FCC OTARD Rule Overreach

Read the comments in the captions and list of comments, below:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Otard-01.jpg: Clear image:

This shows original intent of OTARD rule: receive-only, for personal use. Thjis was just down from a satellite.

Otard-02.jpg: Clear image:

This shows 2002 rule change to enable using satellite service for Internet (albeit very slow internet), due to technology limitations. Again this was up/down from satellite for personal use only — nothing transmitting laterally

Otard-03.jpg: This gives me a way to look up the actual Order..

FCC 19-36: WT Docket No. 19-71 –> FCC Proposes to Modernize Rule for Over-the-Air Reception Devices –> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-modernize-rule-over-air-reception-devices-0 AND https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-36A1.pdf

Otard-04.jpg: Shows right type of antenna.

.. . . shows so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) antenna, NOT a satellite dish. which is what is being proposed now

Otard-05.jpg: Specific Next Step for Take Action Tuesday.

Otard-06.jpg: Shows one-way satellite antenna . . .

this is the original intent, not what is coming now.

Otard-07.jpg: This statement is not accurate.

It is too general. Check 1996-TCA and 2002 rule to accurately convey what it says.

Otard-08.jpg: This image is confusing.
OTARD has nothing to to do with sending signals from Northern Africa to the rest of the world. We are not trying to ban satellite reception antennas

Otard-09.jpg: This image is also confusing.

OTARD has nothing to do with office networking and regular wireless access points

Otard-10.jpg: Once again, showing the wrong antenna type on a roof.

This looks like you are talking about satellite receive antennas.

Otard-11.jpg: What is this? Lightning?

Generally wireless is shown as concentric rings, often in red — see https://unsafeatanyg.com/petaluma/creamery

Otard-12.jpg: “The dangers of 5G are well documented and include neurological and circulatory issues, as well as links to certain cancers.”

This is not very accruate . . . The dangers are from pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) of any G and the problems (not “issues”) are direct. immediate blood, neurological, hormonal and cardiac problems, measurable melatonin and immune systems suppresssion, increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 and other viral and bacterial infections, certain DNA damage and — over the long term, cancer.

Otard-13.jpg” Commenting time has passed, Our only hope now is to create a nationwide movement of people who understand the ramifications and push their elected leaders to act.”

Really? Nothing else? I can think of lots of things to do.

Otard-14.jpg “Concerned” is a loser word, as you well know. This is why”

1998 Cellular Telephone Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay

The statute uses the term “environmental effects” to describe an impermissible basis for decision. Although one court has questioned whether “environmental effects” and “health concerns” are the same, see Iowa Wireless Servs., L.P. v. City of Moline, Illinois, 29 F. Supp.2d 915, 924 (C.D. Ill. 1998), we believe that the terms are interchangeable and will use “health concerns” to refer to the constituent testimony on the connection between rfes and cancer and other health problems.