Lobbying Heats Up Over Broadband Permitting
UPDATE Inside Towers reported the FCC plans to vote later this month on a proposal to streamline permitting for wireline broadband deployments. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making would seek comment on standards for when state and local statutes, regulations, and legal requirements impose “excessive delays and fees that impede infrastructure deployments.”
Much of the telecom industry welcomes the proposal, with groups such as NATE: The Communications Infrastructure Contractors Association (NATE), Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA), USTelecom, NTCA–The Rural Broadband Association (NTCA), and the Fiber Broadband Association (FBA), supporting it. But others, such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, oppose it.
The opponents especially don’t like the proposed 120-day shot clock text that, if passed as written, presumes “that state and local governments have effectively prohibited the provision of wireline telecommunications services if they fail to process applications for access and use of public rights-of-way within 120 days.”
Opponents feel the same way about the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025 (HR 2289), authored by Representative Buddy Carter (R-GA), which also imposes shot clocks for permitting approvals and limits localities’ management of public rights-of-way.
In a letter to House leadership last month the groups argue the main cause of permitting delays is not local government.
The opponents point to the federal permitting process. “A substantial number of new broadband investments are in rural and remote communities, where projects are disproportionately delayed by permitting on federally-managed lands. This Congress has already recognized that problem – the House passed bipartisan legislation to expedite and improve permitting by federal agencies and on federal lands, which will do far more to accelerate BEAD-funded projects than imposing rigid mandates on local governments.”
The groups say H.R. 2289 “does not address the actual bottleneck and instead micromanages the level of government that is actively working to get broadband built.” They’re using similar arguments to the FCC, noting that in the “rare” cases “where a local government truly obstructs deployment in the case of telecommunications infrastructure, the FCC already possesses sufficient authority to intervene under Sections 253 and 332 of the Communications Act of 1996.”
The stepped-up lobbying comes as the BEAD program is “is on the verge of shovel-to-ground implementation,” they note. Also, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors recently issued an action alert to members as the measure was placed on the “union calendar” last month, bringing it a step closer to floor action.
Supporters too, note that BEAD money “is now moving into implementation.” But they emphasize, “both BEAD and America’s broader leadership in AI will fall short if today’s permitting barriers remain,” they write in their April letter to House leadership. Supporters note the bill “would help preserve and extend the FCC’s deployment enabling reforms by establishing a consistent, nationwide permitting framework.”
Signatories include: NATE: Competitive Carriers Association; USTelecom; WIA; FBA; NTCA; Rural Wireless Association; NCTA – the Internet and Television Association; WISPA — Broadband Without Boundaries, ConnectAI and INCOMPAS – the Future of Competition.
By Leslie Stimson, Inside Towers Washington Bureau Chief
