And, I definitely don’t think new site installation should be preempted. Then, pristine wilderness will be at risk, among other historic and scenic treasures. Just the ones that exist now. Let them be turned into Skynet-like monstrosities. They are finite in number. Guess it’s the small price for the global village.

Thanks for kindly replying and have a great week!
JS

I believe Congress will grant the FCC authority to interpret this section which will lead to a declaratory ruling or clarification, relying upon the National Collocation Programmatic Agreement, or similar, for definitions of terminology, as well as upon the comments in the Congressional Record: Extension of Remarks in order to determine legislative intent.

The Extension of Remarks by Fred Upton reads:
“Section 6409. This section streamlines the process for siting of wireless facilities by preempting the ability of State and local authorities to delay collocation of, removal of, and replacement of wireless transmission equipment.”

I would not be surprised if you’re right about the FCC weighing in on definitions. It does not need congressional authority to do so (see, for example, the Shot Clock).

As for Sen. Upton’s extended remarks, which occurred after the Act was passed, there are some problems actually created by the exact words he used. To the extent that a post-passage extended remark is give weight as legislative intent, his comments will cut both ways.

Once the FCC assesses these comments as well as the law itself, they will rightly conclude and rule that it was intended to apply to all existing wireless facilities.

That may be the case, but I suspect that for the industry to get this law to where it wants its be, there will be a number of court cases and FCC actions.

And of course we’re all waiting to see whether there’s another shoe to drop, which would preempt all local control over new site placement.

Your comment,

“Wireless is technically a private industry, so this rampant abuse of power by local governments has persisted long past usefulness, and has helped contribute to a lagging wireless infrastructure in the United States and, thus, a weaker economy and possibly less effective protective network.

is particularly telling. I agree that wireless is private, but Congress has given it extraordinary powers.

Anyway, thanks for a very interesting and thoughtful comment. I hope you don’t lose your job!

Jonathan

The Extension of Remarks by Fred Upton reads:
“Section 6409. This section streamlines the process for siting of wireless facilities by preempting the ability of State and local authorities to delay collocation of, removal of, and replacement of wireless transmission equipment.”

Note the generality of this accepted source of Secondary Authority. It refers to ‘wireless transmission equipment’. This will help guide the FCC.

Once the FCC assesses these comments as well as the law itself, they will rightly conclude and rule that it was intended to apply to all existing wireless facilities.

And, come on, China is breathing down our necks. Local governments have become the worst drag on this country of any institution. Imagine if there were such restrictions to the development of railroads. highways and power lines in the late 19th to early 20th century? Wireless is technically a private industry, so this rampant abuse of power by local governments has persisted long past usefulness, and has helped contribute to a lagging wireless infrastructure in the United States and, thus, a weaker economy and possibly less effective protective network.

I actually perform regulatory assessments and have to comb through local and state codes and interpret their wireless provisions for cellular carriers, so I will probably be out a job once this law gains traction, but I still cheered cause this is what is right for the progress of America.

JS