IV.3. Approval of Opposition Letter to Federal H.R. 3557 regarding Broadband; Casella
CITY OF HOPKINS
City Council Report 2024-136
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
Mike Mornson, City Manager
From: Casey Casella, Assistant City Manager
Date: November 19, 2024
Subject: Approval of Opposition Letter to Federal H.R. 3557 regarding Broadband
_____________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION
MOTION TO Approve a Letter of Opposition to Federal H.R. 3557, the American
Broadband Deployment Act of 2023.
OVERVIEW
The City of Hopkins is a member of the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission
(SWSCC). This group manages and enforces the cable rules for each member city to
make sure cable systems are built, operated, maintained, and improved in ways that
benefit everyone who uses cable. The cities in the SWSCC include Eden Prairie, Edina,
Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Richfield. Each city has two representatives. Currently, the
representatives from Hopkins are Assistant City Manager Casella and Council Member
Ben Goodlund. The SWSCC works with the law firm Moss & Barnett for assistance with
administration and legal matters.
Sometimes, the SWSCC deals with laws and policies related to cable fees, which has
become a national issue. Recently, the SWSCC staff brought a concerning federal bill,
H.R. 3557 - the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2023, to the Commission’s
attention. While this isn’t a new bill, certain industry groups are pushing for it again at the
federal level. At their meeting on October 23, 2024, the SWSCC sent a Letter of
Opposition to H.R. 3557. The Commission also encouraged each member city to send
their own letters to their federal representatives.
H.R. 3557 is a bill related to broadband deployment and is opposed by many bi-partisan
national organizations of local government officials including the National League of Cities
(NLC), the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), the National Association of Counties
(NACo) and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
(NATOA).
Tonight, Staff recommends the City Council approve an opposition letter on behalf of the
City of Hopkins. Staff would then send the letter to the appropriate federal officials to
oppose the bill.
Administration
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
• Sent NACo, NLC, the USCM and NATOA Letter of Opposition to H.R. 3557
• Sent Southwest Suburban Cable Commission Letter of Opposition to H.R. 3557
• Draft City of Hopkins Letter of Opposition to H.R. 3557
NLC NATIONAL
LEAGUE
OF CITIES
CITIES STRONG TOGETHER
September 18, 2024
THE UNITED STATES
CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
The Honorable Mike Johnson
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries:
ASNAC0 Namoa
The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries
Democratic Leader, U.S. House of Representatives
H-204, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
On behalf of the nation's bipartisan leaders of counties, cities, towns, villages, and the hundreds of millions of our
residents, the National League of Cities (NLC), The United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), National
Association of Counties (NACo) and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA)
write to express our continued' strong opposition to H.R. 3557, the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2023.2
H.R. 3557 represents an unprecedented and dangerous usurpation of local governments' authority to manage
public rights-of-way and land use. The bill favors a model for local permitting that unfairly constrains local input
and threatens to undo significant local coordination efforts that have occurred across the country to prepare and
act upon this historic moment in federal broadband infrastructure investment. The bill also waives historic
preservation (NHPA) and environmental (NEPA) rules at the favor of cable, wireless and telecommunications
providers despite recent progress made at the federal level to significantly reform NEPA and federal permitting
processes. In return for these gifts, the bill imposes no obligations on cable, wireless, and telecommunications
companies to provide broadband to "unserved" and "underserved" Americans and, further, passes on the real cost
of deployment to already overburdened American households.
The proponents of this legislation have suggested that local governments are an impediment to successful
broadband deployment, especially with the unprecedented levels of federal investment that are being made right
now. This simply isn't true. Local governments are partners with the telecommunications industry, working
together to safely, securely, and successfully deploy telecommunications infrastructure in our cities and counties in
a timely and efficient manner. We not only partner with our rights-of-way to ensure that disruptions to
infrastructure such as roads are minimized, but we are working collaboratively to ensure that together, we deliver
on the promise of internet for all Americans as we work with our State Broadband Offices on each of our
broadband plans.
In fact, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration has made local coordination a significant
component of the Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program because of this very essential
relationship between local governments and internet service providers.
Perhaps most alarming about H.R. 3557 is the promotion of the myth that making these proposed changes to our
rights-of-way authority will unlock lower prices and improve the quality of broadband offerings available in the
'This is the third time that we have jointly expressed our opposition to the joint Congressional leaders. See Joint Letter of National
Local Government organizations of April 19, 2023 available at https://www.natoa.org/newsnoint-letter-on-breakine-barriers-
streamlining-permitting-to-expedite-broadband-deployment- and the Joint Letter of National Local Government organizations of
April 19, 2023 available at https://www.natoa.org/news/action-alert-local-government-strongly-opposes-hr-3557-
americanbroadband-deployment-act. Both are attached hereto as Exhibits A & B.
'Additional expressions of opposition can be found at:
list-full-print-committee-individual.php, https://www.nlc.org/article/2023/06/08/house-committee-advancescommunications-
infrastructure-preemption-bill/ and https://www.naco.org/news/house-committee-advances-local-authoritypreemption-bill-
broadband-deployment-proiects
https://legacy.usmayors.org/resoludons/92nd Conference/proposedreview-
Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries
September 18, 2024
Page 2
United States. There's no proof that any of these conditions happened in states where local governments were pre-
empted. States such as Texas have not demonstrated any benefits from a statewide law compared to other states
and there is no evidence that a national pre-emption of local authority would have a positive effect, either.
Local governments have demonstrated historically and continue to support the successful deployment of
broadband networks as we seek to ensure that all our residents have access to quality, robust, and affordable
broadband services. Congress understood this fact, and the Constitution's protection of property rights, when it
preserved local government authority over the use of local rights-of- way (Sec. 253) and the siting of wireless
devices (Sec. 332). Network construction and operations need to be carefully managed for the sake of residents
and their public safety through the careful coordination of multiple rights-of-way (ROW) users to provide power,
water, sewerage, stormwater, and transportation use for our communities. We must also ensure that the
competing interests of these ROW occupants are well managed to avoid land grabs that might otherwise defeat the
intent of Congress' investment in broadband deployment.
Our organizations have worked diligently and proactively with the wireline and wireless providers to address
mutual ROW concerns in anticipation of the billions of dollars in BEAD fiber deployment made available by the
bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In fact, just this year, during a summit hosted by Georgetown
Law Institute for Technology Law & Policy, stakeholders from the federal, state, and local levels of government met
with industry stakeholders, including ISPs, both large and small, coming together to identify areas of consensus and
collaboration. The findings from our discussions were reduced to a report: Permitting Success: Closing the Digital
Divide Through Local Broadband Permitting that was published last week.t
H.R. 3557 runs counter to the recommendations that came out of that multi-stakeholder discussion. That group
recognized the main issue is lack of staff and resources, particularly in jurisdictions that will get most of the BEAD
funding. The Report reflects the acknowledgement by industry and other stakeholders that local permitting is
important to protect public safety and the diverse values of communities.
Similarly, the Federal Communications Commission's Communications Equity and Diversity Council's model rules for
states and local governments recognized similar values and the need for local involvement to be sure deployment is
equitable.4 This bill is also at odds with those recommendations.
H.R. 3557 deprives citizens and their local governments of the ability to preserve property rights and, most
importantly, maintain public safety. Worse, the proposals included in the legislation have been adopted in Texas
and other states that were identified recently in the national broadband map as having the most unserved
households in America. H.R. 3557, if enacted, would not deliver the benefits that its proponents promise.
That such flawed legislation has moved as far as it has may be attributed to the fact the American Broadband
Deployment Act of 2023 was hurried through committee without the benefit of local government testimony nor
insights and consequences of the proposed fundamental changes to our nation's telecommunications policy and
rights-of-way authorities. H.R. 3557, unlike many other broadband legislative priorities and investments passed by
Congress during the last several years, was voted out of committee on partisan lines. Because we are and have
always been, bipartisan, we are troubled by party-line legislation addressing issues that are bipartisan in nature.
As the level of government closest to the people, we oppose heavy-handed federal overreach into local land use,
permitting, and franchise negotiation decisions. Congress has historically recognized these rights in Sections 224,
253, and 332 of the Telecommunications Act. These authorities are critical to conduct responsible stewardship of
3 See https://www.benton.org/publications/permitting-success. Participants included Lumen, NCTA - The Internet &Television
Association, Dycom Industries, Fiber Broadband Association, Brightspeed, NTCA -The Rural Broadband Association, Google Fiber,
WTA - Advocates for Rural Broadband, Ting Internet, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and US Telecom.
4 Recommendations and Best Practices to Prevent Digital Discrimination and Promote Digital Equity Submitted to the Federal
Communications Commission by the Working Groups of the Communications Equity and Diversity Council November 7, 2022,
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/cedc-digital-discrimination-report-110722.pdf
Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries
September 18, 2024
Page 3
public property, protect public safety, and preserve the rights of residents as consumers of broadband services and
neighbors to the infrastructure that makes connectivity possible.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss and work collaboratively with Congress and our telecommunications
partners to find successful solutions to improve broadband deployment in our country. We thank you for
considering our viewpoints and look forward to continuing our work together on this important issue of ensuring
quality and affordable Internet access for all Americans.
Sincerely,
Clarence Anthony
CEO and Executive Director
National League of Cities
'pass coel.ass
Tom Cochran
CEO and Executive Director
The United States Conference of Mayors
Matthew D. Chase
CEO/Executive Director
The National Association of Counties
Tonya Rideout
Executive Director
The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
CC: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives
Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries
September 18, 2024
Page 4
If you have any questions, please contact:
The National League of Cities (NLC) is the voice of America's cities, towns and villages, representing more than 200
million people. NLC works to strengthen local leadership, influence federal policy and drive innovative solutions.
Contact: Angelina Panettieri, Legislative Director for Information Technology and Communications, at 202-626-
3196 orpanettieri@lc.org.
The United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) is the official nonpartisan organization of cities with populations
of 30,000 or more. There are 1,400 such cities in the country today. Each city is represented in the Conference by
its chief elected official, the mayor. Contact: David W. Burns, Assistant Executive Director, at 202-861-6765 or
dburns@usmayors.org.
The National Association of Counties (NACo) provides essential services to the nation's 3,069 counties, serving
nearly 40,000 county elected officials and 3.6 million county employees. Since 1935, NACo unites county officials
to advocate county priorities in federal policymaking and optimize county and taxpayer resources and cost savings
while promoting exemplary county policies and practices. Contact: Seamus Dowdall, Assoc. Legislative Director,
Telecommunications & Technology at 202-942-4212 or sdowdall@naco.org.
The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors' (NATOA) is the local government
association supporting our members by advocating for broadband deployment, digital equity, cable services,
Public, Educational and Governmental Access (PEG) Television, public safety communications and the preservation
of local authority in our public rights of way (PROW). Members are local government staff and their advisors
offering a wealth of experience and expertise on public rights-of-way management, telecom work and
communications issues related to broadband, wireless, cable television, public, educational, and government (PEG)
access, public safety communications, consumer protection and PROW management. Contact: Mike Lynch,
Leg/Reg Affairs Director, 703-519-8035, x202 or MLynch@NATOA.org.
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
8080 Mitchell Road I Eden Prairie, MN 55344
October 23,2024
Amy Klobuchar, U.S. Senator
1200 Washington Avenue South, Room 250
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Tna Smith, U.S. Senator
60 Plato Blvd. East, Suite 220
Saint Paul, MN 55107
Dean Phillips, U.S. Representative
13911 Ridgedale Drive, Suite 200
Minnetonka, MN 55305
Ilhan Omar, U.S. Representative
310 E 38th Street, Suite222
Minneapolis, MN 55409
Dear Representatives:
The Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ("SWSCCJ is a Minnesota municipal joint powers
cooperative formed by its member cities (Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Richfield,
Minnesota) consisting of a combined total of 85.73 square miles, 96,I34 households and227,546
residents. Since 1982, the SWSCC has administered and enforced cable franchise ordinances for
its member cities.
SWSCC opposes H.R. 3557.
On behalf of the SWSCC, I write to express our deep concerns and strong opposition to H.R,
3557, the American Broadband DeploymentAct of 2023. H.R.3557 deprives citizens and their
local governments of the ability to preserve propefi rights and maintain public safety. Moreover,
the proposals included in the legislation have been adopted by several states, which were recently
identified in the Federal Communications Commission's Broadband Maps as having the most
unseruedhouseholds in America, thus failing to deliver the benefits proponents of H.R. 3557 claim
the legislation would provide.
That such flawed legislation has moved as far as it has may be attributed to the fact that H.R.
3557 was hurried through committee without the benefit of any local government testimony nor
insights and consequences of the proposed fundamental changes to our nation's
telecommunications policy and rights-of-way authorities. H.R. 3557, unlike many other
broadband legislative priorities and investments passed by Congress during the last several years,
was voted out of committee on partisan lines. Local governments are always troubled when any
legislation is moved on pafi lines as local governments are bipartisan in nature.
Local governments are NOTan impediment to broadband deployment.
The proponents of this legislation have suggested that local governments are an impediment to
successful broadband deployment, especially with the unprecedented levels of federal investment
that are being made right now. This simply isn't true. Local governments are partners with the
telecommunications industry working together to safely, securely, and successfully deploy
telecommunications infrastructure in our cities and counties in a timely and effìcient manner.
Local governments are working daily with internet service providers to ensure that the promise
of internet for everyone is fulfilled consistent with the Minnesota Office of Broadband
Development. In fact, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration has
made local coordination between local government and internet service providers a significant
component of the Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program because of this
very essential relationship between local governments and internet service providers.
H.R. 3557 would preempt local government authority to manage public rights-of-way,
H.R. 3557 represents an unprecedented and dangerous usurpation of local government authority
to manage public rights-of-way and land use matters within their jurisdiction. The bill strips local
governments of propefty rights, and grants rights in public propefi to cable, wireless and
telecommunications providers. The bill also waives historic preservation (NHPA) and
environmental (NEPA) rules. In return for the bill's unprecedented authorization for industry
providers to do as they please with local community propefi and regulations, the bill imposes no
obligations on these companies to provide broadband to "unserved" and "underserved" Americans,
H.R. 3557 would allow for the unilateral modification of cable franchises.
With respect to cable television, the bill would eliminate cable franchise renewals, thereby
removing the ability of local communities to enforce franchise obligations such as build-out,
customer seruice, and provision of local public, educational and government access channels. It
would grant a cable operator the "unilateral right" to terminate or modiff a franchise, and in the
event of abandonment, create no obligation to remove a cable system from rights-of-way, thereby
clogging public property with abandoned utility infrastructure. It would also allow operators to
unilaterally eliminate provisions of contracts they deem commercially unfeasible. The result would
be that cable operators retain all the benefits of a franchise with none of the obligations to the
local community.
H.R. 3557 would impose unreasonable mandates on local government wireless
approvals.
With respect to wireless facilities, the bill mandates that all wireless siting decisions be "deemed
granted" if not acted upon by local governments within much shorter time periods than the federal
government. For similar projects the federal government gives itself 270 days to act, and if it fails
to do so, there is no "deemed granted" remedy. Yet the bill imposes a federal mandate that local
governments must act in as few as 60 days, and a failure to act would result in the application
being deemed granted.
Further, the bill provides no public safety protections for construction of "deemed granted"
facilities. Sites will be constructed without any further action by the local government, without
notice to the local government or obligation to comply with safety laws or traffic control.
H.R. 3557 would preemptlocal zoning.
2
The bill would grant special privileges that empower providers to install facilities where they choose
regardless of local zoning, thus eliminating the ability of local government to balance providers'
and neighbors' interests and jeopardizing the ability of local governments to impose stealth or
concealment factors on installations. It would limit all local fees to a locality's objectively
reasonable costs. Unlike current FCC rules and safe harbor pricing, localities would have to justify
their fees using a complex, burdensome rate-making formula.
Local government would have to seek remedies at the FCC, not local federal district
coufts.
In addition to the cable and wireless-specific issues, there are other reasons we urge you to
oppose this bill. The bill would impose new and similarly flawed timelines and "deemed granted"
remedies on applications for wireline-based telecommunications facilities, and our concerns here
mirror the concerns noted above with respect to wireless facilities. Importantly, the bill would also
substitute the FCC for local federal district courts as the reviewing body for challenges to decisions,
thus breaking promise made by Congress in 1996 that local governments would not be required
to travel to Washington to defend local land use and permitting decisions.
Minnesota local governments have a strong track record of working with providers.
Minnesota local governments have an impressive track record of facilitating broadband deployment
throughout our communities in a reasonable, timely manner. And we have additionally taken a
leadership role in proactively developing broadband infrastructure to create and improve
connectiviÇ in those pafts of the state that have traditionally been unserued and underserued,
opening up opportunities for public-private paftnerships to collaboratively address connectivity
issues. While there may always be bad actors on all sides of the equation, and periodic horror
stories that one side or another can drag into the debate, the fact remains that local governments
are successfully managing broadband deployment, and dramatic, overreaching federal preemption
is the last thing needed to address these important challenges.
Local governments have demonstrated historically and continue to support the successful
deployment of broadband networks as we seek to ensure that all our residents have access to
quality, robust, and affordable broadband services. Network construction needs to be carefully
managed for the sake of residents and their public safety through the careful coordination of
multiple rights-of-way (ROW) users to provide power, water, sewerage, stormwater, and
transportation use for our communities.
H.R. 3557 wlll notlower prices or improve the quality of broadband offerings.
Perhaps most alarming about H.R. 3557 is the promotion of the myth that making these proposed
changes to our rights-of-way authority will unlock lower prices and improve the quality of
broadband offerings available in Minnesota and around the United States. There's no proof that
any of these conditions happened in states where local governments were pre-empted. States
such as Texas have not demonstrated any benefits from a statewide law compared to other states
and there is no evidence that a national pre-emption of local authority would have a positive effect.
As the level of government closest to the people, we oppose heavy-handed federal overreach
into local land use, permitting, and franchise negotiation decisíons. Congress has historically
3
recognized these rights in Sections 224, 253, and 332 of the Telecommunications Act. These
authorities are critical to conduct responsible stewardship of public propefi, protect public safeÇ,
and preserue the rights of residents as consumers of broadband services and neighbors to the
infrastructure that makes connectivity possible.
Please support Minnesota local governments and oppose H.R. 3557
We would appreciate your opposition to H,R. 3557, and we would be happy to discuss these
issues with you in more detail at any time. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact the
undersigned with any questions or comments.
Respectfully submitted,
Vice Chair, Southwest Suburban Cable Commission
City Manager, Eden Prairie, Minnesota
cc via email:
Mark Freiberg, Council Member - City of Eden Prairie
Scott Neal, City Manager - City of Edina
Kate Agnew, Council Member - City of Edina
Casey Casella,.Assistant City Manager - City of Hopkins
Patty Latham, IT Manager - C¡ty of Minnetonka
Deb Calveft, Council Member - City of Minnetonka
Katie Rodriguez, City Manager - City of Richfield
Mary Supple, Mayor - City of Richfìeld
8851471v2
4
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343-3435 Phone: 952-548-6331 Fax:
952-935-1834 Web address: www.hopkinsmn.com
November 19, 2024
Amy Klobuchar, U.S. Senator
1200 Washington Avenue South, Room
250
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Tina Smith, U.S. Senator
60 Plato Blvd. East, Suite 220
Saint Paul, MN 55107
Dean Phillips, U.S. Representative
13911 Ridgedale Drive, Suite 200
Minnetonka, MN 55305
Dear Representatives:
On behalf of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota, I write to express our deep concerns and strong
opposition to H.R. 3557, the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2023. H.R. 3557 deprives
residents and their local governments of the ability to preserve property rights and maintain public
safety. Moreover, the proposals included in the legislation have been adopted by several states,
which were recently identified in the Federal Communications Commission’s ("FCC") Broadband
Maps as having the most unserved households in America, thus failing to deliver the benefits
proponents of H.R. 3557 claim the legislation would provide.
That such flawed legislation has moved as far as it has may be attributed to the fact that H.R.
3557 was hurried through committee without the benefit of any local government testimony nor
insights and consequences of the proposed fundamental changes to our nation’s
telecommunications policy and rights-of-way authorities. H.R. 3557, unlike many other broadband
legislative priorities and investments passed by Congress during the last several years, was voted
out of committee on partisan lines. Local governments are always troubled when any legislation
is moved on party lines as local governments are bipartisan in nature.
The City of Hopkins has a vision to create a spirit of community where:
•All people feel safe and respected, and diversity is celebrated
•Business growth is supported, and a vibrant downtown is maintained
•People enjoy exceptional government services, neighborhoods and outstanding schools
We have pride in our ability to work with our community and partners to ensure the best solution
for our residents and businesses. We are confident H.R. 3557 is not right for our community.
Local governments are NOT an impediment to broadband deployment.
The proponents of this legislation have suggested that local governments are an impediment to
successful broadband deployment, especially with the unprecedented levels of federal investment
that are being made right now. This simply is not true. Local governments are partners with the
telecommunications industry working together to safely, securely, and successfully deploy
telecommunications infrastructure in our cities and counties in a timely and efficient manner.
2
Local governments are working daily with internet service providers to ensure that the promise of
internet for everyone is fulfilled consistent with the Minnesota Office of Broadband Development.
In fact, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration has made local
coordination between local government and internet service providers a significant component of
the Broadband, Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program because of this very essential
relationship between local governments and internet service providers.
H.R. 3557 would preempt local government authority to manage public rights-of-way.
H.R. 3557 represents an unprecedented and dangerous usurpation of local government authority
to manage public rights-of-way and land use matters within their jurisdiction. The bill strips local
governments of property rights, and grants rights in public property to cable, wireless and
telecommunications providers. The bill also waives historic preservation (NHPA) and
environmental (NEPA) rules. In return for the bill’s unprecedented authorization for industry
providers to do as they please with local community property and regulations, the bill imposes no
obligations on these companies to provide broadband to “unserved” and “underserved” Americans.
H.R. 3557 would allow for the unilateral modification of cable franchises.
With respect to cable television, the bill would eliminate cable franchise renewals, thereby
removing the ability of local communities to enforce franchise obligations such as build-out,
customer service, and provision of local public, educational and government access channels. It
would grant a cable operator the “unilateral right” to terminate or modify a franchise, and in the
event of abandonment, create no obligation to remove a cable system from rights-of-way, thereby
clogging public property with abandoned utility infrastructure. It would also allow cable operators
to unilaterally eliminate provisions of contracts they deem commercially unfeasible. The result
would be that cable operators retain all the benefits of a franchise with none of the obligations to
the local community.
H.R. 3557 would impose unreasonable mandates on local government wireless approvals.
With respect to wireless facilities, the bill mandates that all wireless siting decisions be “deemed
granted” if not acted upon by local governments within much shorter time periods than the federal
government. For similar projects the federal government gives itself 270 days to act, and if it fails
to do so, there is no “deemed granted” remedy. Yet the bill imposes a federal mandate that local
governments must act in as few as 60 days, and a failure to act would result in the application
being deemed granted.
Further, the bill provides no public safety protections for construction of “deemed granted” facilities.
Sites will be constructed without any further action by the local government, without notice to the
local government or obligation to comply with safety laws or traffic control.
H.R. 3557 would preempt local zoning.
The bill would grant special privileges that empower providers to install facilities where they choose
regardless of local zoning, thus eliminating the ability of local government to balance providers’
and neighbors’ interests and jeopardizing the ability of local governments to impose stealth or
concealment factors on installations. It would limit all local fees to a locality’s objectively reasonable
costs. Unlike current FCC rules and safe harbor pricing, localities would have to justify their fees
using a complex, burdensome rate-making formula.
3
Local government would have to seek remedies at the FCC, not local federal district courts.
In addition to the cable and wireless-specific issues, there are other reasons we urge you to oppose
this bill. The bill would impose new and similarly flawed timelines and “deemed granted” remedies
on applications for wireline-based telecommunications facilities, and our concerns here mirror the
concerns noted above with respect to wireless facilities. Importantly, the bill would also substitute
the FCC for local federal district courts as the reviewing body for challenges to decisions, thus
breaking promise made by Congress in 1996 that local governments would not be required to
travel to Washington to defend local land use and permitting decisions.
Minnesota local governments have a strong track record of working with providers.
Minnesota local governments have an impressive track record of facilitating broadband
deployment throughout our communities in a reasonable, timely manner. And we have additionally
taken a leadership role in proactively developing broadband infrastructure to create and improve
connectivity in those parts of the state that have traditionally been unserved and underserved,
opening up opportunities for public-private partnerships to collaboratively address connectivity
issues. While there may always be bad actors on all sides of the equation, and periodic horror
stories that one side or another can drag into the debate, the fact remains that local governments
are successfully managing broadband deployment, and dramatic, overreaching federal preemption
is the last thing needed to address these important challenges.
Local governments have demonstrated historically and continue to support the successful
deployment of broadband networks as we seek to ensure that all our residents have access to
quality, robust, and affordable broadband services. Network construction needs to be carefully
managed for the sake of residents and their public safety through the careful coordination of
multiple rights-of-way (ROW) users to provide power, water, sewerage, stormwater, and
transportation use for our communities.
H.R. 3557 will not lower prices or improve the quality of broadband offerings.
Perhaps most alarming about H.R. 3557 is the promotion of the myth that making these proposed
changes to our rights-of-way authority will unlock lower prices and improve the quality of
broadband offerings available in Minnesota and around the United States. There is no proof that
any of these conditions happened in states where local governments were pre-empted. States
such as Texas have not demonstrated any benefits from a statewide law compared to other states
and there is no evidence that a national pre-emption of local authority would have a positive effect.
As the level of government closest to the people, we oppose heavy-handed federal overreach
into local land use, permitting, and franchise negotiation decisions. Congress has historically
recognized these rights in Sections 224, 253, and 332 of the Telecommunications Act. These
authorities are critical to conduct responsible stewardship of public property, protect public safety,
and preserve the rights of residents as consumers of broadband services and neighbors to the
infrastructure that makes connectivity possible.
Please support Minnesota local governments and oppose H.R. 3557
4
We would appreciate your opposition to H.R. 3557, and we would be happy to discuss these
issues with you in more detail at any time. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact the
undersigned with any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
_____________________________ ____________________________
Patrick Hanlon Michael Mornson
Mayor, City of Hopkins City Manager, City of Hopkins
PHanlon@hopkinsmn.com MMornson@hopkinsmn.com
612-440-9689 952-548-6301