Carriers Tell 9th Circuit FCC Infrastructure Rules Don't Go Far Enough; Government Responds
Wireless carriers challenging FCC infrastructure rules in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told the court the FCC didn’t go far enough in writing rules for 5G. 5G deployment will require installation of hundreds of small cells, the carriers…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
said (in Pacer) Wednesday: Small cells are “the backbone of next-generation, ‘5G’ wireless service.” Others say the rules go too far and court watchers say what the 9th Circuit will rule is difficult to predict (see 1906100021). Various challenges have been consolidated under Sprint v. FCC, No. 19-70123. The FCC’s failure to impose a deemed granted remedy is “arbitrary and capricious because it is ‘in apparent conflict with [its] finding[s] in this case,’” the carriers said in a reply brief. “An established way to provide prompt, sure relief in the case of a shot clock violation is to deem requests granted when siting authorities fail to announce a decision before the expiration of the shot clock time period. Nevertheless, the FCC did not impose a deemed granted remedy.” The FCC and DOJ, meanwhile, filed a brief in Portland v. FCC, No. 18-72689, which is before the same panel as the other case. The FCC issued the infrastructure orders “in response to considerable evidence that some states and localities have materially inhibited the deployment of communications infrastructure that is urgently needed to keep pace with consumer demand for wireless services,” the government said. “Among other things, states and localities have imposed moratoria on siting applications, assessed fees that exceed any actual deployment-related costs the localities must incur, failed to act on siting applications in a timely manner, and imposed conditions on the placement or appearance of facilities that providers cannot ascertain in advance.”