Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' recent decision in City of Portland v. Unites States, No. 18-72689 (9th Cir. 2020), significantly affects the ability of local governments to regulate the installation of so called "small cell" wireless facilities and addresses the ability of wireless providers to utilize utility poles. The underlying FCC orders issued in 2018 (the Orders) addressed issues arising from developing 5G broadband technology. The City of Portland upholds most, but finds some of the Orders overbroad. The decision contains nine rulings on the challenged Orders, and this Article will focus on those having the most significant implications for 5G deployment and state and local regulations. The decision rests upon the FCC's authority created by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the Act) promulgated to address issues arising out of the then new wireless telecommunications industry. The Act states in pertinent part that the FCC is authorized: "to preempt any state and local requirements that 'prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting' any entity from providing telecommunications services. See, 47 U.S.C. §253(a), (d)."
The FCC found that state and local fees could act as an impediment to the installation of facilities, in violation of the Act. Therefore, the Orders limited fees to a "'reasonable approximation of the state or local government's costs' of processing applications and managing the rights-of-way." Fees were declared presumptively reasonable at $500 initially and $250 annually thereafter for each facility. Fees over those amounts require that the municipality demonstrate its costs.
The FCC also found that aesthetic requirements materially inhibited deployment of small cell facilities. Therefore, restrictions must be: "(1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than requirements placed on other facilities and (3) objective and published in advance." Restrictions must be "technically feasible and reasonably directed to avoiding or remedying the intangible public harm of unsightly or out-of-character deployments."
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
To gauge the level of risk and uncover potential gaps, compliance and privacy leaders should collaborate to consider how often they are monitoring third parties, what intelligence they are gathering with and about their partners and vendors, and whether their risk management practices have been diminished due to cost and resource constraints.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.