Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />FCC Website interpreting <br />The FCC is the federal agency charged with creating rules and policies under <br />Telecommunications Act of <br />1996. <br />the TCA and other telecommunications laws. <br />The FCC also manages and licenses commercial users (like cell providers <br />and tower companies), as well as non-commercial users (like local <br />governments). As a result, both the TCA and FCC rulings impact <br />interactions between the cell industry and local government. <br />The significant changes in the wireless industry and its related shared <br />wireless infrastructures, along with consumer demand for fast and reliable <br />service on mobile devices, have fueled a frenzy of requests for large and <br />small cell/DAS site development and/or deployment. As a part of this, cities <br />find themselves facing cell industry arguments that federal law requires <br />cities to approve tower siting requests. <br />Companies making these claims most often cite Section 253 or Section 332 <br />47 U.S.C. § 253 (Section 253 <br />of Telecommunication Act). <br />of the TCA as support. Section 253 states "no state or local statute or <br />regulation may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any <br />47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). <br />entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service." <br />FCC 09-99, Declaratory <br />Section 332 has a similar provision ensuring the entry of commercial mobile <br />Ruling (Nov. 18, 2009). <br />services into desired geographic markets to establish personal wireless <br />service facilities. <br />47 U.S.C. § 253(c)(e) <br />These provisions should not, however, be read out of context. When <br />(Section 253 of <br />Telecommunications Act). <br />reviewing the relevant sections in their entirety, it becomes clear that federal <br />law does not pre-empt local municipal regulations and land use controls. <br />47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). <br />Specifically, the law states "[n]othing in this section affects the authority of <br />a state or local government to manage the public rights of way or to require <br />FCC 09-99, Declaratory <br />Ruling (Nov. 18, 2009). <br />fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a <br />competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights of <br />way ..." and that "nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of <br />... local government ... over decisions regarding the placement, <br />construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities". <br />Sprint Spectrum v. Mills, <br />Courts consistently have agreed that local governments retain their <br />283 F.3d 404 (2nd Cir. <br />2002). <br />regulatory authority and, when faced with making decisions on placement of <br />towers, antenna or new telecommunication service equipment on city <br />USCOC of Greater Missouri <br />v. Vill. Of Marlborough, 618 <br />facilities, they generally have the same rights that private individuals have to <br />F.Supp.2d 1055 (E.D. Mo. <br />deny or permit placement of a cellular tower on their property. This means <br />2009). <br />cities can regulate and permit placement of towers and other personal <br />FCC 09-99, Declaratory <br />wireless service facilities, including, in most situations (though some state <br />Ruling (Nov. 18, 2009). <br />law restrictions exist regarding regulations of small wireless support <br />structures), controlling height, exterior materials, accessory buildings, and <br />even location. Cities should be careful to make sure that local regulations <br />don't have the effect of completely banning all cell towers or personal <br />wireless service facilities. Such regulation could run afoul of federal law (not <br />to mention state law as well). <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 8/1/2017 <br />Cell Towers, Small Cell Technologies & Distributed Antenna Systems Page 2 <br />