Aug 12, 2020 Ruling: Case-No-18-72689 City of Portland et al. v FCC
Feb 10, 2020: Argument in US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Pasadena, CA |
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr on the the Impacts of Densified 4G and 5G Infrastructure, |
---|---|
So-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs)
The way to think about so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) is that each one is a toxic dump that spews toxic pollution – pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) – into bedrooms at levels that are 25 million times higher than needed for five bars on a cell phone.
See this professional measurement of a sWTF in Sacramento, CA. No one would dream of installing toxic dumps throughout residential neighborhoods. That is why localities must retain their local zoning authority to restrict such heavy-polluting industrial WTF equipment only to commercial/industrial zones or to sites at least 2,500 feet from where people live, sleep and heal.
August 12, 2020 Ruling in Case No. 18-72689 City of Portland et al. v FCC
Link to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 18-72689 City of Portland et al. v FCC re: repeal of FCC Orders 18-111 and 18-133. The full video of the oral argument is featured at the top of this page.
The judges ruled:
We therefore hold that the FCC’s requirement in the Small Cell Order that aesthetic regulations be “no more burdensome” than regulations applied to other infrastructure deployment is contrary to the controlling statutory provision. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).
We also hold that the FCC’s requirement that all local aesthetic regulations be “objective” is not adequately explained and is therefore arbitrary and capricious.
We therefore:
- GRANT the petitions as to those requirements,
- VACATE those portions of the rule and
- REMAND them to the FCC.”
On the FCC Order’s 18-133 Proposed 60-day shotclocks, the Ninth Circuit judges wrote:
“It must be remembered that the ‘shot clock requirements create only presumptions’. As under the 2009 Order, if permit applicants seek an injunction to force a faster decision, local officials can show that additional time is necessary under the circumstances.”
FCC Order 18-133: Streamline Small Cell Deployment Order
FCC Order -18-133: (Sept 2018) Streamline Small Cell Deployment Order is only an interpretive, presumptive order; it is not a self-enforcing order. This means that it is only a statement of preferences and it cannot wipe out Ninth circuit case law.
July 23, 2020 Attorney Andrew Campanelli — City Councils’ Hands Are Not Tied |
Feb 10, 2020 — FCC Attorney Scott Noveck: FCC Order 18-133 in Not a Self-Enforcing Order |
---|---|
Attorney Andrew Campanelli at 30:29 in this July 23, 2020 video:
“You are probably going to hear someone [on a City Council] say, ‘Oh no, we are preempted, our hands are tied.’ I hear that all the time.
There is a [September 2018] interpretive Order [FCC 18-133] . . . which I think is ineffective . . . Federal courts — for twenty years — have interpreted the language in the Telecommunications Act that says when an effective prohibition occurs. These cases have gone up to the US Courts of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and all the other Circuits.
Federal judges are bound by these [No Significant Gap in Telecommunications Coverage and Least Intrusive Means] tests. So if some [company] wants to claim,
‘you [the City] must give us an approval, even if it violates your code because saying no would be an effective prohibition’,
. . . and you [the City] says no, [the company] would have to file a law suit in Federal court and the Federal judges are bound by the Circuit Court Rulings which say an effective prohibition occurs when the company proves there is a signifcant gap and the proposed installation is the least intrusive means.
The [company] can’t meet that test in the [densified 4G/]5G rollout, so the Wireless Industry went to the FCC and got them to issue a new “interpretive” Order [FCC 18-133] and here is what the Order says . . . after 24 years, we the FCC interpret that that effective prohibition language meaning that applicants don’t have to prove that there is a significant gap in service and they don’t have to prove — contrary to 20 years of Federal Court decisions — they don’t have to prove that their installation is the least intrusive means of remdying that gap. All they have to say is ‘they need this facility at the location they want at the height they want to either improve an existing service or to add a new service.’
I don’t think that has any effect on a town’s ability because . . .
- The FCC can’t take away the powers preserved to towns by Congress — it wasn’t intended
- The FCC can’t wipe out twenty years of Federal judges’ interpretations
- The FCC can’t strip local governments of 20 years of local zoning regulations
The Wireless industry is going from town to town, showing this [FCC 18-133] as gospel and the closest thing I have to a decision on this, so far, is one Federal judge in New York said and I’ll quote him:
‘It is not up to the FCC to put words in the Telecommunications Act that aren’t there.’
So, that’s why I think I am right. I know local towns still have the power to control the placement of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs). To the extent an applicant says ‘You have to give [this permit] to us because of this [September 2018] interpretive Order’ — I don’t think the Order has any effect on the ability of towns to control the placement of Wireless Facilities at all.”
Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020 → https://youtu.be/zoZHNSOibmo?t=35m05s
“The Order doesn’t purport to prevent localities from addressing reasonable aesthetic requirements. In fact we say in the small cell order that aesthetic requirements are permitted . . . a locality could say if a 50-foot pole would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, you can’t put up a 50 foot pole.”
Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020 → https://youtu.be/zoZHNSOibmo?t=37m47s
“Localities are still free to craft their own substantive aesthetic requirements”
Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020 → https://youtu.be/zoZHNSOibmo?t=38m28s
“These Orders [FCC 18-111 and FCC 18-133] are not self-enforcing. They contemplate the need, in many circumstances, for further case-by-case adjudication and in those instances either someone would have to come back to the Commission or go into court.”
Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020 → https://youtu.be/zoZHNSOibmo?t=40m21s
“Nothing in this order is self-enforcing.”
Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020 → https://youtu.be/zoZHNSOibmo?t=40m52s
“Anyone of these specific factual disputes that arise, this Order is designed to provide some clarity and narrow the scope of disputes . . . when there are remaining disputes, nothing about this Order is self-enforcing.”
Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020 → https://youtu.be/zoZHNSOibmo?t=51m44s
“These small cells, though they have much less range than macro towers, they have a fair range.”
Note: Noveck’s truthful statement in front of a Panel of Federal judges from the Ninth Circuit agrees with the comments of Lee Afflerbach, RF Engineer for CTC Technology that were entered into the City of Sonoma Public record on Sept 12, 2019:
Lee Afflerbach at 3:10:24 in the video → https://youtu.be/HRYFXx7oNN4?t=3h10m24s
“many people are [wirelessly] streaming video and other services like that . . . each [small] cell is capable of almost putting out the same energy as one macro cell.”
Lee Afflerbach at 3:13:22 in the video → https://youtu.be/HRYFXx7oNN4?t=3h13m22s
“. . . my staff has probably reviewed several hundred of these small cells in the last year . . . and they are all 4G . . . The radios that they are using are the exact same radios that are up on the macro towers. It’s not a different technology . . . the same boxes as on macro towers. I see them all the time.”
Joseph Van Eaton, BBK Attorney for City of Portland et al. on Feb 10, 2020 → https://youtu.be/t_IMrAqwpNk?t=1h10m52s
“What the FCC sees as a generous order, when you look at what the findings of law are, it is actually pretty harsh and the same thing is true with the reasonable aesthetics requirements . . . reasonable is defined as technically feasible . . . and we know from the intevenor’s brief that the intervnor’s view that as they get to install what the want and basically where they want subject to only such minor adjustments as they can make without preventing them from doing that which they want to do, so it doesn’t protect the city . . . ; the Wireless carriers always have the out of technical feasibility.”
US Code Title 47 § 253
(a) In general — No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.
(b) State regulatory authority — Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254 of this title, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.
(c) State and local government authority — Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government.
(d) Preemption — If, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, the Commission determines that a State or local government has permitted or imposed any statute, regulation, or legal requirement that violates subsection (a) or (b), the Commission shall preempt the enforcement of such statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct such violation or inconsistency.
US Federal Courts of Appeals Rulings
FCC preemption over local authority was significantly curtailed by DC Circuit Case No.18-1051. The judges accepted the arguments by Steven Wu, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General for New York State and agreed that the FCC had not properly sourced its authority to preempt the states over Wireless broadband service (information services). That means that the FCC now only has preemption for Wireless telecommunications service (the ability to make an outdoor phone call) and only if there is a significant gap in telecommunications coverage.
In addition, the Ninth Circuit Ruling on Case-No-18-72689 City of Portland et al. v FCC is a game-changing one with respect to local control. Both of the following orders . . .
- FCC 18-133: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Inv., 33 FCC Rcd. 9088 (2018) (Small Cell Order)
- FCC 18-111: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Inv., 33 FCC Rcd. 7705, 7775–91 (2018) (Moratoria Order)
. . . were admitted by FCC attorney Scott Noveck, the one who argued the case on Feb 20, 2020 in Pasadena, CA, to be presumptive and not self-enforcing. That means that these orders are merely statements of preferences by the FCC. In addition, the the Ninth Circuit judges ruled that two important attempted restrictions of local control were deemed unlawful:
1996 Telecommunications Act Conference Report
The 1996 H. R. Conf. Report No.104-458 further states:
“It is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests, or to subject their requests to any but the generally applicable time frames for zoning decision.”
“ . . . the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor’s 50-foot tower in a residential district.”
Local communities are the best equipped to make decisions on how to integrate needed Wireline and Wireless services into their unique geographies and economies. Local City Council/Trustee Board Members have taken oath sto provide public safety to its residents. Full stop. This means they must have the authority to regulate the maximum Effective Radiated power emitting from WTFs to cap it at levels that provide sufficient telecommunications services AND that do not ruin the quiet enjoyment of streets. That must be a local decision that can be enforced with local police powers.
So-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) have already caused significant public safety, privacy and property value harms. We have to allow cities to better regulate Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) so these harms do not occur.
Support WE-WANT-IT and VHP Amendments/Bills
Let’s pass bills that place objective data about up-to-date Wireless Carrier-specific signal strength data (in dBm values) in the public record every six months — at no cost to the states or the localities. Every locality should have current, reliable, objective data provided by neutral RF Engineers in order to make the best decisions for regulating the placement, construction, and operations of WTFs within their jurisdictions.
In short, we need to allow localities to regulate the maximum effective radiated power from WTFs so the localities can fulfill their obligations to provide public safety to its residents and protect the quiet enjoyment of streets.
Links to Additional Resources
- Link to slides of our presentation to you
- Link to video on the home page of Our Town, Our Choice re: Ionizing radiation vs. Non-ionizing radiation
- Link to video of top Telecom attorney Andrew Campanelli
- Link to video of Insurance expert attorney Mark Pollock
- Link to three legs of the stool that establishes local control over the operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs);
- Link to a 2020 Identification of a 3G/4G/5G National Security threat, proving that Big Wireless has been and continues to sell a defective product/service
- Link to 2019 DC Circuit Case No. 18-1051: Mozilla et al. v FCC about preemption of local authority
- Tenth Circuit Case 18-9568 . . . was moved to the Ninth Circuit.
- Ninth Circuit Case 19-70144 (case opened on Jan 15, 2019; a consolidation of nine separate cases) — including Repeal of FCC 18-111 and FCC-18-133
Some Relevant Documents of the Case(s)
- Intervenor Brief: City of New York and NATIOA v. FCC
- 2019-0307-Joint-Opposition-to-FCC-Motion-to-Hold-in-Abeyance
- 2018-1114-GWTCA-et-al-Small-Cell-Petition-For-Reconsideration
2019-0307-Joint-Opposition-to-FCC-Motion-to-Hold-in-Abeyance:
“There is no evidence suggesting the September Order is anything other than the final result of its decision-making process. The FCC continues to publicly stand by the September Order as adopted. Commissioner Brendan Carr, who has been leading the FCC’s infrastructure efforts, recently highlighted the September Order in a February 5, 2019 speech, asserting that the agency was “not going to slow down” in its infrastructure efforts, and that the September Order (which had at the time been effective for only 22 days, and then only in part) was already impacting local government practices and wireless deployment. There is no reason, therefore, to suppose that further delay will somehow actually resolve the issues raised in these appeals, or that the September Order on appeal here is anything other than the final administrative work.”
Tenth Circuit Motions for Stay of FCC 18-133, the Wireless and Wireline Infrastructure Order
Updated on Jan 9, 2018 @ 1:40 pm ET
- 2018-1217-10th-Circuit-Case-18-9568-San-Jose-et-al-Motion-for-Stay-and-Appendix
- 2019-0101-10th-Circuit-Case-18-9568-Wireless-Industry-Opposition-to-Motion-For-Stay
- 2019-0102-10th-Circuit-Case-18-9568-FCC-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Stay
- 2019-0108-10th-Circuit-Case-18-9568-Joint-Reply-to-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Stay.
- Link to Bloomberg Law: “Challenge to FCC’s 5G Network Order Moves to Ninth Circuit”
- Link to Appellate Case: 18-9568 Document: 010110109238 Date Filed: 01/10/2019
- Link to Appellate Case: 18-9563 Document: 010110109277 Date Filed: 01/10/2019
January 10, 2019: Appellate Case: 18-9568
Before McHUGH and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.
Petitioners are local governments and other entities with similar interests who seek a stay of an FCC order that is scheduled to take effect in part on Monday, January 14, 2019. The Supreme Court has explained that
“[a] stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result. It is instead an exercise of judicial discretion, and [t]he propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.”Nken v. Holder , 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id . at 433-34.
When deciding whether to exercise our discretion to grant a stay, we consider the following four traditional stay factors:
- Whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits;
- Whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
- Whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and
- Where the public interest lies.
Id . at 434 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Supreme Court has indicated that “[t]he first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical.” Id.
After reviewing all of the parties’ submissions, we conclude petitioners have failed to meet their burden of showing irreparable harm if a stay is not granted. Accordingly, in the exercise of our discretion, we deny petitioners’ motion for stay.
January 10, 2019: Appellate Case: 18-9563
Before BRISCOE, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges
On September 27, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission issued an order entitled Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (the “September Order”). FCC 18-133, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,867 (Oct. 15, 2018). The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation designated this circuit as the court in which to consolidate the various petitions for review of the September Order.
These matters are before us on a Motion to Transfer, filed by the petitioners in City of San Jose, et al. v. F.C.C., et al. , No. 18-9568. The San Jose Petitioners seek to transfer these matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(5), to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where a first-in -time petition for review of an order issued by the FCC on August 3, 2018 is pending. Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, 83 Fed. Reg. 46,812 (Sep. 14, 2018) (the “August Order”). The FCC and the United States filed a response opposing transfer and supplemental authority. Sprint Corporation, Verizon Communications, Inc., Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc., CTIA – The Wireless Association®, the Wireless Infrastructure Association, and the Competitive Carriers Association also filed a response opposing transfer. Finally, the San Jose Petitioners filed a reply in support of their motion.
After careful consideration, we conclude that the FCC’s August Order and its September Order are the “same order” for purposes of § 2112(a). Accordingly, the motion to transfer is granted and these matters are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.1
- Four petitions for review of the September Order are presently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See AT&T Services, Inc., v. FCC , No. 18-1294 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 25, 2018); American Public Power Ass’n v. FCC , No. 18-1305 (D.C. Cir. filed Nov. 15, 2018); City of Austin v. FCC , No. 18-1326 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 11, 2018); City of Eugene v. FCC , No. 18-1330 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 12, 2018). As these petitions are not before us, this order does not address them. ↩
The Current Case Numbers and Line Up
A. The Following Parties Are Represented by Best Best & Krieger LLP
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Arcadia, California
- City of Bellevue, Washington
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, California
- Culver City, California
- Town of Fairfax, California
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- County of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
- City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
- National League of Cities
- City of Brookhaven, Georgia
- City of Baltimore, Maryland
- City of Dubuque, Iowa
- Town of Ocean City, Maryland
- City of Emeryville, California
- Michigan Municipal League
- Town of Hillsborough, California
- City of La Vista, Nebraska
- City of Medina, Washington
- City of Papillion, Nebraska, City of Plano, Texas
- City of Rockville, Maryland
- City of San Bruno, California
- City of Santa Monica, California
- City of Sugarland, Texas
- League of Nebraska Municipalities
- City of Austin, Texas
- City of Ann Arbor, Michigan
- County of Anne Arundel, Maryland
- City of Atlanta, Georgia
- City of Boston, Massachusetts
- City of Chicago Illinois
- Clark County, Nevada
- City of College Park, Maryland
- City of Dallas, Texas
- District of Columbia
- City of Gaithersburg, Maryland
- Howard County, Maryland
- City of Lincoln, Nebraska
- Montgomery County, Maryland
- City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
- City of Omaha, Nebraska
- City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- City of Rye, New York
- City of Scarsdale, New York
- City of Seat Pleasant, Maryland
- City of Takoma Park, Maryland
- Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues
- Meridian Township, Michigan
- Bloomfield Township, Michigan
- Michigan Townships Association
- Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-Of-Way
B. National Association of Telecommunication Officers is represented by separate counsel
C. Advisors and City of New York is represented by separate counsel
Case No. 19-70123
Case No. 19-70123 Petitioner
- Sprint Corporation
Case No. 19-70123 Intervenors
- City of Bowie, Maryland
- City of Eugene, Oregon
- City of Huntsville, Alabama
- City of Westminster, Maryland
- County of Marin, California
- City of Arcadia, California
- Culver City, California
- City of Bellevue, California
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, Washington
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
- County of Los Angeles, California
- Town of Fairfax, California
- City of New York
Case No. 19-70124
No. 19-70124 Petitioner
- Verizon Communications, Inc.,
No. 19-70124 Intervenors
- City of Arcadia, California
- City of Bellevue, California
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, Washington_xxx
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
- County of Los Angeles, California
- Culver City, California
- City of New York
- Town of Fairfax, California
Case No. 19-70125
No. 19-70125 Petitioner
- Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc.,
No. 19-70125 Intervenors
- City of Arcadia, California
- City of Bellevue, California
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, Washington
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
- County of Los Angeles, California
- Culver City, California
- Town of Fairfax, California
- City of New York
Case No. 19-70136
No. 19-70136 Petitioners
- City of Seattle, Washington
- City of Tacoma, Washington
- King County, Washington
- League of Oregon Cities
- League of California Cities
- League of Arizona Cities And Towns
No. 19-70136 Intervenors
- City of Bakersfield, California
- City of Coconut Creek, Florida
- City of Lacey, Washington
- City of Olympia, Washington
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
- City of Tumwater, Washington
- Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
- Rainier Communications Commission
- County of Thurston, Washington
- City of Arcadia, California
- City of Bellevue, Washington
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, California
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
- County of Los Angeles, California
- Culver City, California
- Town of Fairfax, California
- City of New York
Case No. 19-70144
Case No. 19-70144 Petitioners
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Arcadia, California
- City of Bellevue, Washington
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, California
- Culver City, California
- Town of Fairfax, California
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- County of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
Case No. 19-70144 Intervenors
- CTIA—The Wireless Association
- Competitive Carriers Association
- Sprint Corporation
- Verizon Communications, Inc.
- City of New York
- Wireless Infrastructure Association
Case No. 19-70145
Case No. 19-70145 Petitioner
- City And County of San Francisco,
Case No. 19-70146
Case No. 19-70146 Petitioner
- City of Huntington Beach
Case No. 19-70146 Intervenors
- City of Arcadia, California
- City of Bellevue, Washington
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, California
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
- County of Los Angeles, California
- Culver City, California
- Town of Fairfax, California
- City of New York
Case No. 19-70147
Case No. 19-70147 Petitioner
- Montgomery County, Maryland
Case No. 19-70326
Case No. 19-70326 Petitioner
- AT&T Services, Inc.
Case No. 19-70326 Intervenors
- City of Baltimore, Maryland
- City And County of San Francisco, California
- Michigan Municipal League
- City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
- National League of Cities
- City of Bakersfield, California
- Town of Ocean City, Maryland
- City of Brookhaven, Georgia
- City of Coconut Creek, Florida
- City of Dubuque, Iowa
- City of Emeryville, California
- City of Fresno, California
- City of La Vista, Nebraska
- City of Lacey, Washington
- City of Medina, Washington
- City of Olympia, Washington
- City of Papillion, Nebraska
- City of Plano, Texas
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
- City of Rockville, Maryland
- City of San Bruno, California
- City of Santa Monica, California
- City of Sugarland, Texas
- City of Tumwater, Washington
- City of Westminster, Maryland
- Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
- Contra Costa County, California
- County of Marin, California
- International City/County Management Association
- International Municipal Lawyers Association
- League of Nebraska Municipalities
- National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
- Rainier Communications Commission
- Thurston County, Washington
- Town of Corte Madera, California
- Town of Hillsborough, California
- Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
- City of Arcadia, California
- City of Bellevue, Washington
- City of Burien, Washington
- City of Burlingame, California
- City of Culver City, California
- City of Gig Harbor, Washington
- City of Issaquah, Washington
- City of Kirkland, Washington
- City of Las Vegas, Nevada
- City of Los Angeles, California
- City of Monterey, California
- City of Ontario, California
- City of Piedmont, California
- City of Portland, Oregon
- City of San Jacinto, California
- City of San Jose, California
- City of Shafter, California
- City of Yuma, Arizona
- County of Los Angeles, California
- Town of Fairfax, California
Case No. 19-70339
Case No. 19-70339 Petitioner
- American Public Power Association
Case No. 19-70339 Intervenors
- City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
- National League of Cities
- City of Brookhaven, Georgia
- City of Baltimore, Maryland
- City of Dubuque, Iowa
- Town of Ocean City, Maryland
- City of Emeryville, California
- Michigan Municipal League
- Town of Hillsborough, California
- City of La Vista, Nebraska
- City of Medina, Washington
- City of Papillion, Nebraska
- City of Plano, Texas
- City of Rockville, Maryland
- City of San Bruno, California
- City of Santa Monica, California
- City of Sugarland, Texas
- League of Nebraska Municipalities
- National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
- City of Bakersfield, California
- City of Fresno, California
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
- City of Coconut Creek, Florida
- City of Lacey, Washington
- City of Olympia, Washington
- City of Tumwater, Washington
- Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
- Thurston County, Washington
- Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
- Rainier Communications Commission
- City And County of San Francisco, California
- County of Marin, California
- Contra Costa County, California
- Town of Corte Madera, California
- City of Westminster, Maryland
Case No. 19-70341
Case No. 19-70341 Petitioners
- City of Austin, Texas
- City of Ann Arbor, Michigan
- County of Anne Arundel, Maryland
- City of Atlanta, Georgia
- City of Boston, Massachusetts
- City of Chicago, Illinois
- Clark County, Nevada
- City of College Park, Maryland
- City of Dallas, Texas
- District of Columbia
- City of Gaithersburg, Maryland
- Howard County, Maryland
- City of Lincoln, Nebraska
- Montgomery County, Maryland
- City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
- City of Omaha, Nebraska
- City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- City of Rye, New York
- City of Scarsdale, New York
- City of Seat Pleasant, Maryland
- City of Takoma Park, Maryland
- Texas Coalition of Cities For Utility Issues
- Meridian Township, Michigan
- Bloomfield Township, Michigan
- Michigan Townships Association
- Michigan Coalition To Protect Public Rights-of-way
Case No. 19-70341 Intervenors
- City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
- National League of Cities
- City of Brookhaven, Georgia
- City of Baltimore, Maryland
- City of Dubuque, Iowa
- Town of Ocean City, Maryland
- City of Emeryville, California
- Michigan Municipal League
- Town of Hillsborough, California
- City of La Vista, Nebraska
- City of Medina, Washington
- City of Papillion, Nebraska
- City of Plano, Texas
- City of Rockville, Maryland
- City of San Bruno, California
- City of Santa Monica, California
- City of Sugarland, Texas
- League of Nebraska Municipalities
- National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
- City of Bakersfield, California
- City of Fresno, California
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
- City of Coconut Creek, Florida
- City of Lacey, Washington
- City of Olympia, Washington
- City of Tumwater, Washington
- Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
- Thurston County, Washington
- Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
- Rainier Communications Commission
- City And County of San Francisco, California
- County of Marin, California
- Contra Costa County, California
- Town of Corte Madera, California
- City of Westminster, Maryland
Case No. 19-70344
Case No. 19-70344 Petitioners
- City of Eugene, Oregon
- City of Huntsville, Alabama
- City of Bowie, Maryland
Case No. 19-70344 Intervenors
- City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
- National League of Cities
- City of Brookhaven, Georgia
- City of Baltimore, Maryland
- City of Dubuque, Iowa
- Town of Ocean City, Maryland
- City of Emeryville, California
- Michigan Municipal League
- Town of Hillsborough, California
- City of La Vista, Nebraska
- City of Medina, Washington
- City of Papillion, Nebraska
- City of Plano, Texas
- City of Rockville, Maryland
- City of San Bruno, California
- City of Santa Monica, California
- City of Sugarland, Texas
- League of Nebraska Municipalities
- National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
- City of Bakersfield, California
- City of Fresno, California
- City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
- City of Coconut Creek, Florida
- City of Lacey, Washington
- City of Olympia, Washington
- City Otumwater, Washington
- Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
- Thurston County, Washington
- Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
- Rainier Communications Commission
- City And County of San Francisco, California
- County of Marin, California
- Contra Costa County, California
- Town of Corte Madera, California
- City of Westminster, Maryland