Tennessee, South Carolina Officials Oppose FCC Pre-Emption of Muni Broadband Laws
Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam said he disagrees with President Barack Obama’s backing of commission pre-emption of state municipal broadband laws. “State governments are in a much better position than Washington to weigh the potential costs and benefits” of municipal broadband,”…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Haslam, a Republican, said in a letter to the FCC posted Tuesday. The FCC is considering pre-emption petitions from the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, with most industry observers saying they expect the commission to approve both petitions at its Feb. 26 meeting. Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery, a Republican, urged the FCC not to grant the EPB petition, saying in a filing posted Friday that the state’s “interest in its control over municipal governments, including the extent to which those governments are given authority to provide utility services, must be respected.” Slatery and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper are expected to take the lead in any legal challenge of FCC pre-emption (see 1502020048). Congress hasn’t empowered the FCC to pre-empt state law on municipal broadband, and Telecom Act Section 706 “is not an ‘unmistakably clear’ mandate to preempt state law,” Slatery said. Pre-emption would leave the EPB in “limbo,” as it would still lack state authorization to provide expanded broadband service, Slatery said. “It would still need further legislative authorization to expand its service territory beyond existing geographical boundaries.” South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson also expressed opposition to FCC pre-emption, saying in a filing posted Thursday that it “has no basis, either expressed or implied, in federal statutory law. It is, moreover, most likely unconstitutional as an infringement upon the State's police powers.”