Reflections on the FCC and the Telecommunications Act

Council needs to stop reciting pro-wireless bias narratives that rubber-stamp and cheerlead the interests of telecom and their so-called demonstrations. What is preempted is an actual moratorium that’s specific to wireless –– for which Montgomery County is NOT GUILTY!

What the County’s attorneys continue to advise Councilmembers cannot be squared with what the FCC told the Supreme Court in response to City of Portland et al. v. the FCC in June 2021 –– case highlights and details as they apply to Council v FCC here. The FCC never concluded that every limitation on any covered service is effectively prohibitory –– and told that to the Supreme Court! In addition, the FCC stated that “[n]othing in the Small Cell Order suggests that wireless carriers may “construct any and all towers,” or small cells, that they “deem[ ] necessary” in their “business judgment.” In addition, the Commission did not conclude that every limitation on any covered service is effectively prohibitory. See the DETAILS of what a resident researched and presented as to why it is wrong to construe that the small cell order implies that localities may never constrain a carrier’s preferences.