FCC. The first one was filed in February of 2020, contesting the FCC’s refusal to update their vastly outdated wireless radiation exposure guidelines. This case is currently awaiting the court’s decision. Read more about the first case in our previous article.
As soon as CHD heard about the FCC’s proposed amendment to OTARD that would allow high speed wireless transmitters to be installed on houses in rural neighborhoods, they knew they couldn’t allow this rule to be executed into action without a fight. You can donate to CHD to support this cause and others.
This situation is a perfect example of why Blushield is so important. While there is no substitute for letting our voices be heard in protest of toxic microwave radiation permeating public and private spaces, sometimes unethical laws can slip through the legislative cracks, and it can take a very long time to raise enough awareness and go through the appropriate legal processes to reverse them.
In the meantime, we need to do everything we can to protect ourselves. Blushield technology has significantly improved the quality of life of many of our EMF hypersensitive customers, reducing or eliminating their uncomfortable and sometimes life threatening chronic symptoms of microwave sickness. For an individual who can relate to the example earlier in this article, who suffers from radiation induced illness and suddenly sees a 5G antenna on their neighbor’s property, a Blushield in the home can significantly aid the preservation of their health and well being, as they explore potential accommodations and remedies to ideally remove the source of exposure from their home.
If you are curious about Blushield and wonder which device would be best for you, we are here to help! Please read through our Blushield Product Guide, and send us an email anytime you have any questions.
This post copyright © 2021 Blushield USA. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission is strictly prohibited.