Local governments push back against FCC plan to strip away broadband permitting authority

Across the country, municipal leaders are mounting fierce opposition to a Trump-era Federal Communications Commission initiative designed to strip away local control over broadband infrastructure rules. The agency has been gathering public feedback on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would override state and local permitting requirements. The FCC's rationale centers on the claim that local authorities "excessively delay approvals and seek to extract exorbitant sums from providers, resulting in costs that render some deployments infeasible."

Broadband companies have rallied behind the FCC's approach, yet local officials contend the rules serve vital public safety functions. They argue the proposal lacks legal grounding and that the FCC should instead target how Internet service providers themselves obstruct competition through permit-hoarding and other anticompetitive tactics that block rival network deployments.

The FCC docket has accumulated extensive submissions from individual city and county leaders as well as national organizations representing local governments. Their objections focus on two key elements: a proposed 120-day deadline for permit processing and restrictions on the fees and compensation municipalities can demand from providers.

Local permitting is not a barrier to broadband deployment—it is an essential public safety function protecting residents, taxpayers, and all users of finite, multi-tenant public rights-of-way. The complex coordination required to safely deploy wireline telecommunications infrastructure in, above, and below public roadways cannot be reduced to an arbitrary federal deadline.

United States Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, in a September 21 filing

Local officials blame providers for deployment slowdowns

Despite the FCC's stated goal of accelerating broadband rollout, municipal representatives say the providers themselves frequently cause delays. Organizations representing local governments have urged the FCC to establish rules targeting the companies and suggested mandating that ISPs complete network deployments within 180 days of receiving local approval.

We ask the commission to address provider delays, failures to deploy, and permit-hoarding.

local government groups in their filing to the FCC

The groups elaborated that providers frequently neglect to build out networks promptly after securing local authorization. They submitted an extended explanation:

Local governments' efforts to attract telecommunications infrastructure investment to their communities often lead to frustration due to applicants' permit-hoarding and other bad-faith actions by providers intended to crowd out competition in sought-after locations and routes, regardless of the provider's actual intent to deploy and provide service or upgrades. Providers are aware that local governments have limited resources and existing legal obligations to review and process complete permits in a timely manner, and will generally do so in the order they are received. When a provider stakes "claimed" space on a pole or structure through permits, requests for make-ready work, or other actions—regardless of actual intent or ability to deploy in a timely fashion—this limits the ability of other providers to deploy in those same locations, particularly if a city must make decisions and recommendations based on elements such as the physical capacity of a structure given the assumption that the provider that has completed the permitting process will deploy soon.

local government groups

The League of California Cities submitted a separate filing contending that the FCC possesses no statutory power to adopt this proposal. According to their submission, "Federal preemption of traditional state and local authority over public property, construction, public safety, permitting, and rights-of-way management should rest on clear congressional authorization. The commission should not infer broad preemptive authority where Congress did not expressly provide it."

The FCC has claimed it derives authority to preempt local rules from Section 253 of the Communications Act, which prohibits state and local requirements that "may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." The agency contends that certain permitting rules effectively block broadband deployment.

Title II authority becomes central to the dispute

Section 253 falls within Title II of the Communications Act, which grants the FCC power to regulate telecommunications companies as common carriers. In earlier administrations, Democratic-led FCC leadership invoked Title II to regulate broadband providers and enforce net neutrality protections. However, a 2025 appeals court ruling determined that broadband constitutes an "information service" and falls outside the scope of telecommunications regulation.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has long resisted Title II classification of broadband providers, maintaining that broadband does not qualify as a telecommunications service. Now, with Carr's FCC relying on Title II to override local broadband rules, the agency's plan asserts that infrastructure deployed by broadband companies serves "both telecommunications and non-telecommunications services."

A submission from Minnesota municipalities contended that the current FCC is repeating an error from the first Trump administration, when courts blocked its attempt to preempt state net neutrality laws. Without Title II regulation of broadband providers in place, the FCC cannot transform "a federal policy of nonregulation into independent preemptive authority," the Minnesota filing stated.

Should the FCC finalize its preemption plan, city and state authorities would likely pursue litigation, asking courts to determine whether the agency exceeded its legal authority.

Details of the FCC's preemption framework

The FCC's proposal would "establish a rebuttable presumption that state and local governments have effectively prohibited the provision of wireline telecommunications services if they fail to process all authorizations for use of public rights-of-way to provide wireline telecommunications services or to deploy wireline telecommunications infrastructure within 120 days," according to the agency's language.

The plan would cap fees imposed by state and local governments "to a reasonable approximation of the government's actual, direct costs of managing the rights-of-way." The FCC intends to establish "safe harbor fee levels that presumptively comply" with this standard, though it has not yet determined specific figures.

Additional provisions would restrict the in-kind compensation that municipalities can demand and bar localities from imposing supplementary requirements or fees "on the basis that the wireline telecommunications infrastructure may be used to provide other services."

The filing from the United States Conference of Mayors and allied organizations highlighted a contrasting federal standard: the Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service operate under a 270-day deadline for processing permits related to wireless and fiber installations on federal lands. Notably, agencies face no penalty for missing these deadlines, and delays frequently occur due to insufficient staffing.

This federal precedent demonstrates that the FCC's "120-day proposal is arbitrary and bears no connection to the realities of permitting processes and procedures," the groups argued. They further contended that the proposed fee restrictions would undermine municipalities' capacity to secure fair compensation for commercial use of public property. The filing raised "significant federalism concerns" and asserted that the plan fails to adequately account "for the actual costs and burdens of right-of-way deployment borne by local governments."

Industry pushes for even tighter timelines

Cable companies have endorsed the FCC proposal. America's Communications Association, representing small and medium-size cable operators, stated that "Unreasonable delays in issuing authorizations for access and use of public right-of-way and infrastructure materially inhibit the provision of telecommunications services."

The cable trade group characterized 120 days as the maximum acceptable timeframe and advocated for a 45-day deadline for certain "simple" right-of-way permits. USTelecom, the telecommunications industry's primary lobbying organization, urged the FCC to restrict fees and suggested that 60- and 90-day deadlines would give municipalities adequate time to evaluate applications.

The initial comment period concluded, with the FCC accepting reply comments through November 5. The agency would adopt final rules following that deadline, assuming leadership does not abandon the initiative.

Carr appears committed to moving forward with some version of the plan. In June, when the FCC released the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, he stated: "There are some jurisdictions where providers continue to face lengthy delays, excessive fees, and unpredictable permitting processes that can postpone projects for months or even years."

Carr acknowledged that municipalities may share frustration about provider delays. Rather than imposing new legal obligations on ISPs, he suggested offering them "incentives" to accelerate network construction. According to Carr, the FCC's call for comments seeks feedback on "how we can incentivize providers to act quickly on any granted authorizations so that state and local governments have more certainty that deployments will be completed and that their resources are being correctly applied."

Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez supported the step of soliciting public input but signaled her opposition to the final rule. "I am dubious about the commission's authority under Section 253 to use rulemaking to preempt states and localities when it comes to their management of rights of way and fees charged to providers," she said. Gomez additionally pointed out that "states and localities face large volumes of requests that they may or may not have the resources to respond to as rapidly as providers would like."