T-Mobile and San Francisco’s permitting dispute perplexed a federal judge Friday. "I'm still not at all convinced that I understand what the real dispute is here,” said Judge Susan Illston near the end of virtual argument at U.S. District Court in San Francisco on the wireless carrier’s lawsuit alleging the city delayed permitting in violation of Spectrum Act Section 6409(a). Deemed granted is meant to be self-enforcing, Illston said as the hearing opened. “What I'm having a hard time understanding is why that is not the case." Neither party disagreed that the dozen applications at dispute were deemed granted because the city didn’t act within 60 days, as required by the section. San Francisco recognizes it can’t stop T-Mobile from installing facilities now with a deemed-granted notice but disagrees with the carrier wanting the court to force the locality to provide a permit, said San Francisco’s attorney Wayne Snodgrass. The municipality seeks to avoid people pointing fingers at the local government in a deemed-granted situation if, for example, there's a fire at a facility because the operator didn’t follow fire codes, he said: Issuing a permit would make the city responsible. If an application was deemed granted and the city tried to stop installation, the court may enjoin the municipality, Snodgrass said. “That is quite different" from compelling the city to issue its own local permit, "which is entirely a creature of local law,” he said. Section 6409 says the city shall approve applications, countered Mintz Levin attorney Scott Thompson for T-Mobile. "The city doesn't get to avoid that" by saying a deemed-granted notice is sufficient, he argued. The city continued asking T-Mobile questions about applications after running out the 60-day shot clock, and the carrier can’t deploy promptly with uncertainty, he said. The FCC recognized in 2014's order implementing Section 6409(a) that carriers may seek declaratory judgment and other remedies in court, Thompson said.
Adam Bender
Adam Bender, Senior Editor, is the state and local telecommunications reporter for Communications Daily, where he also has covered Congress and the Federal Communications Commission. He has won awards for his Warren Communications News reporting from the Society of Professional Journalists, Specialized Information Publishers Association and the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing. Bender studied print journalism at American University and is the author of dystopian science-fiction novels. You can follow Bender at WatchAdam.blog and @WatchAdam on Twitter.
ISPs advised Washington state senators to stick with narrow municipal broadband legislation and oppose a House-passed bill to fully allow retail and wholesale broadband by local governments. At a livestreamed hearing Thursday, industry witnesses told the Senate Technology Committee to lift state restrictions only in totally unserved areas, like in a Senate-passed measure. Sponsors disagreed on that limit in interviews.
The Washington state House wasn’t expected to have passed its privacy bill by Tuesday’s deadline for bills to clear their origin chamber. Instead, HB-1433 sponsor Rep. Shelley Kloba (D) planned to use the language in a proposed amendment to the Senate-passed SB-5062, said Kloba Legislative Assistant Brian Haifley. The House bill backed by the American Civil Liberties Union “will not be moving forward this session, but we are working to assure that any bill, including SB 5062, incorporates the most important provisions of HB 1433: opt-in consent, a private right of action, no loopholes, and no local preemption,” an ACLU-Washington spokesperson said. “These are the baseline protections needed for meaningful and effective data privacy regulation.” The Senate passed SB-5062 last week, for the third straight year (see 2103040007).
State and local officials backed Connecticut broadband regulations proposed by Gov. Ned Lamont (D) that would require universal buildout while updating infrastructure rules. But telecom industry officials opposed HB-6442 as regressive overreach, at the livestreamed Joint Energy and Technology Committee hearing Tuesday. Anticipating federal net neutrality action, some Connecticut lawmakers questioned the need for SB-4. Telecom lawyers disagreed in recent interviews on how other states will be affected by last month’s ruling by U.S. District Court in Sacramento allowing California’s law to take effect.
Meetings make states hopeful about closer FCC rapport under President Joe Biden, said officials from NARUC and the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates in recent interviews. Local officials seek a louder voice at the federal agency. “The relationship between state commissions and the FCC over the last four years” under then-President Donald Trump was “less than an example of cooperative federalism,” said NARUC President Paul Kjellander. FCC acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel reacted favorably to states' hopes.
California Public Utilities Commissioners all OK'd a rulemaking asking if the state should switch to a connections-based USF contribution mechanism. Meeting virtually Thursday, they also all supported requiring open access for middle-mile infrastructure funded by the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) and a $1.3 million fine for Frontier Communications for 2019 service-quality failures. Commissioner Darcie Houck, at her first CPUC meeting, supported all three items.
The Maryland House Ways and Means Committee should support exempting news media from Maryland’s digital ad tax law, said local press and broadcaster associations at a virtual hearing Friday. The Maryland General Assembly overrode the governor’s veto of the tax law Feb. 12 (see 2102120050), drawing a lawsuit from business groups (see 2102180053). HB-1200 would remedy Maryland DC Delaware Broadcasters Association concerns, said counsel Tim Nelson. Broadcasting ad revenue is declining partly due to the big tech companies targeted by the tax, he noted. The bill “acknowledges the vital importance of Maryland's local news outlets,” said Rebecca Snyder, executive director of the Maryland, Delaware and District of Columbia Press Association. The exemption is narrowly tailored to newsgathering organizations, she said. It wouldn’t cover news aggregators but would cover small newspapers owned by larger entities like Gannett, she said. Del. Jason Buckel (R) doubted the effectiveness of the bill prohibiting tech companies from passing costs from the tax to small businesses. They might not be able to create an explicit fee, but Maryland can’t stop them from changing their pricing, he said. HB-1200 sponsor Del. Eric Luedtke (D) disagreed that tech companies would pass along the cost, even under the original bill, saying that's “fearmongering.”
Gov. Ralph Northam (D) should scrap Virginia’s privacy bill that passed the legislature last week (see 2102190041), some said Thursday. The Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (VCCC), Consumer Federation of America, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group sent Northam a letter urging him to veto the legislation or send it back to the legislature for reconsideration next January. “Virginia has taken a business-first perspective that codifies business-designed obstacles to consumers having meaningful control of their personal information,” said VCCC President Irene Leech. Consumer Reports urged Northam to sign the bill but said legislators should work next session to strengthen it. “This bill has some important privacy provisions, but consumers need more practical options,” said CR Policy Analyst Maureen Mahoney. Northam's office didn’t comment.
Connecticut’s attorney general supported a comprehensive privacy bill, with caveats including on enforcement. The legislature’s Joint Committee on General Law heard testimony on SB-893 at a webcast hearing Thursday. The New England Cable & Telecommunications Association (NECTA) supports the bill, which mirrors Virginia's, as long as no further changes are made, said Davis Wright privacy attorney Nancy Libin.
All ExteNet litigation with municipalities over infrastructure permitting disputes are in states without small-cell laws, said Senior Counsel-Regulatory Affairs Haran Rashes at the Wireless Infrastructure Association's virtual Connect(X) event Wednesday. He has seen “very few problems” in states with small-cell laws. It’s easiest for ExteNet to work in states with deemed granted language in their bills, and the company hopes to defeat bills in some states on issues that could raise costs, including RF safety and backup power, he added. After Alabama became the 31st state to enact a law last week (see 2102220012), New Jersey is furthest along with a small-cell bill (A-1116), said Rashes. Municipalities and industries have compromised on the measure. Several bills in New York are “promising,” he added. Rashes wishes for policies in Massachusetts and California, where localities have given the company “some real headaches.” No new small-cell bills are on tap in California, where a previous bill was vetoed, but speeding infrastructure deployment is part of the state’s current conversation on “internet for all,” said Roxanne Gould, WIA consultant in California. Broadband is moving to the “front of the line” as a top priority, she said. Many bills have been introduced, but the dust hasn’t settled on what will pass, she said. Wildfire response was a top California priority in 2020 and will continue to be this year, she noted.