- Регистрация
- 17 Февраль 2018
- Сообщения
- 40 832
- Лучшие ответы
- 0
- Реакции
- 0
- Баллы
- 8 093
Offline
Cities and counties call Congressional plan an “unprecedented federal intrusion.”
Credit: Getty Images | Andrey Denisyuk
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.”
US Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the subcommittee chairman, defended the bills at today’s hearing. “These reforms will add much-needed certainty, predictability, and accountability to the broadband permitting process and help expedite deployment,” he said.
Cable lobby group NCTA called the hearing “important progress” toward “the removal of regulatory impediments that slow deployment to unserved areas.” Another cable lobby group, America’s Communications Association, said the permitting reform bills “will strip away red tape and enable broadband, cable, and telecommunications providers to redirect resources to upgrading and expanding their networks and services, especially in rural areas.”
$42 billion program delays
Much of the debate centered on a $42 billion federal program that was created in a November 2021 law to subsidize broadband construction in areas without modern access. The Trump administration threw out a Biden-era plan for distributing the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program funds, forcing state governments to rewrite their plans and cut costs, delaying the projects’ start. Money still hasn’t been distributed, though the Trump administration today said it approved the rewritten plans of 18 states and territories.
Hudson alleged that BEAD suffered from “four years of delays caused by the Biden-Harris administration,” though the Biden administration had approximately three years to set up the program. Hudson said that “permitting reform is essential” to prevent the money from being “tied up in further unnecessary reviews and bureaucratic delays.”
The bills set varying deadlines for different types of network projects, ranging from 60 days to 150 days. One bill demands that permit fees for BEAD construction projects be based on the local government’s “actual and direct costs.” Another stipulates that certain environmental and historical preservation reviews aren’t required when removing equipment targeted by a 2019 law on foreign technology deemed to be a security risk.
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), the subcommittee’s top Democrat, said during the hearing that she won’t support “proposals that force local governments to meet tight deadlines without any extra staff or funding.” She said that if the “shot clock” specified in the legislation “runs out, the project is automatically approved. That may sound like a way to speed things up but in reality, it cuts out community input, leads to mistakes and sets us up for more delays down the road. If we want faster reviews, we should give local communities more help, not take away their say.”
Matsui: “Republicans are cherry picking stories”
Matsui said local communities and ISPs planned grant projects for years but have been stymied by “the Trump administration’s constant disruptions to BEAD. Republicans are cherry picking stories about slow permits to justify steamrolling local voices and rubber stamping approvals.”
Matsui also objected to the Trump administration telling states that they cannot receive BEAD funding if they enforce net neutrality and affordable broadband laws. “States should not be strong-armed into disregarding their consumer protection laws just to unlock federal dollars,” she said.
Matsui submitted an amendment that she said would “get BEAD back on track,” but it was rejected by the subcommittee majority. Other Democratic amendments were also defeated.
Pallone blasted the Trump administration for delaying BEAD grants. “Republicans spent years demonizing the Biden Administration for the time it took to carefully execute a massive, highly prescriptive broadband program to connect all Americans to affordable, reliable, high speed Internet. But now, almost a year later, Republicans have not connected a single household to high-speed Internet,” he said.
Not all the bills were contentious. Pallone said he supported six bipartisan bills that “aim to address issues that cause unnecessary delays and difficulty in the permitting process dealing with federal agencies, like updating antiquated systems and requiring standard, transparent fee structures across the board.”
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr praised the subcommittee. “This package of common sense permitting reforms will help unleash additional broadband infrastructure builds in communities all across the country” and “drive down the prices for broadband services by cutting out excessive costs,” he said.
Credit: Getty Images | Andrey Denisyuk
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.”
US Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the subcommittee chairman, defended the bills at today’s hearing. “These reforms will add much-needed certainty, predictability, and accountability to the broadband permitting process and help expedite deployment,” he said.
Cable lobby group NCTA called the hearing “important progress” toward “the removal of regulatory impediments that slow deployment to unserved areas.” Another cable lobby group, America’s Communications Association, said the permitting reform bills “will strip away red tape and enable broadband, cable, and telecommunications providers to redirect resources to upgrading and expanding their networks and services, especially in rural areas.”
$42 billion program delays
Much of the debate centered on a $42 billion federal program that was created in a November 2021 law to subsidize broadband construction in areas without modern access. The Trump administration threw out a Biden-era plan for distributing the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program funds, forcing state governments to rewrite their plans and cut costs, delaying the projects’ start. Money still hasn’t been distributed, though the Trump administration today said it approved the rewritten plans of 18 states and territories.
Hudson alleged that BEAD suffered from “four years of delays caused by the Biden-Harris administration,” though the Biden administration had approximately three years to set up the program. Hudson said that “permitting reform is essential” to prevent the money from being “tied up in further unnecessary reviews and bureaucratic delays.”
The bills set varying deadlines for different types of network projects, ranging from 60 days to 150 days. One bill demands that permit fees for BEAD construction projects be based on the local government’s “actual and direct costs.” Another stipulates that certain environmental and historical preservation reviews aren’t required when removing equipment targeted by a 2019 law on foreign technology deemed to be a security risk.
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), the subcommittee’s top Democrat, said during the hearing that she won’t support “proposals that force local governments to meet tight deadlines without any extra staff or funding.” She said that if the “shot clock” specified in the legislation “runs out, the project is automatically approved. That may sound like a way to speed things up but in reality, it cuts out community input, leads to mistakes and sets us up for more delays down the road. If we want faster reviews, we should give local communities more help, not take away their say.”
Matsui: “Republicans are cherry picking stories”
Matsui said local communities and ISPs planned grant projects for years but have been stymied by “the Trump administration’s constant disruptions to BEAD. Republicans are cherry picking stories about slow permits to justify steamrolling local voices and rubber stamping approvals.”
Matsui also objected to the Trump administration telling states that they cannot receive BEAD funding if they enforce net neutrality and affordable broadband laws. “States should not be strong-armed into disregarding their consumer protection laws just to unlock federal dollars,” she said.
Matsui submitted an amendment that she said would “get BEAD back on track,” but it was rejected by the subcommittee majority. Other Democratic amendments were also defeated.
Pallone blasted the Trump administration for delaying BEAD grants. “Republicans spent years demonizing the Biden Administration for the time it took to carefully execute a massive, highly prescriptive broadband program to connect all Americans to affordable, reliable, high speed Internet. But now, almost a year later, Republicans have not connected a single household to high-speed Internet,” he said.
Not all the bills were contentious. Pallone said he supported six bipartisan bills that “aim to address issues that cause unnecessary delays and difficulty in the permitting process dealing with federal agencies, like updating antiquated systems and requiring standard, transparent fee structures across the board.”
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr praised the subcommittee. “This package of common sense permitting reforms will help unleash additional broadband infrastructure builds in communities all across the country” and “drive down the prices for broadband services by cutting out excessive costs,” he said.
