Hi ,
The FCC will be voting on Thursday on a net neutrality rule which preempts local authority over wireless facilities. The FCC wants to make broadband a Title II telecom service, meaning that the FCC would have preemption not just for phone service but for wireless broadband, as well. Here is the proposed rule.
Democrats are supporting the FCC’s net neutrality proposed rule which contains the very preemption of local authority over the approval and placement of wireless facilities which Democrats opposed in HR 3557 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Republicans are generally opposing the
proposed rule although for different reasons. It is not clear how much widespread awareness there has been among Democrats about the local zoning preemption in the rulemaking. Therefore, we're focusing on Democrats.
Today, please reach out (by email and follow-up calls) to your Democrat U.S. Senators and Representatives with the following template:
Dear
Rep/Senator ________,
The FCC will be voting on Thursday on a net neutrality rule which preempts local authority over wireless facilities. My fellow residents and I oppose only the preemption portion of this proposed rule and respectfully request that it be deleted from the proposed rule, or to delay the FCC vote, if necessary, in order to effectuate this deletion. Please
contact:
- FCC
- Senate Commerce Committee
- House Energy & Commerce Committee
The FCC wants to make broadband a Title II telecom service, meaning that the FCC would have
preemption not just for phone service but also for wireless broadband, overriding local ordinances, and cooperative federalism. Here is the proposed rule.
The ask: no need to reclassify broadband as Title II as the FCC already has control of
broadband under Title III (blocking, throttling, etc); but if they do reclassify broadband as Title II, there should be a provision that the FCC will forebear from preemption under 47 USC §224, §253a-d, and §332c7B.
Democrats are supporting this proposed rule which contains the very preemption of local authority over the approval and placement of wireless facilities which Democrats opposed in HR 3557 in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Rep. Pallone, Ranking Member of the House E&C in his remarks on HR 3557 opposed the preemption of local control starting at line 6826. Rep. Nadler also stated his opposition to HR 3557 for the same reasons.
A number of municipal groups filed comments in the FCC’s docket, opposing the massive expansion of preemption of local authority over wireless facilities:
- NATOA filed comments opposing local preemption over wireless facilities, and urging the FCC to avoid expanded preemption, writing "NATOA urges the Commission to forbear the application of Sections 253 and 332(c)"
- National League of Cities filed comments opposing local preemption and urging forbearance.
- BB&K filed comments in the docket on behalf of a local governments coalition (including Anne Arundel County and Montgomery County Maryland,
among others), opposing local preemption
- Wired Broadband et al filed comments and reply comments, also urging the same forbearance (they are attached)
The FCC has declined
to make the proposed changes. The FCC readily acknowledged and defended expanding wireless preemption in its draft rule. For example, in paragraph 74:
“Sections 224, 253, and 332 however, seek to remove these barriers by guaranteeing providers access to utility poles at just and reasonable rates and by ensuring that state and local laws do not prohibit deployment.”
Or in paragraph 76:
“Likewise, mobile BIAS-only providers will receive protection under section 332 which requires state and local governments to act on “any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of
time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request.”
Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
Respectfully submitted,
[Your Name] ________________