Industry Groups Ask FCC to Streamline Wireline Rules

USTelecom, CTIA, the Competitive Carriers Association, Incompas, NCTA, NTCA and the Wireless Infrastructure Association signed a joint filing that called for a shot clock of no more than 60 days for local officials to act on standard permit and right-of-way (ROW) access applications. Updated rules should also prohibit restrictions on bulk permitting, ensure that applications get a single review, “require the closing and inspecting of installations in a timely manner” and "prohibit local moratoria and practices that are the functional equivalent of moratoria, such as excessive permit gating," among other changes.

The record in the proceeding “presents a clear and consistent picture: states and localities continue to impose requirements that materially inhibit the deployment and operation of modern communications networks,” USTelecom said in a separate filing. Commenters document widespread challenges in initial comments, the group said, ranging from financial demands that are “untethered from actual costs to procedural delays that inject uncertainty into deployment planning” and “undermine efforts to expand and upgrade communications infrastructure.”

In its own separate filing, WIA said that if the U.S. wants to lead the world on AI, it must address permitting delays. “Broadband will be foundational to both the training and deployment of AI systems, enabling the fast transmission of vast amounts of data among and between consumers, researchers, and industry.”

NTCA said its members don’t object to fees for permitting and access to ROW, as long as the fees are reasonable, “clearly identified in advance, and tied to the actual costs incurred by the locality” as a result of the deployment. Fees based on revenues, linear footage or service modality “bear no relationship to a locality’s cost to manage the ROW and should therefore be prohibited.” The Fiber Broadband Association argued that the record so far “clearly underscores the need for permitting reform.”

Incompas similarly said rural co-ops, urban fiber builders, incumbent carriers, new entrants, cable companies and competitive providers all indicate “that state and local permitting practices are preventing Americans from receiving the high-speed connectivity that these companies and Congress [have] invested billions of dollars to deliver.” Fees with no relationship “to a permitting entity’s costs are proliferating,” and “virtually every type of provider experiences excessive delays in every region of the country.”

Local government groups countered that they approach permitting “as a process that protects finite public resources,” and they objected to how their work is characterized by industry. “The complexity of telecommunications deployments requires a process that not only ensures the safety of all involved but also protects residents and taxpayers from absorbing additional costs.” The groups pointed to thousands of incidents over the past 20 years when providers and contractors “caused damage to gas lines, electrical lines, and water and sewer lines.” The filing was signed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors.

The Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance and the Association of Washington Cities, along with cities in both states, argued that proposals in the NOI “clearly exceed the bounds of the Commission’s authority under Section 253” of the Communications Act. In granting the FCC authority to preempt some local regulations, Congress “withheld from the Commission the authority to preempt or prevent local governments from regulating access to and use of public rights-of-way -- including by allowing local governments to charge for access … where authorized by local laws.”