Summary
Minnesota Local Governments show in Reply Comments that the FCC lacks authority over broadband and has only limited adjudicatory authority to preempt local governments. Not only does the FCC have no authority, issues with local governments were overstated. The Reply Comments show that when it comes to deployment, the small sampling of any issues with local governments are the equivalent of a flea on the tail of an elephant.
A group of Minnesota local governments filed Reply Comments at the Federal Communications Commission on December 17, 2025. The effort was led by the Minnesota League of Cities and MACTA. They were responding to the FCC’s Notice of Inquiry on wireline deployment. The filing makes clear that the factual and legal record does not support federal preemption of local authority. It also shows that the need for this proceeding has been substantially overstated.
The FCC’s inquiry is pending in WC Docket No. 25-253, and all filings in the proceeding are publicly available through the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
At its core, this FCC proceeding is about broadband deployment, not telecommunications service. Nearly every industry commenter described broadband, fiber networks, or general communications infrastructure. Under federal law, broadband is not a telecommunications service. The FCC does not have general authority to regulate broadband deployment through Section 253 of the Communications Act.
This distinction is not new. As discussed previously on this blog, broadband-only systems may still be subject to local franchising. They may also be subject to rights-of-way authority. This is true even when providers attempt to characterize them otherwise. See Michael R. Bradley, “First Broadband Franchise Ushers in a New Era in Franchising” (Sept. 29, 2025).
Even where Section 253 applies, Congress placed firm limits on federal power. Local governments retain authority to manage public rights-of-way and to require fair and reasonable compensation for their use. The FCC’s role is limited to resolving specific disputes on a case-by-case basis. It does not include authority to impose nationwide rules or broadly override local decision-making. Those limits are codified directly in the statute. See 47 U.S.C. § 253(c) and (d).
The Minnesota LFAs’ Reply Comments explain that many industry claims in the docket rely on unnamed local governments. They also rely on hypothetical scenarios rather than actual, identified laws or permitting decisions. Federal preemption cannot be based on speculation or “what-ifs.” It must be grounded in real facts tied to real jurisdictions. The Reply Comments themselves are available on ECFS here.
Where commenters did identify specific local governments, the examples were few and overwhelmingly related to broadband—not telecommunications service. Throughout the entire FCC record, service providers identified only a small number of local governments. This number is out of the tens of thousands nationwide. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are more than 19,000 incorporated local governments in the United States.
If broadband deployment is an elephant, then the localized issues cited in this FCC record are a flea on the elephant’s tail. That imbalance shows why the scope and urgency of this proceeding have been overstated.
The Reply Comments also address examples where important facts were omitted or mischaracterized, including claims involving Minnesota communities. In each case, the record shows local governments act within their lawful authority. They work constructively to support deployment and protect public infrastructure. This is exactly what Congress intended when it preserved local control over rights-of-way.
The takeaway is straightforward. The FCC lacks authority over broadband. Congress preserved local rights-of-way authority. The factual record does not justify sweeping federal intervention. For these reasons, the Minnesota Local Franchising Authorities urged the FCC that no further action be taken.
For additional background on broadband franchising and local authority, check Mike Bradley’s article. It can be found in IMLA’s Municipal Lawyer. The article is titled “This Is the Way: Why Cities Must Use Franchising to Ensure Equal Access to Broadband.”
Bradley Werner, LLC
Michael Bradley and Nancy Werner are nationally recognized and respected local government attorneys. Our firm is dedicated to representing local governments on broadband, cable, telecommunications, utilities, and right-of-way management issues. We have decades of experience representing municipalities on communications and utilities matters.