In this edition of the ICORE Blog we provide updates regarding two important issues previously discussed on this site. Please note the following:
In the June 28, 2026 and September 3, 2026 editions of the ICORE Blog we discussed a NPRM adopted by the Commission on June 25, 2026 proposing rules designed to prevent state and local statutes from having the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireline telecommunications services in violation of Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act (Act). The NPRM proposed establishing a rebuttable presumption that state and local governments have effectively prohibited the provision of telecommunication services if they fail to process applications for access and use of public rights-of-way within 120 days. The NPRM also proposed rules limiting the fees that state and local governments can charge to a reasonable approximation of actual direct costs and proposed establishing safe harbor rate levels. In addition, the NPRM proposed requiring that the value of in-kind compensation required by state and local governments count toward any safe harbor levels established. Finally, the NPRM would prohibit the imposition of additional requirements on wireline telecommunications infrastructure deployments on the grounds that the infrastructure may be used to provide other services.
Comments have now been filed in this proceeding and as expected the NPRM’s proposals have been strongly supported by advocates for the ILEC industry. In its comments, NTCA urges the Commission to adopt a clear presumptive deadline for action on required wireline authorizations and to ensure that completeness determinations and sequential permitting requirements do not undermine that deadline. In addition, NTCA supports the adoption of a cost-based standard for state and local fees and suggests the prohibition of required in-kind contributions or limiting such contributions to the same Section 253 principles applicable to monetary compensation. In regard to the proposed 120-day deadline to act on required authorizations, NTCA asks the Commission to consider a 90-day time frame in consideration of weather shortened construction seasons that exist in some communities.
In its comments, USTelecom (UST) urges the Commission to establish a 60-day shot clock for processing standard applications and a 90-day shot clock for processing genuinely complex projects. UST opines that these timeframes are sufficient for any government entity exercising reasonable diligence to review an application and render a decision. UST urges the Commission to adopt rules limiting fees to a reasonable approximation of actual and direct right-of-way management costs and to require advance disclosure of all applicable fees and conditions. In-kind contributions, such as requirements to install conduit for municipal use, the provision of free service, and payments to unrelated funds should be considered compensation subject to the same reasonableness standard. UST asserts that Section 253 gives the Commission authority to address the deployment inhibiting effects of state and local government requirements through prospective, generally applicable rules and the reforms proposed in the NPRM are well within the Commission’s authority.
Comments were filed by many entities representing the interests of state and local governments. The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) filed comments challenging the FCC’s authority to promulgate the NPRM’s proposed rules. The CPUC states that Section 253 only authorizes the FCC to preempt state and local rules on a case-by-case adjudication basis and not through a categorical rulemaking and the CPUC states that the Commission does not have the authority to issue blanket preemption orders under Section 253.
Reply comments in the above discussed NPRM are due November 5, 2026.
In the September 9, 2026 edition we discussed an FCC Public Notice seeking comment on the creation and publishing of a Robocall Mitigation Scorecard. The Scorecard is intended to provide consumers with an assessment of a Voice Service Provider’s (VSP) efforts to protect consumers from illegal robocalls. The Public Notice seeks input in a number of areas. Input is requested as to which VSPs should receive a Scorecard rating, the sources of data to be used to compile the Scorecard, and the types of metrics to be used for the Scorecard. Comments have now been filed in this proceeding. Comments from advocates for the Rural ILEC industry have urged the Commission to delay implementation of Robocall Scorecards until all VSPs have completed the transition to Internet Protocol (IP) networks. NTCA cautions that the effectiveness of many of the tools available to VSPs to address unwanted or illegal robocalls are undermined by the continued presence of Time-Division-Multiplexing (TDM) facilities within and across voice networks and a Scorecard is unlikely to account for that and would put certain VSPs at a competitive disadvantage. The Small Company Coalition (SCC) recommends that the FCC not implement a Scorecard that includes RLECs until such time that the process has been proven to be accurate and useful, if at all. The SCC submits that RLECs represent a small percentage of voice traffic that is susceptible to illegal robocalls reaching end users,and could conceivably face harm from the publishing of Robocall Mitigation Scores.
Reply Comments in this proceeding are due October 2, 2026.
We will continue to follow these issues and will provide updates accordingly.
