01-13-26 City Council Workshop Packet

Home Browse Search

Continued on page 12 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2025 / VOL. 66 NO. 1 / 11 stayed, unlikely to succeed on the merits). 5. See In re Safeguarding and Secur- ing the Open Internet, Declaratory Ruling, Order, Report and Order, and Order On Reconsideration, FCC 24-52, 89 Fed. Reg.45404 (Pub. May 22, 2024), appeal docketed, Ohio Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, Case No. 247000, Document: 51-2 (6th Cir. 2024) (Title II reclassification stayed, unlikely to succeed on this merits) (“2024 Open Internet Order”). 6. See, e.g., Lincoln Mun. Code Ch. 5.12 (2021). 7. See Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. 519, 595, 10 L. Ed. 274, 1839 WL 4294 (1839); State of Califor- nia v. Central Pac. R. Co., 127 U.S. 1, 41, 8 S. Ct. 1073, 32 L. Ed. 150 (1888); see also Village of Blaine v. Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 12, 265 Minn. 9, 121 N.W.2d 183 (1963); Northern States Power Co. v. City of Granite Falls, 186 Minn. 209, 242 N.W. 714 (1932); City of Saint Paul v. North- ern States Power Co., 462 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. 1990); Burns, 164 P.3d at 483; 12 McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 34:2 (3d ed.). 8. See, e.g., Burns, 164 P.3d at 483; 12 McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 34:2 (3d ed.). 9. See City of St. Louis v. Western Union Tel. Co., 149 U.S. 465, 13 S. Ct. 990, 37 L. Ed. 810 (1893); Burns, 164 P.3d at 483; 12 McQuil- lin Mun. Corp. § 34:53 (3d ed.). 10. See, e.g., Daniel A. Lyons, Mu- nicipal Broadband Fees Are Bad Law and Bad Policy, 19 Free State Foun- dation, No. 39 (Oct. 18, 2024). 11. See City of McAllen v. Texas, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2024 WL 4799325, *5 (Tex. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2024) (for a wireless node, “no case holds that a $250 statutory fee constitutes sufficient consideration under the gift clause for a good potentially worth $2,500 if acquired in an arm’s-length transaction”). 12. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 222.37; Minn. Stat. Ch. 238. 13. See, e.g., Okla. Const. art. XV, § 5(a). 14. See, e.g., Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, available at https:// codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/phil- adelphia/latest/philadelphia_pa/0-0- 0-262986; Minneapolis, Minnesota, Charter, available at https://library. municode.com/mn/minneapolis/ codes/code_of_ordinances?no- deId=CH. 15. See 12 McQuillin Mun. Corp. § 34:10 (3d ed.); Burns, 164 P.3d at 483. 16. See note 4 supra. 17. See, e.g., Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 81 (noting “the Communications Act’s vision of dual federal-state authori- ty and cooperation” on broadband regulation); ACA Connects America’s Commc’ns Ass’n v. Bonta, 24 F.4th 1233 (9th Cir. 2022); City of Eugene v. FCC, 998 F.3d 701, 711 (6th Cir. 2021) (noting that “Congress went out of its way not to suggest that federal law is the fountainhead of all franchisor regulatory authority”); City of Dallas v. FCC, 165 F.3d 341, 345 (5th Cir. 1999) (stating that the 1984 Act “preserve[d] the role of municipalities in cable regulation”); Sprint Telephony Pcs, L.P. v. County of San Diego, 543 F.3d 571, 576 (9th Cir. 2008) (cert. den’d, Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. San Diego Cnty., 557 U.S. 935 (2009)) (noting that “Section 332(c)(7)(A) preserves the authority of local governments over zoning decisions regarding the placement and construction of wire- less service facilities...”); CNSP, Inc. v. City of Santa Fe, (10th Cir. 2019) (after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, “local governments retain the authority ‘to manage the public rights-of-way’”). 18. Nat’l Cable &Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 993-96 (2005) (cable inter- net service is a Title I information service); In re Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable & Other Facilities, 17 FCC Rcd. 4798, 4824 ¶ 41 (2002) (cable internet service classified as Title I information service); In re Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order On Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd. 5601 (2015) (broadband reclassi- fied as a Title II telecommunications service); In re Restoring Internet Freedom, 33 FCC Rcd. 311 (2018) (broadband reclassified as Title I information service); Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1, 18-21 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (Title I reclassifi- cation upheld); 2024 Open Internet Order (order reclassified broadband as Title II telecommunication service, stayed on review). 19. See Mozilla, 940 F.3d at 75-6 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (FCC local preemption directive vacat- ed); N.Y. State Telecomms. Ass’n v. James, 101 F.4th 135, 140-41 (2nd Cir. 2024). 20. See 47 U.S.C. § 152(a); CATV and Community Antenna Systems, 2 F.C.C.2d 725, 6 R.R.2d 1717 (1966). 21. 2024 Open Internet Order, at ¶¶ 265-275. 22. Id., at ¶ 268. 23. 2024 Open Internet Order, at ¶¶ 268-275. 24. Id., at ¶ 275 (“We also clarify that the mere existence of a state affordability program is not rate regulation”)., 25. See e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 98–934 at 94, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4655, 4731 (From the 1984 Cable Act House Report, “A state may, for instance, exercise authority over the whole range of cable activities, such as negotiation with cable operators; consumer pro- tection; construction requirements; rate regulation or deregulation; the assessment of financial qualifications; the provision of technical assistance with respect to cable; and other franchise related issues—as long as the exercise of that authority is consistent with Title VI.”); see also Frederick E.