Cities across US oppose Trump FCC plan to preempt local broadband rules
Cities across US oppose Trump FCC plan to preempt local broadband rules
美国多地城市反对特朗普政府 FCC 旨在凌驾于地方宽带法规之上的计划
Cities and counties around the US are angry at the Trump administration over a proposal to override local rules that govern the deployment of wired broadband networks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been taking public comments on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to preempt state and local permitting rules. 美国各地的城市和县政府对特朗普政府的一项提案感到愤怒，该提案旨在推翻管理有线宽带网络部署的地方性法规。美国联邦通信委员会（FCC）目前正在就一项拟议规则制定公告征求公众意见，该公告提议优先于（凌驾于）州和地方的许可规则。
The FCC argues that too many local governments “excessively delay approvals and seek to extract exorbitant sums from providers, resulting in costs that render some deployments infeasible.” The FCC plan is supported by broadband providers, but local governments told the FCC that it would override rules that protect public safety. FCC 辩称，许多地方政府“过度拖延审批，并试图从供应商那里榨取高额费用，导致成本过高，使得一些部署变得不可行。”FCC 的计划得到了宽带供应商的支持，但地方政府向 FCC 表示，这将推翻旨在保护公共安全的法规。
Local governments say the plan is illegal and that the FCC should instead focus on how Internet providers thwart competition with permit-hoarding and other tactics that prevent competitors from deploying networks. The FCC docket has drawn many comments from leaders of individual municipalities, and from groups representing local governments nationwide. They object to FCC plans to impose a 120-day deadline for processing permits and to proposed limits on fees and compensation that local governments can require from providers. 地方政府认为该计划是非法的，并表示 FCC 应该转而关注互联网供应商如何通过囤积许可证和其他阻碍竞争对手部署网络的策略来破坏竞争。FCC 的备案系统收到了来自各市领导人以及全国性地方政府代表团体的许多意见。他们反对 FCC 提出的 120 天许可审批期限，以及对地方政府可向供应商收取的费用和补偿所设定的限制。
“Local permitting is not a barrier to broadband deployment—it is an essential public safety function protecting residents, taxpayers, and all users of finite, multi-tenant public rights-of-way. The complex coordination required to safely deploy wireline telecommunications infrastructure in, above, and below public roadways cannot be reduced to an arbitrary federal deadline,” said a September 21 filing by the United States Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. “地方许可并非宽带部署的障碍，而是一项至关重要的公共安全职能，旨在保护居民、纳税人以及所有有限的、多租户公共通行权的使用者。在公共道路内部、上方和下方安全部署有线电信基础设施所需的复杂协调工作，不能简化为一个武断的联邦截止日期，”美国市长会议、全国县级协会、全国城市联盟以及全国电信官员和顾问协会在 9 月 21 日提交的一份文件中表示。
Cities say ISPs drag feet in deployment
城市称互联网服务提供商（ISP）在部署中拖延进度
While the FCC says it is trying to speed up broadband deployment, local governments say ISPs themselves are often to blame for delays. The groups representing local governments urged the FCC to issue new rules that apply to the providers and suggested a requirement that ISPs deploy networks within 180 days of local authorization. 虽然 FCC 声称其旨在加快宽带部署，但地方政府表示，延误往往是 ISP 自身造成的。代表地方政府的团体敦促 FCC 发布适用于供应商的新规则，并建议要求 ISP 在获得地方授权后的 180 天内完成网络部署。
“We ask the commission to address provider delays, failures to deploy, and permit-hoarding,” the groups told the FCC. They wrote that ISPs often fail to promptly deploy networks after obtaining approvals from local governments: Local governments’ efforts to attract telecommunications infrastructure investment to their communities often lead to frustration due to applicants’ permit-hoarding and other bad-faith actions by providers intended to crowd out competition in sought-after locations and routes, regardless of the provider’s actual intent to deploy and provide service or upgrades. “我们要求委员会解决供应商延误、部署失败和囤积许可证的问题，”这些团体告诉 FCC。他们写道，ISP 在获得地方政府批准后，往往无法及时部署网络：地方政府为吸引电信基础设施投资所做的努力，往往因申请人囤积许可证以及供应商其他旨在挤压热门地点和路线竞争的恶意行为而受挫，而这些供应商往往并不具备实际部署和提供服务或升级的意图。
Providers are aware that local governments have limited resources and existing legal obligations to review and process complete permits in a timely manner, and will generally do so in the order they are received. When a provider stakes “claimed” space on a pole or structure through permits, requests for make-ready work, or other actions—regardless of actual intent or ability to deploy in a timely fashion—this limits the ability of other providers to deploy in those same locations, particularly if a city must make decisions and recommendations based on elements such as the physical capacity of a structure given the assumption that the provider that has completed the permitting process will deploy soon. 供应商清楚地方政府资源有限，且有现行的法律义务及时审查和处理完整的许可申请，通常会按收到顺序进行处理。当供应商通过许可、准备工作请求或其他行动在电线杆或结构上“占位”时——无论其是否有实际意图或能力及时部署——这都会限制其他供应商在同一地点部署的能力，特别是当城市必须基于结构物理容量等因素做出决策和建议，并假设已完成许可流程的供应商将很快进行部署时。
Another filing submitted by the League of California Cities said the FCC has no authority to adopt the proposal. “Federal preemption of traditional state and local authority over public property, construction, public safety, permitting, and rights-of-way management should rest on clear congressional authorization,” the filing said. “The commission should not infer broad preemptive authority where Congress did not expressly provide it.” 加州城市联盟提交的另一份文件称，FCC 无权采纳该提案。“联邦政府对州和地方在公共财产、建设、公共安全、许可和通行权管理方面的传统权力进行优先干预，必须基于明确的国会授权，”该文件称。“在国会未明确授予的情况下，委员会不应推断其拥有广泛的优先干预权。”
The FCC claimed authority to preempt local rules under Section 253 of the Communications Act, which says that no state or local requirement “may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.” The FCC argues that certain permitting rules have the effect of prohibiting broadband deployment. FCC 声称根据《通信法》第 253 条拥有优先于地方规则的权力，该条款规定，任何州或地方的要求“不得禁止或产生禁止任何实体提供任何州际或州内电信服务的能力的效果。”FCC 辩称，某些许可规则产生了禁止宽带部署的效果。
FCC claims authority under Title II
FCC 声称根据第二章拥有权力
Section 253 is part of Title II, which gives the FCC authority to regulate telecommunications companies as common carriers. While Democratic FCC leaders in previous administrations used Title II to regulate broadband providers and impose net neutrality rules, a 2025 appeals court decision determined that broadband is an “information service” and can’t be regulated as a telecommunications service. 第 253 条属于第二章，该章赋予 FCC 将电信公司作为公共承运人进行监管的权力。虽然前几届政府中的民主党 FCC 领导人曾利用第二章来监管宽带供应商并实施网络中立规则，但 2025 年的一项上诉法院裁决认定，宽带属于“信息服务”，不能作为电信服务进行监管。
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has consistently opposed Title II regulation of broadband providers, maintaining that broadband is not a telecommunications service. With Carr now relying on Title II to preempt local broadband rules, his FCC plan argues that the infrastructure deployed by broadband providers is used for “both telecommunications and non-telecommunications services.” FCC 主席布伦丹·卡尔（Brendan Carr）一直反对对宽带供应商进行第二章监管，坚持认为宽带不是电信服务。由于卡尔现在依赖第二章来优先于地方宽带规则，他的 FCC 计划辩称，宽带供应商部署的基础设施被用于“电信和非电信服务”。
A filing by Minnesota cities said the current FCC is making the same mistake it made during the first Trump administration, when its attempt to preempt state net neutrality laws was blocked in court. Without Title II regulation of broadband providers, the FCC can’t convert “a federal policy of nonregulation into independent preemptive authority,” the Minnesota cities’ filing said. If the FCC finalizes its new preemption plan, city and state governments could sue and ask a court to rule that the agency exceeded its authority. 明尼苏达州各城市提交的一份文件称，当前的 FCC 正在重蹈特朗普第一任期内的覆辙，当时其试图优先于州网络中立法的尝试在法庭上被阻止。明尼苏达州各城市的文件称，在没有对宽带供应商进行第二章监管的情况下，FCC 不能将“联邦的不监管政策转化为独立的优先干预权力。”如果 FCC 最终确定其新的优先干预计划，市和州政府可能会提起诉讼，要求法院裁定该机构越权。
Preemption plan
优先干预计划
The FCC said its preemption plan would “establish a rebuttable presumption that state and local governments have effectively prohibited the provision of wireline telecommunications services if they fail to process all authorizations…” FCC 表示，其优先干预计划将“建立一种可反驳的推定，即如果州和地方政府未能处理所有授权……则视为它们实际上禁止了有线电信服务的提供。”