Photo of Michael Dover

Below is Kelley Drye’s preview of the items under consideration at the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) upcoming monthly Open Meeting, to be held on July 13, 2017.  Consistent with the trend since he took over the Commission, Chairman Ajit Pai continues to schedule a large number of items.  Indeed, for the sixth month in a row, the Commission has six or more items on its agenda.  This month, the agenda consists of eight items, two Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, two Notices of Inquiry, two Reports and Orders, and one Order on Reconsideration.

Each agenda item is summarized below.  Note: these brief summaries are based on draft items, which may differ from the final items released following the Open Meeting.  Please check with Kelley Drye after the meeting for more information on the items below.


Continue Reading

iStock_000006131068MediumYesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the FCC’s order preempting Tennessee and North Carolina laws that prevented municipalities from deploying cable services, video services, and Internet services beyond their current territorial boundaries to underserved nearby areas.  The decision is a setback for Chairman Wheeler, who had pushed the preemption decision

After dropping hints for the past two weeks, FCC Chairman Wheeler announced several measures Wednesday to respond to the DC Circuit’s decision in Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission, ____ F.3d ___ (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“Verizon Net Neutrality Order”), which we summarized in an earlier blog post.  Chairman Wheeler seeks to “enhance” the transparency

Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (“District Court”) made a potentially significant pronouncement regarding the procedure affecting interpretation and enforcement of interconnection agreements and the types of claims that can be brought. In Level 3 Communications, LLC and Broadwing Communications, LLC v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., et al.,  

On January 22, 2014 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a two-page per curiam decision dismissing a petition by DISH Network, LLC that challenged the FCC’s “guidance” on the interpretation of agency law in the context of Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”). In its May 9, 2013 Declaratory

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 imposes limitations on a local government’s ability to deny permits to construct telecommunication towers. These include, among others, prohibitions against discrimination, a review of applications within a reasonable timeframe, and a requirement that application denials be “in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.” See 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)-(iv). The statute juxtaposes these restrictions against an express preservation of a local government’s “decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities.” Id. at § 332(c)(7)(A).

Recently, some courts have strictly construed Section 332(c)(7)(B)’s prohibitions. For example, last week, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that a local government’s requirement that municipal voters approve certain constructions was not subject to the prohibitions of Section 332(c)(7). In Omnipoint Commc’ns Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach, — F. – -, 2013 WL 6486240 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2013), a seventeen year-old voter initiative amended the local government’s charter to require city council and voter approval before construction costing more than $100,000 occurred on city-owned property. After initially approving the carrier’s siting of antennas in a city park within a reasonable time but discovering that the construction costs exceeded $100,000, the local government required that the construction be approved by voters. The carrier filed suit arguing that Section 332(c)(7)’s restrictions barred applying the voter-initiative requirement to the proposed construction. 
Continue Reading