Congressional Republicans angered local government leaders with a plan for what local groups call an “unprecedented federal intrusion” into how municipalities issue permits for construction of broadband networks. The Republican plan drew rave reviews from cable lobby groups, however.
A House subcommittee moved ahead with the plan today despite the opposition from local leaders and criticism from Congressional Democrats. Under the bills, some kinds of local telecom projects would be approved automatically if a city or town doesn’t rule within a deadline set by Congress.
“These bills represent an unprecedented federal intrusion into established local decision-making processes, favoring large broadband, telecommunications, wireless, and cable companies at the expense of residents and taxpayers,” four groups representing local leaders wrote in a letter to US lawmakers. “These bills strip local governments of the ability to effectively manage the infrastructure built on local streets and in neighborhoods, while imposing no reciprocal obligations on providers.”
The letter was sent by the United States Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. The groups objected to 11 of the 28 bills considered at a markup hearing held today by the House Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, saying the bills “would preempt local authority over public rights-of-way and land use.”
In general, the bills that the municipal groups object to demand that cities approve permits faster and reduce fees charged to Internet providers. The House subcommittee approved all the bills today, sending them to the full Commerce Committee.
“Full of bad ideas”
Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.) said the bills were pushed by Republicans during the previous Congressional session but were not adopted at the time.
“The package is full of bad ideas that are unpopular with members on both sides of the aisle,” he said. “Putting arbitrary deadlines on state, local, and Tribal governments to start and finish complicated permit reviews—under threat of an automatic construction approval—is opposed across the board by the local officials who are responsible for doing the work. Other provisions would gut any local communities’ ability to protect historic and culturally significant sites—especially for Tribal communities.”