WASHINGTON, Nov. 9, 2026 – Industry groups and local governments are still dug in on opposite sides of a debate over how to handle broadband permitting issues.

ISPs want the Federal Communications Commission to hand down shot clocks and other limits on how state and local permitting agencies process broadband projects. They say the measures are needed to avoid costly delays that sometimes end projects altogether.

Sign up for Broadband and AI in the Next Congress on Dec 1!

Don't Miss Out!

Trade groups have also made an effort to secure those changes via legislation, but opposition from local groups stalled a House bill that would have enacted them earlier this year. The bill was opposed by Democrats, who will take control of Congress in January.

The local governments have been strenuously opposed to federal preemption, arguing their reviews are necessary for safety and can’t be legally preempted.

The FCC has been considering using its preemption power to hand down a slate of new rules for local permitting agencies, including a 120-day shot clock to process broadband permits and limits on fees. The rules would apply to wireline projects.

Under the Communications Act, the agency can preempt state and local rules that effectively prohibit telecom deployment. Broadband isn’t a telecom service, but ISPs have argued that since fiber can technically provide telecom voice service, the FCC can intervene.

In reply comments posted last week, multiple broadband trade groups and ISPs agreed the FCC’s proposed 120 days was too much time and pushed for even shorter deadlines.

“The record supports USTelecom’s position that the Commission should adopt 60-day deadlines for standard authorization requests and 90-day deadlines for genuinely complex requests,” wrote Scott Angstreich, an attorney representing the group.

AT&T, Verizon, and Optimum also supported 60- and 90-day tiers. So did WISPA, which said routine projects could potentially be done even sooner in 45 days.

ACA Connects had also previously backed a 45-day shot clock for simpler projects, but simply reiterated last week that 120 days should be an “outer bound”.

The Fiber Broadband Association supported 60- and 120-day clocks, depending on the scale of the project.

NTCA and INCOMPAS backed a single 90-day deadline.

“A 90-day deadline would not burden local jurisdictions, while further mitigating the harm from unnecessary delays,” NTCA general counsel Justin Faulb wrote. “As others in the record explained, an additional 30 days can require providers to reschedule construction, remobilize crews, miss seasonal construction windows, and postpone service.

Local governments, utilities opposed

Cities and counties were similarly united against the FCC’s proposal to preempt their rules.

A group of 21 cities and counties argued the industry’s proposals “represent unsound and potentially dangerous local right-of-way management and compensation policy that the Commission lacks the competence to adopt.”

The cities, represented by telecom attorney Tillman Lay, argued the allegations of unworkable delays amassed by industry groups were relatively few compared to the number of local governments across the U.S.

“That should be cause for celebrating how smoothly the process is working at the local level, not for imposing heavy-handed Commission regulation,” he wrote.

National groups representing mayors, cities, counties, and state and local telecom regulators agreed, again urging the agency not to move forward with shot clocks and fee limits. Several additional cities and counties submitted their own comments opposing the rules.

The FCC had considered extending its preemption to pole attachment policies on publicly owned utility poles, which those utilities didn’t like.

The Utilities Technology Council and the American Public Power Association said the FCC didn’t have the authority to regulate attachments on public utilities.

Pole access is “a proprietary activity as part of the business of the public power utility” that wasn’t covered by the FCC’s ability to preempt local regulations, UTC general counsel Brett Kilbourne wrote.

Commingled facilities?

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.

Predictably, ISPs liked the idea and preemption opponents did not.

NCTA, which represents the cable industry, said last week the plain text of the law said the FCC could block regulations that prohibit “the ability of any entity to provide” telecom services, meaning fiber would be covered since it has the ability to provide voice service.

The group also said it could get confusing to implement if the rule only applied to gear currently providing telecom service, since that might change over time as business plans change.

For telecom union Communications Workers of America, it felt like ISPs would be reaping the benefits of providing common carrier service without the more stringent regulations that come with it.

Fearing future rate regulation,the industry successfully fought the Biden administration’s effort to classify broadband as a telecom service in 2024.

“In this docket, the FCC is proposing that broadband providers who have never had the obligations of common carriers should get the benefits that common carriers have historically received,” wrote Nell Geiser, CWA’s research director.

Broadband Breakfast

Message History

Delivery option(s)