Maryland ISP, State Agencies Spar Over FCC Preemption
The FCC is considering similar preemption issues in multiple rulemakings.
WASHINGTON, March 12, 2026 – A Maryland-based provider is asking federal regulators to preempt state rules it says prohibit the deployment of telecom services. State agencies say their policies are valid.
The dispute stems from Talkie Communication’s effort to deploy a utility pole with fixed wireless equipment in a right-of-way controlled by the Maryland State Highway Administration. Talkie argued in a Jan. 28 petition to the Federal Communications Commission that it should be exempt from county zoning rules and annual fees charged by the state’s Department of Information Technology.
“The County’s actions are blatantly impeding Talkie’s deployment of new and high quality services that would be provided to the County’s residents and businesses,” Talkie wrote.
The ISP argued telecom providers are exempt from the rules at issue in the state, and that Maryland should be prevented by the FCC from applying the extra requirements to companies like itself that provide both telecom services and non-telecom broadband services, so long as the equipment at issue has “the ability” to provide both services.
Talkie provides telecom voice service, plus broadband and TV on a “commingled” basis on its network, the company said.
The FCC is seeking input on state and local regulations it should consider preempting in an effort to speed up both wireline and wireless network deployments, citing a concern some rules were inhibiting those builds.
Talkie said in its petition the Maryland rules fell squarely in that bucket, as they impeded the deployment of broadband gear that could provide telecom service on a “commingled” basis. Under Section 253 of the Communications Act, the agency can block state and local rules that have the effect of prohibiting the deployment of telecom infrastructure.
Queen Anne’s County maintained in a filing posted March 10 that it wasn’t convinced the fixed wireless equipment attached to the pole would actually be used for telecom voice service, and that the FCC’s preemption authority didn’t apply only because infrastructure was capable in theory of offering a covered service.
“In sum, Section 253 proscribes state or local regulations that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any entity from providing telecommunications service,” the county wrote. “On the face of the Petition, Talkie has not alleged it is attempting to offer, or planning to offer, such service.”
Talkie in its petition said it was authorized to provide telephone service in Maryland and offered the service in the state, and thus the agency should find policies impeding its build out were preempted.
For its part, the Maryland DoIT said its annual fee exemption for telecoms was only for wireline facilities, and didn’t apply to wireless technology like Talkie’s radios. In addition to more filing requirements, the state said it would charge the company a $1,000 one-time fee and $270 annually.
That’s reasonable under the FCC’s preemption rules – unreasonable fees are blocked by the agency – the DoIT said, and the agency wasn’t improperly singling out Talkie by trying to charge the company.
The FCC requires local rules to be applied uniformly among telecom providers, and Talkie claimed it was being discriminated against for offering both telecom and broadband.
“Indeed, because any pole or fiber installations could conceivably be used to support a range of different telecommunications and non-telecommunications services provided on a commingled basis or otherwise, the County’s attempt to single out certain services as requiring additional permitting or zoning requirements violates Section 253,” the company wrote.
Member discussion