Local Governments Stand Up to Unsupported Claims

On behalf of the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission (NWSCCC), the North Metro Telecommunications Commission (NMTC), and the City of Coon Rapids, our firm filed an ex parte letter with the Federal Communications Commission on May 11, 2026. The filing is in direct response to Gateway Fiber’s ex parte submission of May 7, 2026. In the filing, we expressly address unsupported statements made by Gateway Fiber concerning the cities of Blaine (a member of the NMTC), Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove (members of the NWSCCC), and the City of Coon Rapids.

The filing advises the FCC that Gateway Fiber’s ex parte letter “is so replete with factual inaccuracies and fundamental legal errors [that] it renders Gateway Fiber’s filing unreliable and not credible” and therefore “provides no reliable basis for the Commission’s evaluation of the record in this proceeding.” The letter makes the following points based on the administrative record, state statute, and judicial precedent:

1. Conflation of State and Federal Law. Gateway Fiber’s arguments rest on an impermissible conflation of Minnesota’s broader definition of a “cable communications system” (Minn. Stat. § 238.08) with the narrower federal Title VI definitions of “cable system” and “cable service” (47 U.S.C. § 522(6)–(7)). Minnesota law expressly requires municipalities to franchise any cable communications system providing service within the municipality. The affected cities (Blaine, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids, and Maple Grove) are enforcing this long-standing state mandate, not a federal cable franchise. The Minnesota LFAs have repeatedly advised Gateway Fiber of this distinction in correspondence dated March 13, 16, April 8, and May 1, 2026.
2. Gateway Fiber is Solely Responsible for Any Purported Construction Delays. Any delay in Gateway Fiber’s proposed 2026 fiber deployment is attributable solely to Gateway Fiber’s inaction. Gateway Fiber has been on notice since at least February 2026 of the franchise requirement, has received repeated invitations to apply, and has declined to do so. Minnesota franchising authorities have demonstrated the capacity to process applications promptly (e.g., the SWCTC/Intrepid franchise was approved within 59 days). The Minnesota LFAs remain prepared to negotiate franchise agreements expeditiously.
3. Absence of Evidentiary Support. Gateway Fiber’s claims—including the assertion that “more than 20,000 consumers will not obtain a choice in 2026 of an alternative BIAS provider via fiber”—lack any evidentiary support. The letter also corrects Gateway Fiber’s misstatement that Minnesota franchise agreements impose “100% build-out within city boundaries without exception.” The SWCTC/Intrepid franchise agreement contains an express exception for undue economic hardship (Section 2.6).
4. Irrelevance of Proposed Legislation. The introduction of S.F. 2045 (Equal Access to Broadband Act) has no bearing on the interpretation of existing authority under Minn. Stat. § 238.08. “The views of a subsequent legislature or proposed bills form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent or scope of an earlier enactment.” United States v. Price, 361 U.S. 304, 313 (1960); Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 650 (1990).
5. Mixed-Use Rule and FCC Jurisdiction. While the FCC’s Mixed-Use Rule (47 C.F.R. § 76.43) is inapplicable (the Minnesota LFAs have never asserted Title VI authority), the letter agrees with the implication that the rule should be repealed in its entirety, consistent with prior local government advocacy and the Sixth Circuit’s decision in City of Eugene v. FCC, 998 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2021). In all other respects, Gateway Fiber seeks Commission action that exceeds statutory authority. Broadband Internet Access Service is a Title I information service, over which the Commission lacks jurisdiction to preempt valid state-law franchising requirements. Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, 940 F.3d 1, 74-86 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

The ex parte letter reaffirms Minnesota local governments’ support for robust broadband deployment while fulfilling their statutory duties under Minnesota law that benefit Minnesota residents. In Minnesota, franchise obligations provide concrete public benefits—including reasonable build-out (subject to economic-hardship exceptions), quality-of-service standards, customer-service protections, and discounts for seniors and disabled persons—that have been accepted by other providers for decades.

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.