> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://broadbandbreakfast.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Industry Backs ISP Challenge to Minnesota City Permit Rules - URL: https://broadbandbreakfast.com/industry-backs-isp-challenge-to-minnesota-city-permit-rules/ - Published: 2026-09-03T22:46:36.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-15T21:49:54.000Z - Description: Trade groups have supported multiple preemption petitions at the FCC - Author: Jake Neenan - Tags: permitting, FCC, USTelecom, AT&T, Gateway Fiber, maple grove, Lynn Follansbee, #with-siderail WASHINGTON, Sept. 3, 2026 – Broadband providers and a major industry group are backing another ISP’s request for federal regulators to overrule local permitting rules. Maple Grove, Minn., countered that the Federal Communications Commission didn’t have legal authority to intervene in disputes surrounding broadband internet deployments. [![CTA Image](https://storage.ghost.io/c/29/97/29976d9d-89ea-4c77-8c0b-0e8a0eafed35/content/images/2026/08/250150_course_graphic_YT_wordmark_title-1.png)](https://broadbandbreakfast.com/course/#bbb-offer) [***Sign Up for FREE for Section A**](https://broadbandbreakfast.com/course/#bbb-offer) [Sign Up for FREE for Section A ](https://broadbandbreakfast.com/course/#bbb-offer) Industry groups have also backed Lumos’s [bid to preempt](https://broadbandbreakfast.com/isps-back-lumos-in-ohio-permitting-dispute/) Ohio county permitting rules and a [similar request](https://broadbandbreakfast.com/incompas-backing-maryland-isps-preemption-bid/) from Maryland ISP Talkie Communications. The FCC can block local rules if they effectively prohibit the deployment of telecom services, which broadband is not. Gateway Fiber, the ISP challenging Maple Grove’s rules, said its fiber could be used for both broadband and telecom services, and was thus covered by FCC authority. Other ISPs have made a similar argument, and the FCC signaled it was open to it when the agency sought comment on the issue. The agency has an open rulemaking in which it’s considering imposing shot clocks and fee limits when local permitting agencies process wireline projects, something [strongly supported](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://broadbandbreakfast.com/broadband-industry-wants-fcc-to-mandate-60-day-shot-clock-for-local-permits/&ved=2ahUKEwjAvae1rNOWAxUmtokEHabwN3EQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1zUAMOLYqgCqlt8mbqGlor) by ISPs and [strongly opposed](https://broadbandbreakfast.com/states-tell-fcc-to-leave-pole-attachment-authority-intact/) by local governments. A permitting bill implementing some of those changes cleared the House Commerce Committee on partisan lines late last year. In the case of Maple Grove, Gateway [said the city](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/26109834869/1?ref=broadbandbreakfast.com) in March started requiring ISPs to enter into cable franchise agreements before receiving permits. Franchise agreements, usually used by cable TV and broadband providers, involve paying a set amount of revenue to a local government in exchange for rights-of-way access. Gateway said that was blocking it from deploying telecom infrastructure, since it couldn’t satisfy technical requirements related to cable franchises in Minnesota, and thus the FCC should step in and quash the requirement. The ISP was represented by attorneys from Morgan Lewis, including former FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief **Loyaan Egal**. Maple Grove argued in an [Aug. 24 response](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/26110072849/1?ref=broadbandbreakfast.com) that although Gateway was registered to provide telecom data services in Minnesota, the company was seeking permits for residential broadband deployment. That prevented any FCC intervention, in the city’s view. The city also said Gateway wasn’t in fact prevented from entering a franchise agreement under state law. ### *USTelecom, AT&T back Gateway* Broadband trade group USTelecom and AT&T sided with Gateway. USTelecom vice president **B. Lynn Follansbee** said the issue could have widespread implications, and that the agency should set the precedent of quashing Maple Grove’s rules. “Competitive fiber networks increasingly support a mix of broadband and telecommunications offerings over common facilities,” she wrote in an [Aug. 24 filing](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/26110072883/1?ref=broadbandbreakfast.com). “If localities may condition ordinary construction permits on service-specific franchise obligations unrelated to right-of-way management, providers would face a patchwork of duplicative local approvals that can delay deployment, increase costs, and deter investment.” [AT&T agreed](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/26110072964/1?ref=broadbandbreakfast.com) that fiber should be covered by the FCC’s preemption authority, and the agency should side with Gateway. When the agency proposed wireline permitting rules in June, it said it was inclined to agree with broadband providers that infrastructure that can potentially provide telecom service should be covered by its policies. "If a provider seeks to deploy infrastructure that enables *the ability* to provide telecommunications services, no state or local requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting it, regardless of whether the provider offers other services on a commingled basis,” the agency wrote. The agency sought comment on that conclusion. Industry and local governments are sharply divided on the issue, with providers saying endless reviews hold up deployments of essential services and municipalities arguing they don’t have the resources to move quickly and need to ensure rights-of-way are accessed safely.