Local and State Groups Urge Caution as FCC Explores Streamlined Wireline Rules
Major trade associations representing state and local governments called on the FCC to keep their interests in mind as the agency follows up on a notice of inquiry about changes to wireline infrastructure rules. Local governments also raised concerns. Comments on the notice, which commissioners approved 3-0 in September (see 2509300063), were due this week in docket 25-253.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The “primary goal” of telecom permitting processes by local governments “is to facilitate safe deployment of telecommunications infrastructure above, in, and below public streets and roadways, while protecting existing infrastructure and users of the rights-of-way from harm caused by poorly planned or executed construction,” said a filing from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, National Association of Counties and National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. “Local rights-of-way often include a wide variety of users, including power, water, gas, stormwater, and transportation Infrastructure.” The deployment of additional infrastructure, including wireline, “must be carefully managed in coordination with all other users of this finite public resource.”
The groups also said permitting processes aimed at preventing damage and protecting the safety of contractors and the public “are not a material inhibition, but instead a statutorily protected obligation” under the Communications Act. Such damage isn’t unusual, they noted. “Recent research by the Common Ground Alliance found alarmingly high rates of damage from telecommunications infrastructure deployments.” Damage to gas lines is a “particularly common -- and dangerous -- hazard in fiber installations.”
The National Association of Towns and Townships warned that wireline siting is different from wireless facilities addressed in the commission’s 2018 small-cell order. Wireline construction often “requires trenching, boring, microtrenching, conduit replacement, vault installation, pavement removal, restoration, and complex coordination with roadbeds, culverts, drainage systems, and agricultural infrastructure,” the group said. “These activities are invasive, seasonally constrained, and require safety-driven engineering oversight that cannot be compressed into rigid, one-size-fits-all federal deadlines.”
Groups representing Minnesota authorities said the NOI “appears to be a thinly veiled attempt by the Commission to assert authority over broadband.” The Communications Act “is based on a dual federalism structure, granting some authority to the Commission, while continuing to reserve other authority to state and local governments.”
The Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors urged the FCC “to reject federal preemption and any schemes that would force artificial timeframes on deployment, placing our transportation infrastructure at risk.” The supervisors also noted that wireline siting is fundamentally different from wireless.
Industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have weighed in as well, calling for simplified rules and more federal oversight of wireline siting (see 2511170028).
NTCA said its members “increasingly face challenges in obtaining timely and cost-effective access to state and local government-controlled rights-of-way” as they build out wireline projects. The fees assessed for providers to have access to public rights-of-way must be based on the actual costs, the group said. The commission should clarify that “per-linear-foot annual rental fees, revenue-based fees or any other fee structures not based on the direct and actual costs incurred by state and local government as a result of wireline providers’ installation of facilities are prohibited” under Section 253 of the Communications Act.