Feeds

Supreme Court sides with FCC in NIMBY wireless tower spat

Local governments must follow agency's rules

The Power of One Infographic

The US Supreme Court has sided with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that local governments must act within a "reasonable period" – as defined by the FCC – to approve or deny requests by telcos to build new wireless towers.

The ruling upholds an earlier decision by the Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed that the FCC did indeed have authority to set such time limits under the Federal Communications Act.

The FCC did so in November 2009, when it issued a rule establishing a "shot clock" – a basketball reference – that required local authorities to approve or deny new mobile-tower site applications within 150 days, and to respond within 90 days when a carrier wanted to install new equipment on existing towers.

The rule was widely seen as an effort to prevent municipalities from dragging their feet over controversial tower installations. Opposition to new tower sites has cropped up regularly since the 1990s, with complaints ranging from health concerns over electromagnetic radiation to neighbors arguing that the towers are just plain ugly.

Opponents of the "shot clock", including the Texas cities of Arlington and San Antonio, argued that Congress had never given the FCC the authority to set such rules, and that their own local zoning laws should take precedence. But after some deliberation, the Fifth Circuit Court deferred to the FCC's rulemaking, in effect saying that, on the contrary, the FCC did have that power.

Arlington and San Antonio took the case to the Supreme Court, and the cities of Los Angeles and New Orleans joined them in their appeal. But with the Supremes' 6-3 decision to uphold the earlier decision on Monday, it looks as though the cities have exhausted their legal options in the matter.

In the majority opinion, the Justices argued that it was a "waste of time" to ask whether an agency, such as the FCC, had exceeded the bounds of its statutory authority.

"The label is an empty distraction because every new application of a broad statutory term can be reframed as a questionable extension of the agency's jurisdiction," the opinion explains. "Once those labels are sheared away, it becomes clear that the question in every case is, simply, whether the statutory text forecloses the agency's assertion of authority, or not."

In other words, has Congress granted the agency specific, limited authority, or is the agency's mandate a broad one?

In this wireless-tower case, the Justices argue, Congress had "unambiguously vested the FCC with general authority to administer the Communications Act," and that the FCC's creation of the "shot clock" rule was merely one example of the agency exercising that authority.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Roberts argued that this thinking was all wrong, and that instead of simply deferring to the FCC, the Fifth Circuit Court should have used its own authority to determine whether the FCC had jurisdiction.

"My disagreement with the Court is fundamental," Roberts wrote. "It is also easily expressed: A court should not defer to an agency until the court decides, on its own, that the agency is entitled to deference."

Two justices – Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito – agreed with Roberts, but the other six didn't, in a decision that should remove some roadblocks to the expansion of nationwide high-speed wireless networks in the US.

"I am pleased that, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision today, one of the Commission's major achievements in promoting broadband access will continue to protect consumers and drive investment," acting FCC chairwoman Mignon Clyburn said in a brief statement. "Removing obstacles to the timely build-out of wireless broadband services remains a key priority." ®

Maximizing your infrastructure through virtualization

More from The Register

next story
Sit back down, Julian Assange™, you're not going anywhere just yet
Swedish court refuses to withdraw arrest warrant
UK Parliament rubber-stamps EMERGENCY data grab 'n' keep bill
Just 49 MPs oppose Drip's rushed timetable
MPs wave through Blighty's 'EMERGENCY' surveillance laws
Only 49 politcos voted against DRIP bill
EU's top data cops to meet Google, Microsoft et al over 'right to be forgotten'
Plan to hammer out 'coherent' guidelines. Good luck chaps!
US judge: YES, cops or feds so can slurp an ENTIRE Gmail account
Crooks don't have folders labelled 'drug records', opines NY beak
Delaware pair nabbed for getting saucy atop Mexican eatery
Burrito meets soft taco in alleged rooftop romp outrage
British cops cuff 660 suspected paedophiles
Arrests people allegedly accessing child abuse images online
LightSquared backer sues FCC over spectrum shindy
Why, we might as well have been buying AIR
prev story

Whitepapers

Top three mobile application threats
Prevent sensitive data leakage over insecure channels or stolen mobile devices.
The Essential Guide to IT Transformation
ServiceNow discusses three IT transformations that can help CIO's automate IT services to transform IT and the enterprise.
Mobile application security vulnerability report
The alarming realities regarding the sheer number of applications vulnerable to attack, and the most common and easily addressable vulnerability errors.
How modern custom applications can spur business growth
Learn how to create, deploy and manage custom applications without consuming or expanding the need for scarce, expensive IT resources.
Consolidation: the foundation for IT and business transformation
In this whitepaper learn how effective consolidation of IT and business resources can enable multiple, meaningful business benefits.