Legislative Update February 2025: News from Trenton & Washington, DC – Changes in the FCC

by Dave Garb, Legislative Committee Chair

As we thought, February has become an active month for us and the news from the nation’s Capital is going full speed ahead. And something we were worrying about is being brought up once again in the House of Representatives.

From the ACM:

H.R. 278, “The Broadband Leadership Act” was introduced. This bill specifically puts forward a shot clock for all wireless and telecommunications siting in the United States. It puts forward deemed granted procedures if local governments or state governments don’t respond to requests for wireless or telecommunications siting. It formalizes what is essentially no oversight, or extremely light oversight for local governments to use for telecommunications.

One thing that’s curious about the bill is that it basically wants to eliminate the review process for telecommunications siting on structures. This may be part of a package of other bills that could come forward to committee in the House, similar to what we saw in the last legislative sessions. So we might  see something like H.R. 3557 coming forward soon.

From Best, Best & Krieger:

Tillman L. Lay, a partner in the law offices of Best, Best & Krieger, did a quick read of this bill and said the following about it. “It is a son-of-HR 3557, but unlike HR 3557, it is directed only at a rewrite of Section 253. And it’s a killer.”. Here are some parts of the bill that he pulled out:

• A new affirmative, anti-discrimination prohibition (as opposed to non-discrimination being a safe harbor under the current 253(c))
• Discrimination definition is expanded beyond discrimination among telecom providers or services to reach discrimination against telecom facilities vis-à-vis other facilities
• Adds a statutory shot clock and a statutory deemed-granted remedy
• Locality’s written decision must be issued on the same day the decision is made
• 44 (and only the incremental costs attributable to the specific telecom facilities at issue, meaning telecom makes no contribution to the joint & common costs of the ROW)
• Defines “eligible support infrastructure” to include any “infrastructure .. that is … capable of supporting or housing [a telecommunications service] facility”
• Defines “telecommunications service facility” to include “a facility [designed or used to provide or facilitate the provision of any … telecommunications service] used to provide other [i.e., non-telecom] services.”

Furthermore from Gerry Lederer, Partner, Best, Best & Krieger:

BBK has just issued a legal alert on the threat to local government management of PROW and police powers.  It is titled “Call to Action: Impending Threat to Communities’ Property Rights, Revenues and Police Powers Demands Planning and Response from new Telecommunications Legislation and Rules.”

Please click on the link above to read more about this issue.

From NATOA:

On January 28th: the Federal Communications Bar Association’s (FCBA-The Tech Bar) Diversity Committee hosted a panel on “Diversity in the Telecom Sector: Where Do We Go from Here?” Advocates for racial diversity and equity in the telecommunications industry expressed shock and confusion about how to reconcile recent orders with longstanding practice and law.

Clint Odom, Vice President of Strategic Alliances and External Affairs at T-Mobile, emphasized that DEI principles aren’t just modern buzzwords, but were deeply rooted in Constitutional Amendments—including the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments—and reinforced by law. “It’s enshrined in the statute,” Odom emphasized, referring to the Communications Act, “We can’t read it out of existence—it is there. “The Communications Act requires that telecommunications services be made available “so far as possible, to all people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.”

Panelists said that The Telecommunications Act of 1996 reaffirmed principles of equity by emphasizing universal access to telecommunications services. And the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 explicitly prohibited digital discrimination—based on income, race, ethnicity, or geography—in the rollout of broadband infrastructure.

Lastly:

Please check out “This is the Way: Equal Access to Broadband through Municipal Franchising” offered by NATOA member Mike Bradley of Bradley-Werner

“The source of local franchising authority arises from a number of sources including, but not limited to, state law, state constitutions, municipal charters, and state common law, including state statutory and common law recognition of local authority to manage the public rights-of-way. Local franchising is a sovereign power that resides in the states and is not derived from federal law, including the Communications Act.”

This article is in the current edition of Municipal Lawyer, the JOURNAL of LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW of the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA).

Mike also reminded us about the following:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES: A Small Entity Compliance Guide:

On April 24, 2024, the Federal Register1 published the Department of Justice’s (Department) final rule updating its regulations for Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The final rule has specific requirements about how to make sure that web content and mobile applications (apps) are accessible to people with disabilities.

You can download it at https://www.ada.gov/resources/small-entity-compliance-guide/

JAG (Jersey Access Group) is an organization that advocates, promotes, and preserves the right to media production, distribution, civic engagement, and education in support of diverse community voices, through Public, Educational and Government access facilities and other forms of media.