Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts

Friday, April 17, 2026

Broadband Trade Associations Call on Congress to Pass H.R. 2289: The American Broadband Deployment Act

On April 13 a broad coalition of 13 associations representing different parts of America’s communications infrastructure wrote a joint letter to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives urging them to support passage of H.R 2289, the American Broadband Deployment Act (ABDA). The House Committee on Energy and Commerce passed the bill 26-24. The Rules Committee is scheduled to consider it on Monday, April 20.

The letter pointed out that, while Congress has devoted over $42 billion to the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment and other programs, builders continue to face persistent permitting barriers that delay deployment and realizing the full benefits of the funds. The letter makes several common arguments in favor of implementing permitting reform. First, the cost of delay due to inefficient permitting processes limits the reach of broadband networks and raises costs to consumers. Second, every dollar that is devoted to the permitting process is a dollar that cannot be invested in more efficient networking equipment. Third, broadband deployment supports America’s strategic position in the global contest to advance artificial intelligence because AI cannot function without connectivity.

 

H.R 2289 seeks to advance broadband deployment by establishing seamless, nationwide rules for obtaining federal, state, and local permits needed to complete broadband deployment. The ABDA codifies the FCC’s deployment streamlining orders and interpretations developed over the past two decades and builds on two current FCC efforts to speed permitting for wireless and wired deployments, respectively. The bill attempts to set out clear rules for state and local agencies, including streamlined review for deployments on existing infrastructure, binding shot clocks, and limits on the amount of fees and other conditions that can be imposed by agencies.

At the federal level, the bill provides that certain requests to modify an existing wireless tower or base station by collecting, removing, or replacing transmission equipment will not be considered a “major federal action” under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or an undertaking” under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). This excuses companies from having to undergo long and costly environmental reviews.

The letter notes that the House has already passed two pieces of permitting legislation on a voice vote. H.R. 1665 passed the House on March 16, 2026. It directs the Secretaries of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to establish an online portal for the acceptance, processing, and disposal of forms seeking permission to use federal land for communications purposes. Each portal will be published on the website of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration for public use.

H.R. 5419 passed the House on March 3, 2026. It directs the Secretaries of the Department of the Interior and Agriculture to each conduct a study of programmatic or administrative barriers to the timely review of requests for broadband use authorizations, whether revisions to rules or regulations could improve efficiency with respect to reviewing requests for broadband land use authorizations, and whether there are processes for prioritizing the review of requests for broadband land use authorizations. Within a year the Secretaries must give a joint report to Congress describing the results of their respective studies, including any reforms described therein, together with a plan for providing the staffing necessary to ensure timely review of broadband land use authorizations.

It is notable that the focus on federal permitting efforts seems largely confined to reducing the requirements of the two major pieces of environmental legislation. This is consistent with two recent reports on federal permitting requirements. A 2024 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service process most applications from telecommunications providers to install communications use equipment or facilities—including for broadband Internet—on federal property. However, GAO found that from fiscal years 2018 through 2022, these agencies lacked accurate and complete data needed to determine the processing time for 42 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of their communications use applications. These agencies also lacked the necessary controls to ensure staff entered key information, such as start and end dates, in their electronic systems. A more recent study concluded that there are no recent data on the costs that wireless providers face when complying with NEPA and NHPA. Using data obtained through surveys and working sessions, it estimated that mobile wireless providers would spend over $2.2 billion on regulatory compliance within the next decade.

While H.R.2289 will certainly help companies obtain federal licenses faster and with less expense, state and local requirements may be less amenable to reform. The ABDA has generated significant opposition from state and local agencies. As part of its broader efforts to reform regulations, the FCC has initiated two important proceedings to eliminate unnecessary delays in broadband deployment imposed by state and local governments. These include a Notice of Inquiry focused on eliminating barriers to wireline deployments and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for wireless deployments. Both efforts attracted a large number of public comments including from trade associations detailing several projects experiencing cost and schedule increases that seem unrelated to the true cost of access to public land.

Permitting reform is much needed. Hopefully, the American Broadband Deployment Act and other related legislation implementing permitting reform will be speedily adopted. And, in any event, the FCC's own efforts will still be important.

Tuesday, May 04, 2021

Court Permanently Enjoins Enforcement of Maine's Cable-Only A La Carte Law

Pursuant to a court-approved agreement by the parties to a pending legal challenge, a Maine law that would have forced cable operators to unbundle the programming they offer to customers, but not rival distributors of multichannel programming, will not go into effect.

LD 832 states in its entirety that "[n]otwithstanding any provision in a franchise, a cable system operator shall offer subscribers the option of purchasing access to cable channels, or programs on cable channels, individually."

In the summer of 2019, Comcast of New Hampshire/Maine joined a group of cable programmers (Plaintiffs) to sue the Governor of Maine, the Attorney General, and a number of municipalities (Defendants) in the U.S. District Court of Maine.

Plaintiffs put forth three arguments in support of their request for declaratory and injunctive relief: (1) that LD 832 violates the First Amendment by singling out cable operators for disfavored treatment, (2) that it infringes upon Plaintiffs' constitutionally protected editorial discretion regarding how they choose to package programming, and (3) that it is preempted by Sections 544 and 556 of the Communications Act.

The District Court agreed with the first of these arguments and in December 2019 granted a preliminary injunction.

In "Maine's Cable Unbundling Law Violates the First Amendment," a July 2020 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, Free State Foundation President Randolph J. May and I took issue with the District Court's errant conclusion that cable operators' First Amendment protections, recognized by the Supreme Court in its 1994 Turner I decision, do not extend to the editorial decision to make (1) individual channels available to customers exclusively through tiers, and (2) individual programs available solely as part of channels.

In February 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied Defendants' appeal of the District Court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction, a development I described in a contemporaneous post to the FSF Blog.

In response, the parties agreed to put an end to their legal dispute, filing with the District Court a Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief.

On April 23, the District Court issued an Order (1) declaring that LD 832 violates the First Amendment, and (2) permanently enjoining the Defendants from giving it effect.

Regrettably, the District Court's entry of this Order means that it will not have the opportunity to revisit its incorrect conclusion that the Maine law does not infringe cable operators' constitutionally protected editorial discretion with respect to the packaging of programming. Nor, for that matter, will Plaintiffs have the chance to develop the record more fully on the question of federal preemption.

Nevertheless, it certainly is welcome news that the saga of LD 832 has come to end.

Thursday, February 25, 2021

First Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Maine's Cable Unbundling Law

On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a lower court decision barring from going into effect video programming unbundling legislation in Maine that exclusively targets cable operators.

The Maine law (LD 832) requires cable operators to offer individual channels and programs on an a la carte basis. Satellite, Internet-based, and other competing providers of multichannel video programming services remain free to package content, and market it to consumers, however they choose.

Shortly after LD 832 became law in June 2019, Comcast of New Hampshire/Maine and a group of cable programmers sought declaratory and injunctive relief from the U.S. District Court in Maine.

The plaintiffs argued that the Maine law is preempted by federal law and runs afoul of the First Amendment in two ways. First, it singles out cable operators. Second, it infringes upon cable operators' protected editorial discretion regarding how they package programming.

In December 2019, the District Court in Maine granted a preliminary injunction solely on the basis that LD 832 improperly singles out cable operators. It rejected the preemption and editorial-discretion arguments. With respect to the latter, the court's decision hinged upon an inappropriately narrow interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1994 Turner I decision recognizing that First Amendment protections apply to cable operators' programming decisions.

As Free State Foundation President Randolph J. May and I explained in a July 2020 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, numerous Supreme Court decisions, including Turner II, make plain that cable operators' First Amendment protections do extend to decisions as to how content is packaged. We therefore expressed hope that the appellate court would take up this issue.

The First Circuit affirmed the District Court in Maine's grant of a preliminary injunction, but did so solely on the basis that LD 832 "constitutes a speaker-based regulation that 'singles out' cable operators' speech for special, disfavored treatment." Regrettably, it declined to consider whether the law also infringes cable operators' protected editorial discretion.

Maine must now decide if it wants to pursue the case further. If it does, one threshold issue that the District Court must decide is "whether additional, post-enactment evidence can be offered in support of the law." For as the First Circuit noted, "[t]he state candidly conceded at oral argument that, if the Act triggers the First Amendment at all, the existing record is insufficient to justify the law …."

A copy of the First Circuit decision is available here.

Friday, February 19, 2021

Coalition of Trade Associations Sue Over Maryland Digital Ad Tax

In a Tuesday post to the Free State Foundation's Blog, I reported that both chambers of the Maryland General Assembly had voted, by substantial margins, to override Governor Larry Hogan's veto of a gross revenues tax on digital advertising services. As anticipated, yesterday a group of trade associations sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Northern Division) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

Filed by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Internet Association, NetChoice, and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the complaint alleges that H.B. 732 "is a punitive assault on digital, but not print, advertising" and "is illegal in myriad ways."

Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that H.B. 732 (1) "is preempted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), which prohibits States from imposing 'multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce,'" and (2) "violates the Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by burdening and penalizing purely out-of-state conduct and interfering with foreign affairs."

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

Maryland's Digital Ad Tax to Become Law After Veto Override

Maryland's first-in-the-nation gross revenues tax on digital advertising services will take effect in less than 30 days. Legal challenges likely will follow soon thereafter.

H.B. 732, passed by the General Assembly at the end of the pandemic-shortened 2020 legislative session, was vetoed by Governor Larry Hogan. On Friday, the State Senate voted 29-17 to override that veto. The House of Delegates did the same the day prior, by an 88-48 margin.

H.B. 732 imposes a gross revenues tax on digital advertising services provided by companies that earn more than $100 million globally. Gross annual revenues will be taxed at rates that begin at 2.5 percent (for companies with revenues between $100 million and $1 billion) and increase to 5 percent (revenues between $1 billion and $5 billion), 7.5 percent (revenues between $5 billion and $15 billion), and 10 percent (revenues over $15 billion).

As Free State Foundation President Randolph J. May and I described last spring in a post to the FSF Blog and an op-ed in the Baltimore Sun, this tax will harm both consumers and businesses in Maryland. The higher marketing costs that result inevitably will lead to higher prices for the goods and services advertised, lower consumption, and reduced tax revenues. It also is vulnerable to legal challenges under the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, the Commerce Clause, and the First Amendment.

S.B. 787 and companion bill H.B. 1200, introduced on February 5 and 8, respectively, would modify H.B. 732 by (1) exempting the "digital interfaces" (that is, websites and apps) of television and radio broadcasters and news media entities, and (2) prohibiting those subject to the tax from passing on its costs directly via a separate fee, surcharge, or line item. However, the proposed legislation would not bar providers of digital advertising services from recouping those costs indirectly via higher prices.

Tuesday, June 30, 2020

Bill Would Incentivize RDOF Auction Winners to Speed Up Broadband Deployment

On June 22, Senators Roger Wicker (R–MS), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Shelley Moore Capito (R–WV), and Marsha Blackburn (R–TN) introduced the Accelerating Broadband Connectivity (ABC) Act of 2020.

The ABC Act would provide the FCC with $6 billion to incentivize winning bidders in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) reverse auctions – Phase I, scheduled for this October, and, to the extent that there are funds left over, Phase II – to accelerate buildout.

Incentive payments would be proportional to the amount of RDOF support received and conditioned upon recipients meeting the following milestones:

  • Begin construction within 180 days;
  • Initiate service within one year; and
  • Satisfy all buildout obligations within three years.

The following day, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai tweeted his support:

It is encouraging to see policymakers recognize the urgent need to expand broadband coverage to areas currently unserved.

Friday, May 22, 2020

Congress Urged to Provide Stay Connected Vouchers to Impacted Americans

As of May 14, over 750 broadband providers and trade associations have signed on to the FCC’s Keep Americans Connected Pledge. In addition, many have gone above and beyond those commitment by, for example: temporarily suspending data caps and overage charges; offering free or discounted service to students, educators, and front-line medical personnel; and waiving charges for low-income households enrolled in the Lifeline program. In a May 13 FSF Perspectives, I provided numerous examples of the voluntary actions ISPs have taken.

However, the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to impact countless Americans financially for the foreseeable future. In a blog post earlier this week, I described a provision in the HEROES Act passed by the House of Representatives on May 15 that would make nearly $9 billion available to the FCC to reimburse eligible providers offering discounted service (up to $50 per month) and devices (up to $100) to eligible consumers for the duration of this crisis and six months thereafter.


Another proposal would provide Stay Connected Vouchers directly to consumers. Described by Steven Berry, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Competitive Carriers Association, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on May 13, Stay Connected Vouchers would enable affected households to continue accessing essential communications services without amassing high account balances.

Broadband providers that adopt the Keep Americans Connected Pledge agree not to terminate service, and waive late fees, for those unable to make payments due to the novel coronavirus. But those payments are postponed, not erased. At some point in the future payment will be required. The Commission has extended through the end of June the period of time during which Pledge commitments apply, and that provides substantial short-term relief. But the fact remains that the longer this situation goes on, the greater the deferred financial obligation will be for affected individuals.

Stay Connected Vouchers would address this issue by establishing a longer-term safety net. Eligible households would receive two $50 vouchers each month during the COVID-19 crisis. Recipients could use them to pay for whatever communications service(s) they choose: text, voice, video, mobile or fixed broadband. Vouchers would expire six months after the end of the public-health emergency.

Proponents claim that a primary benefit of the Stay Connected Voucher program, which would be administered by the FCC, is its focus on practical and administrative expediency: by leveraging eligibility criteria and distribution mechanisms already in use for stimulus payments under the CARES Act, it would allow consumers to receive relief quickly.

Tuesday, May 19, 2020

FCC, House Pursue Different Approaches to Keeping Americans Online

Americans continue to suffer the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both the FCC and the House of Representatives recently took steps to prevent those struggling to pay their bills from being forced offline. The former did so via a renewed appeal for voluntary action. The latter passed legislation imposing specific obligations and establishing a reimbursement program for providers of discounted service.

A May 13 FSF Perspectives describes how, on March 13, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai called upon the broadband industry to take the Keep Americans Connected Pledge. ISPs and trade associations that agreed to do so committed to maintaining service for those impacted financially by the novel coronavirus, waiving late fees, and allowing members of the public to access their Wi-Fi hotspots.


The time period covered by that pledge originally was to end on May 12. However, on April 30 the Commission extended it through the end of June. On May 14, it announced that a total of 774 broadband and telephone providers were on board. After the FCC concluded that additional relief was appropriate, the number of signatories went up, not down.

Meanwhile, on May 15, the House passed the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act, which now awaits consideration by the Senate. Section 130401 of that bill converts the voluntary commitments solicited by the FCC into legal requirements that would remain in effect for the duration of this public health emergency.

It also prohibits broadband ISPs from enforcing data caps and charging for overages. Though beyond the scope of the Keep Americans Connected Pledge, a number of providers already had elected to take these additional steps, actions approvingly acknowledged by the Commission.

However, another provision of the HEROES Act, Section 130301, does create an $8.8 billion Emergency Broadband Connectivity Fund to provide reimbursements to eligible providers offering discounted service. Notably and explicitly, eligible providers need not be designated as eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) under Section 214(e) of the Communications Act.

Section 130301 directs the FCC to establish, within seven days of enactment (that is, without first conducting a notice-and-comment rulemaking), a program by which eligible households would receive a monthly discount of up to $50 on Internet service for the duration of the current crisis. The Commission would reimburse eligible providers for providing that discount, as well as up to $100 for supplying a laptop, desktop PC, or tablet. 

Eligible households are those that include at least one consumer who: meets the qualifications to participate in the Lifeline program, has been approved to receive free or reduced price breakfast or lunch at school, or has experienced a verifiable and substantial loss of income during since February 29.

Reimbursable monthly discounts would be made available for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency and six months thereafter.