> ## 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, Local Governments Still Disagree Strongly on Permitting - URL: https://broadbandbreakfast.com/industry-local-governments-still-disagree-strongly-on-permitting/ - Published: 2026-09-22T21:19:51.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-23T21:47:03.000Z - Description: FCC received comments on its proposal to set shot clocks and fee limits for wireline projects - Author: Jake Neenan - Tags: permitting, FCC, Brendan Carr, USTelecom, NCTA, NTCA, WISPA, INCOMPAS, ACA Connects, Jonathan Spalter, FBA, #with-siderail, NATOA, National League of Cities WASHINGTON, Sept. 22, 2026 – The broadband industry and municipal governments are still miles apart on local permitting issues. The Federal Communications Commission is considering imposing shot clocks and fee limits on applications for new wireline infrastructure like fiber, using its authority to block local rules that prevent telecom deployment. [![CTA Image](https://storage.ghost.io/c/29/97/29976d9d-89ea-4c77-8c0b-0e8a0eafed35/content/images/2026/09/gilbert-banner-no-words-jpg-2.jpg)](https://broadbandbreakfast.com/telecom150/#bbb-offer) [***Sign Up for FREE for Section A of '150 Years of American Telecommunications'**](https://broadbandbreakfast.com/course/#bbb-offer) [Sign up for FREE for Section A ](https://broadbandbreakfast.com/telecom150/#bbb-offer) Comments came in on the proposal Monday, and followed a familiar pattern. ISPs and trade associations cheered the measure and said it would be warranted, pointing to what they said were unreasonable timelines and requirements that held up or entirely derailed projects. Local governments and groups that represent them strongly objected to the industry’s characterization. They said project reviews were necessary for safety and that the FCC lacked authority to institute a blanket preemption. Broadband trade groups including [USTelecom](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/26110077564/1?ref=broadbandbreakfast.com), [NTCA](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/26110077510/1?ref=broadbandbreakfast.com), [INCOMPAS](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/26110077574/1?ref=broadbandbreakfast.com), [FBA](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/26110077472/1?ref=broadbandbreakfast.com), [ACA Connects](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/26110077435/1?ref=broadbandbreakfast.com), WISPA, and WIA submitted comments supporting the FCC plan. Multiple individual ISPs, including the big three wireless carriers, submitted their own comments in favor of the plan. The FCC was considering a 120-day shot clock for project reviews, after which a provider could challenge the delay at the FCC. While trade groups liked the idea of that generally, multiple said it should be “an outer bound,” in ACA’s words, with shorter deadlines for typical projects. USTelecom proposed a 60-day shot clock for standard applications and a 90-day limit for “genuinely complex requests.” The group said a nationwide ISP had the “vast majority” of its permits approved within 90 days. “At the same time, providers continue to confront a patchwork of prolonged reviews, unpredictable procedures, excessive fees, permit throttles, and unrelated conditions imposed by many jurisdictions that materially inhibit wireline deployment,” wrote USTelecom legal affairs representative **Kathleen Slattery Thompson**. “These barriers are not isolated inconveniences; they represent structural impediments that alter rational investment and construction decisions.” In AT&T’s filing, the carrier said one of its affiliates was suing two cities in Minnesota over their requirements that ISPs enter a franchising agreement. In parallel with the FCC effort, ISPs are also pushing Congress to institute similar rules. USTelecom CEO **Jonathan Spalter** wrote an op-ed Tuesday in agricultural news outlet Agri-Pulse pushing for House Republicans’ broadband permitting package. The effort was opposed by Democrats, and local governments generated enough opposition among Republicans for the bill to stall after clearing the House Commerce Committee in December 2025. ### *Commingled services* The FCC has authority to block state and local rules that effectively prohibit the deployment of telecom infrastructure. Broadband is not a telecom service, and is usually the main purpose of fiber projects. The agency said in its proposal that since fiber has the ability to provide telecom voice services, it had the ability to intervene if fiber projects were being held up. Some ISPs deploying fiber offer voice of internet protocol and/or are registered telecom providers in the states they operate. Industry groups were supportive of this. NCTA, which represents the cable industry, [said it would](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/26110077539/1?ref=broadbandbreakfast.com) be impractical to apply the rule based on the services offered by the provider deploying fiber. “For example, fiber and hybrid fiber-coaxial infrastructure that may not carry telecommunications services initially upon deployment may nonetheless carry such services at some point in the future, either because the provider that deployed the facility adds one or more telecommunications services to its offerings, or because it leases capacity to another entity that provides such services,” wrote NCTA general counsel **Steven Morris**. ### *Local governments opposed* Local governments were similarly united against the FCC’s plan. National groups representing mayors, cities, counties, and state and local telecom regulators [joined a filing](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/26110077417/1?ref=broadbandbreakfast.com) opposing shot clocks and fee limits. “The Local Government Associations strenuously object to the portrayal of local permitting as an obstacle to deploying wireline telecommunications services,” the groups wrote, led by National League of Cities CEO **Clarence Anthony**. “The parties suggesting this seek to strip local governments of their ability to responsibly manage public assets in the rights-of-way, while still expecting to have access to rights-of-way that are safe, well-planned, and conducive to competition.” The groups said shot clocks in general tended to be arbitrary and ineffective. They pointed to a 2018 law that set a 270-day shot clock for federal agency reviews of certain communications projects; the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management only met the bar 50 percent of the time according to the Government accountability office. They said delays were often the result of provider practices or understaffing at permitting agencies. The groups said the FCC should try to prevent ISPs from filing permit applications to claim right-of-way or pole space without immediate deployment plans. A group of [21 cities](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/26110077526/1?ref=broadbandbreakfast.com) including Boston, Chicago, and Las Vegas also submitted a joint filing opposing preemption. More than [two dozen](https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/results?q=%28proceedings.name:%28%2225-253%22%29%29&limit=100&ref=broadbandbreakfast.com) other cities submitted individual comments, as did some state associations of cities. Wireline projects in public rights-of-way typically require both permits to access the property at all and a permit to undertake a particular construction project, the cities said in the joint filing. That’s more substantial than the typical small cell applications and can take a long time to process depending on the scope of the build, they said. The proposed 120-day shot clock was “based solely on the perspective of the entities seeking expedited right-of-way access, not those responsible for evaluating the engineering, safety, infrastructure, and competing-use implications of that access,” they wrote. “A single nationwide deadline simply cannot account for the wide variety of right-of-way projects to which it would apply.”