The National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, and the National Association of Regional Councils, the National Association of Towns and Townships, and more than 60 state and regional level municipal associations and individual cities, towns, and counties have asked the FCC to stay the third report and order the FCC adopted in August in its proceeding on removing barriers to broadband infrastructure investment, which, they noted, is due to take effect Jan. 14, 2019.
The local government interests object to the order’s restrictions on what they can charge for use of their right-of-way, its adoption of a federal standard regarding the aesthetics of wireless infrastructure, and its redefinition of what constitutes an “effective prohibition” of deployment, which the Communications Act authorizes the FCC to preempt.
With regard to the interpretation of the phrase “effective prohibition” as used in sections 253 and 332 of the Communications Act, the order adopted in August in WT docket 17-79 and WC docket 17-84 “explicitly rejects the ‘significant gap’ and ‘least intrusive alternative’ tests that had been adopted and applied (with small variations) by almost every U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and incorporated into local ordinances over the last 20 years. The Order, in contravention of a key holding in [the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in] ‘National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services,’ also rejects the ‘plain language’ interpretations of those sections adopted by the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, both of which found that an effective prohibition requires the litigant to prove that a challenged action actually prohibits provision of a protected service. The Commission instead adopted a standard that presumes a prohibition where costs of deployment are increased (on the theory that providers might offer additional services if they were richer); and that concludes that service is ‘prohibited’ if an entity is prevented from ‘improving’ service,” the local government parties said. Continue reading