Verizon, Extenet and Crown Castle reached a settlement with Rochester, New York, to resolve remaining issues and “avoid the need for further litigation” in a wireless infrastructure dispute. In February, U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Wolford for Western New York in Rochester found in favor of the companies on their consolidated claim that Rochester violated sections 253 and 332 of the Telecommunications Act in the unlawful manner in which it assessed fees for telecom deployments within its jurisdiction (see 2402280040). On Friday, the parties filed a proposed final judgment.

Virginia and New York awarded tens of millions of dollars in broadband grants last week. New York awarded $70 million in federal funding through the state’s ConnectALL municipal infrastructure grant program, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said Friday. The projects in total aim to extend 800 miles of public broadband to 25,000 homes and businesses, the governor’s office said. The cash comes from the U.S. Treasury’s Capital Projects Fund. While the infrastructure will be publicly owned, private ISPs will provide the service. Earlier last week, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced about $41 million in broadband grants through the Virginia Telecommunications Initiative for 10 projects that aim to extend high-speed internet to 20 localities. The state received 25 applications requesting more than $170 million in VATI funding, the governor’s office said.

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) said Friday he will ask the legislature to spend more on broadband in the next state budget. Evers made the announcement as his broadband task force released its fourth annual report. Spending $345 million in state and federal funds for broadband since 2019 has brought Wisconsin a broadband adoption rate of about 88%, the report said. “Through our investments, more than 410,000 homes and businesses will be connected to new or improved high-speed internet service, but as this report shows, we've got more work to do,” said Evers. The report’s recommendations include continued state spending on broadband, more workforce training, streamlined permitting and locating processes and greater coordination with tribes and localities. To fill the gap the end of the federal affordable connectivity program (ACP) left, the task force recommended creating “a state internet assistance program to increase broadband affordability and adoption.”

NTIA approved Virginia's and New Mexico's plans for the broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program, the federal agency said Friday. With OKs on their complete initial plans, Virginia can access its $1.4 billion BEAD allocation and New Mexico can receive its $675 million. NTIA has approved entire initial plans for 22 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. The agency additionally approved Massachusetts, Utah and two territories’ plans last week (see 2407250045).

Massachusetts received an NTIA greenlight Thursday to access $147 million from the broadband equity, access and deployment (BEAD) program. NTIA said it approved volume 2 of the state’s initial proposal. NTIA has approved entire initial plans for 20 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. The agency approved Utah and two territories earlier this week (see 2407220037).

A New Jersey appeals court upheld two state tax court decisions in a long-running dispute about whether Verizon must pay a 2009 municipal tax to Hopewell (see 1109290101). The Tax Court of New Jersey determined in a 2012 decision that applying an annual market-share calculation to Verizon doesn’t violate state and federal equal protection guidelines and, in a 2019 decision, that the 2009 tax applied because Verizon provided landlines to 51% of the Hopewell telephone exchange in 2008. “Finding no flaw in either of the Tax Court's thorough and thoughtful opinions, we affirm,” Superior Court of New Jersey Justice Allison Accurso wrote. The court published the redacted opinion Thursday, but it was decided June 14, 2023.

A district court dismissed one count of NetChoice’s 11-count complaint that argued Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act preempts Utah’s Minor Protection in Social Media Act. Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) had sought dismissal of the count (see 2406030026), arguing that nothing in the state law is inconsistent with Section 230. “The court concludes the challenged provisions impose liability for conduct that falls beyond the protections Section 230 affords NetChoice members,” Judge Robert Shelby of the U.S. District Court of Utah ruled (case 2:23-cv-00911-RJS-CMR). “The Act’s prohibitions on the use of autoplay, seamless pagination, and push notifications are not inconsistent with Section 230.” The question is whether those bans “treat NetChoice members as the publisher or speaker of the third-party content they disseminate,” wrote Shelby in NetChoice v. Reyes. They don’t, he said. “The Act’s prohibitions focus solely on the conduct of the covered website -- the website’s use of certain design features on minors’ accounts -- and impose liability irrespective of the content those design features may be used to disseminate.” The judge added, “NetChoice’s interpretation of Section 230 as broadly immunizing websites from any liability for design decisions related to how a site ‘disseminate[s] and display[s] third-party speech’ is unmoored from the plain text of Section 230 and unsupported by the caselaw NetChoice cites.” In a statement Tuesday, NetChoice stressed that the court dismissed only one claim and that its First Amendment and other federal preemption claims remain in play. “We look forward to seeing Utah in court in August,” said Chris Marchese, NetChoice Litigation Center director.

The New York Public Service Commission rejected calls by Charter Communications and others to make pole owners pay a portion of pole replacement costs when adding an attachment is required. The New York PSC on Monday released its order revising pole attachment rules after adopting the decision unanimously last week (see 2407180028). The PSC adopted one-touch, make-ready for simple attachments in the communications spaces, set dispute resolution time frames, created a pole-attachments working group and added annual reporting requirements (docket 22-M-0101). But it disagreed with arguments about changing a state policy that says that the attacher pays if a pole needs replacement only to accommodate the proposed new attachment, whereas the owner pays if the pole already needed replacement due to its poor condition. Charter and other attachers previously argued that owners benefit from replacements even in the first case and therefore should share costs (see 2403050043). But in Monday’s order, the commission said those companies provided no "quantifiable analysis" or other evidence supporting their assertions that PSC staff failed to consider a pole owner's incentive to shift replacement costs and incorrectly concluded that owners don't benefit from the replacements. Staff determined "that ratepayers do not receive any economic value of poles being replaced to enable third-party attachments even when the attacher entirely funds such replacements,” the PSC said. "Electric utilities do not have an incentive to require attachers to pay for pole replacements because utilities do not earn a return or depreciation expense on contributed assets such as third-party funded pole replacements.” The FCC declined in a December order to shift replacement costs to pole owners, the PSC added. And the PSC doesn’t want to see higher electric rates, it said. "While expanding broadband in New York is critically important, utility customer funds are not unlimited.” Also in the order, while allowing certain alternative types of attachments on a case-by-case basis, the PSC denied Verizon's request to open up the pole's electric space for telecom attachments. "The electric space is designated for qualified and approved electric workers and only includes electric facilities to help protect those working in that space as well as ensure the work performed is done professionally and to code to satisfy reliability and resiliency concerns,” the PSC said. “Opening up the electric space to additional or alternative pole attachment methods raises significant safety, reliability and resiliency concerns and negatively impacts these efforts."

ISPs now have until Sept. 23 to file a petition for a writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the New York Affordable Broadband Act, the court said in a letter released Monday. A petition would have been due later this month, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor approved the extension July 16, the letter said. New York last month agreed not to immediately enforce the 2021 law, which requires $15 monthly plans with 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload speeds for qualifying low-income households, despite the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in April that it’s not federally preempted (see 2406170042). Industry groups have held off appealing the 2nd Circuit decision while they wait to see what the 6th Circuit decides on the FCC’s order reclassifying broadband as a Title II service. The 6th Circuit ruling would affect how ISPs proceed on their challenge of the New York law because the 2nd Circuit decision was based on broadband as Title I.

A district court was wrong when it allowed a 2023 Virginia law that gave ISPs access rights to railroad properties, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) said Monday at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (case 24-1399). AAR is appealing a U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia decision to dismiss the lawsuit against state officials, including Virginia State Corporation Commission Judge Jehmal Hudson for lack of standing and other reasons (see 2404170052). The contested Virginia law allows broadband providers to obtain a license to cross and occupy railroad property for a one-time $2,000 fee and direct expenses of not more than $5,000, paid to the railroad. Among other provisions, the law requires that railroad companies approve ISP applications within 35 days unless they seek relief from the Virginia commission. In an opening brief at the 4th Circuit, AAR argued that the district court wrongly ruled the association lacked standing to bring the complaint because the law was “aimed directly at its members.” The Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) preempts the Virginia law, AAR argued. The ICCTA is a 1995 statute that set exclusive federal regulation of railroad transportation, AAR said. It “preempts any state law that discriminates against or unduly burdens rail transportation, including railroad property,” AAR noted. “And a government-sanctioned physical occupation of private property is a per se taking, requiring just compensation.” The lower court “wrongly conclud[ed] that discrimination is not a standalone basis for ICCTA preemption, but a mere limit on an unwritten ‘police powers’ exception to express ICCTA preemption,” it said. Meanwhile, in concluding that the Fifth Amendment's takings clause wasn’t violated, "the court lumped together different kinds of crossings, imported (and misunderstood) facts from an amicus brief, drew inferences against AAR, and wrongly assumed that after-the-fact compensation avoids a Takings Clause violation,” AAR said. Carriers will use the state law “to cross railroad property hundreds or thousands of times,” the railroads group said, arguing for its termination. Even if one crossing were "minimally intrusive," AAR said, "dozens or hundreds of permanent and immovable crossings will aggregate to hinder railroads’ use and development of their property."