Preemption Battles Continue as Cities Look to Improve Internet Connectivity

The Rotunda of the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta

The Rotunda of the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta Shutterstock

 

Connecting state and local government leaders

From Georgia to Texas and Colorado, city halls are trying to fend off state efforts to assert control over local rights of way.

The day before the Georgia State Legislature wrapped up its session on March 30, the House passed a controversial bill to assert the state’s power over its local governments in the fraught debate about who should set the terms for deployment of broadband technology. The vote was 143-10. But even though the Senate in February had passed a similar measure by 52-1, the versions could not be reconciled in time to get the bill to the desk of Gov. Nathan Deal.

That represented a victory for the Georgia Municipal Association and its executive director, Larry Hanson, who had fought tooth and nail against the legislation.

The bill, and others like it in many other states, brought strong denunciations from local governments alleging that major telecommunications companies are using preemption to gain low-cost access to public rights of way. Recent times have seen a flood of preemption measures on a variety of issues, as Route Fifty reported last year.

The case against the Georgia legislation was passionately described by Hanson during a panel discussion at last month’s National League of Cities’ annual Congressional Cities Conference in Washington, D.C. He also described his position in a column he published on the GMA website, where he wrote:

“Legislative proposals like ... SB 426 would grant private wireless telecom companies nearly unfettered access to the public rights-of-way with limited ability on the part of the local government to negotiate on size, location or compensation for new infrastructure entering public spaces.”

The GMA represents 521 municipal governments, accounting for more than 99 percent of the state's municipal population. The votes in the House and Senate suggested that its pleas fell on deaf ears. Indeed, telecom companies deployed 40 lobbyists on the bill, Hanson told his NLC audience. But in the end, the GMA position prevailed.

What emerged in the chaotic last night of the session was an innocuous study, to be conducted by a new Senate Advanced Communications Technologies and Use of State and Local Government Right of Way Policy Modernization Study Committee. In a “Gold Dome Update” titled “Cities Succeed in Maintaining Control of Public Rights–of–Way,” the GMA described the 11th-hour maneuvering.

According to Next Century Cities, a nonprofit coalition of cities on broadband issues, 16 states last year enacted legislation limiting local authorities’ ability to control broadband deployment, though one bill was vetoed and two of the laws are held up in the courts. This year, 14 states have been considering similar measures.

A new NLC report released this week puts the current total of states with broadband preemption laws at 20.

The Next Century Cities website describes the municipalities’ concerns:

Most cities are quite concerned about laws being passed or proposed related to limiting local authority to maintain city aesthetics and safety, recovering reasonable permitting costs, and obtaining fair market rates for the use of city assets. Specifically, many have serious reservations about the unsightly nature of some early small cell deployments. At the same time, many cities note that providers are concerned about excessive permitting time, and some city representatives say cities should come to the table more to address those issues.

“Small cell” technology is seen by internet service providers, or ISPs, like AT&T and Verizon as the key to deployment of so-called 5G service, promising much faster download speeds than current 4G systems allow. The devices are not physically small—indeed some are larger than refrigerators—but they transmit over small distances, about 200 yards in urban areas.

Networks of these small cells can wirelessly enhance high-speed internet networks, but they are not effective in rural areas, where distances between buildings makes installation difficult and costly.

Companies involved in building wireless infrastructure, and others that provide broadband services, have lobbied hard for preemption. Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and others are represented by the Wireless Infrastructure Association. These companies and many other major firms such as Amazon, Cisco, Intel and Oracle are represented by CTIA.

Providers vs. Municipalities

A key issue in the debate revolves around cost—the amounts ISPs should have to pay to use public rights of way. Many cities have charged the companies $2,000 or $2,500 per year to rent their light poles for 5G antennas. It’s expensive, they say, to maintain all the public services that use the rights of way, and any excess revenue can help subsidize service to low-income and under-served areas. The companies, who say they are providing a public service, propose a fee of $20 to $250 depending on the type of installation.

A recent and thorough article by Thomson Reuters described how the debate is playing out in Lincoln, Nebraska’s capital and second most populous city. City officials reached an understanding with three companies in 2015 to rent their light poles for $2,000 a year. Then, last year, telecom lobbyists came back with a new offer: $20 a pole, which they said was the “new national standard,” according to city official David P. Young. “We have a responsibility to get fair market value for the public asset,” Young told Thomson Reuters. “It costs us $4,000 per location to put a street light up.” But the telecom companies were expecting the state legislature, which is still in session, to mandate a statewide low price.

That is what happened last year in Texas, where enactment of S.B. 1004 set a cap of $250 for installation of a network node. The law set off a firestorm of protest among municipal officials who, led by McAllen City Attorney Kevin Pagan, have filed suit against the state. Nearly three dozen cities have joined in the lawsuit, including Dallas, which ranks third by population in the state.

“The Texas legislation is part of a multi-state push by the wireless industry in conjunction with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to achieve a more relaxed regulatory environment and to obtain a public subsidy,” the plaintiffs say in one of their filings. And, in fact, ALEC, a nonprofit dedicated to pushing conservative policies at the state level, has been pushing both state and federal-level policies to reduce regulatory reviews and establish low fees for broadband facilities.

Texas cities will accrue large losses if the law passes judicial muster. At the time it was being considered, the state’s Legislative Budget Board said it “could result in loss of right-of-way and similar fees to municipalities estimated at more than $800 million annually,” said the plaintiffs’ petition. “Nevertheless,” the brief continued, “the legislature passed the bill initiating a significant wealth transfer from Texas cities to private telecommunications companies of as much as hundreds of millions of dollars each year.”

The preemption legislation also limits Texas municipalities’ ability to conduct environmental and zoning and other reviews. It mandates approval of applications for simple 5G installations and imposes “shot clock” deadlines for approval of other applications. The “shot clock,” a basketball-derived term, is a feature of other state preemption laws and of policies under consideration at the Federal Communications Commission that could propose federal preemption of local powers. “Of course, we think it is unreasonable, but many providers and industry folks do not,” said Austin Stevenson, McAllen’s assistant city attorney, in an email.

The Texas case is now awaiting trial on the merits, Austin reported. The court rejected the state’s motion to dismiss the suit. But it then denied the municipalities’ plea for a temporary injunction.

Monopoly, Duopoly or Municipal Competition?

An expert who spoke at the National League of Cities conference was Joanne Hovis, both a broadband services entrepreneur and the chairman of the nonprofit Coalition for Local Internet Choice.

At the conference, and in a later interview, she observed that in many underserved communities there is little incentive for the private providers to extend their networks. In rural communities, the rule of thumb has been that companies won’t run lines with fewer than 20 houses per mile. In urban areas, low-adoption rates in low-income communities retard investment in high-speed internet infrastructure.

The lobbyists for preemption promise 5G capabilities, but Hovis remarked that 5G technology is still nascent—years away from proven. The companies promise what can’t yet be delivered, she said, in order to gain access to public rights of way to enhance their current 4G service. That is a worthy goal, she said in an interview, but not worth giving up local powers and revenues. The small cells work for 4G, but have yet to be proven as a scalable 5G transmission system.

Meantime, the FCC’s leadership has signaled that it does not agree with the arguments for local control of key broadband decisions. Its Broadband Development Advisory Committee has yet to issue a report, but observers believe it will come down in favor of preemption, as Route Fifty reported in January. The committee, dominated by industry players, has only a handful of members—including Hanson—who can speak for municipal interests. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is more sympathetic to industry than to local governments, according to our report then. The FCC thus may weigh in on the side of preemption later this year.

Local Broadband Progress

While the preemption debate rages, cities all over the country are wrestling with broadband issues, especially the problem of improving service in rural areas and so-called “urban deserts.”

An interesting case, recounted at the NLC conference, is that of Fort Collins, Colorado, a city of 170,000 people that’s home to Intel and other high-tech companies. Last year, the city managed to break free of the state’s preemption law, described by Mayor Wade Troxell as “horrible legislation” that was adopted in 2005. The law prohibits Colorado municipalities from creating their own broadband networks but has a clause allowing localities to conduct referenda to escape the strictures of the law. Since 2005, 86 towns and 30 counties have voted to exempt themselves from the law, and another half dozen were deciding this year whether to follow their example.

Fort Collins already had four municipal utilities, and broadband would be a fifth, Troxell explained. Incumbent broadband providers spent $900,000 fighting the measure, he said, “spreading misinformation, saying we wouldn’t be filling potholes and the like.” The city spent $15,000 to explain the measure, and it passed last November with a 57 percent majority. Fort Collins is now evaluating design proposals and expects to have connections running ot 56,000 premises in about three years.

Meanwhile, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper has just signed a new law that will provide more money for rural broadband deployment across the state. In Missouri, legislation has been under consideration to help the state’s rural communities. “We have identified the expansion of broadband as the best way to bring our rural counties into the 21st century,” said one expert there.

Joanne Hovis, in testimony before Congress in January, said: “Broadband is an existential issue for many local governments. No one recognizes better than an elected local official the importance of broadband to the economic vitality of a community, and its attractiveness for residents, workers and businesses.”

Her testimony included a long list of jurisdictions around the country that have taken action to improve broadband deployment. And she singled out the so-called Google Fiber cities, where officials have worked with Google, using municipal tools to help spread fast internet to all residents. Huntsville, Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville, Louisville, Salt Lake City, Austin are among 12 jurisdictions now participating. Google Fiber in 2016 paused the program and laid off many its workers, but in 2017, the company revived it and added three new locations. A map on the Google website shows both existing and prospective locations. When Google announced the program a few years ago, it had more than 1,000 applicants, a powerful sign of how badly local officials want faster internet in their communities.

Throughout the land, state legislatures and municipalities and their trade associations are studying how best to give citizens the unquestioned advantages of broadband internet. The Georgia Municipal Association is one good example of a proactive group. Another is the North Carolina League of Municipalities, which on March 18 released a detailed paper, co-authored by its legislative counsel Erin Wynia and by Joanne Hovis and titled “Leaping the Digital Divide: Encouraging Policies and Partnerships to Improve Broadband Access across North Carolina.”

Hovis and others compare the imperative for broadband to the nation’s earlier need for transcontinental railroads and highways. As in those earlier cases, bringing its potential to all Americans will likely require a sizable investment--considerably more than the federal government is currently proposing.

PREVIOUSLY on Route Fifty:

Timothy B. Clark is Editor at Large at Government Executive's Route Fifty.

NEXT STORY: 14 Gigabit Projects in 5 Cities Get Mozilla Money

X
This website uses cookies to enhance user experience and to analyze performance and traffic on our website. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. Learn More / Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Accept Cookies
X
Cookie Preferences Cookie List

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

When you visit our website, we store cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. However, you can choose not to allow certain types of cookies, which may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings according to your preference. You cannot opt-out of our First Party Strictly Necessary Cookies as they are deployed in order to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting the cookie banner and remembering your settings, to log into your account, to redirect you when you log out, etc.). For more information about the First and Third Party Cookies used please follow this link.

Allow All Cookies

Manage Consent Preferences

Strictly Necessary Cookies - Always Active

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Sale of Personal Data, Targeting & Social Media Cookies

Under the California Consumer Privacy Act, you have the right to opt-out of the sale of your personal information to third parties. These cookies collect information for analytics and to personalize your experience with targeted ads. You may exercise your right to opt out of the sale of personal information by using this toggle switch. If you opt out we will not be able to offer you personalised ads and will not hand over your personal information to any third parties. Additionally, you may contact our legal department for further clarification about your rights as a California consumer by using this Exercise My Rights link

If you have enabled privacy controls on your browser (such as a plugin), we have to take that as a valid request to opt-out. Therefore we would not be able to track your activity through the web. This may affect our ability to personalize ads according to your preferences.

Targeting cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.

Social media cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.

If you want to opt out of all of our lead reports and lists, please submit a privacy request at our Do Not Sell page.

Save Settings
Cookie Preferences Cookie List

Cookie List

A cookie is a small piece of data (text file) that a website – when visited by a user – asks your browser to store on your device in order to remember information about you, such as your language preference or login information. Those cookies are set by us and called first-party cookies. We also use third-party cookies – which are cookies from a domain different than the domain of the website you are visiting – for our advertising and marketing efforts. More specifically, we use cookies and other tracking technologies for the following purposes:

Strictly Necessary Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Functional Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Performance Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Sale of Personal Data

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.

Social Media Cookies

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.

Targeting Cookies

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.