Persistent Local Obstacles—and the Aftermath of a Recent Illinois Court Victory—Underscore the Need for Federal Action
Background: FCC Opens Two Proceedings to Address Right-of-Way Delays and Fees
The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has initiated a pair of proceedings that could reshape how state and local governments regulate access to public rights-of-way (“ROW”) for broadband and telecommunications networks.
- Wireline Deployment Notice of Inquiry — WC Docket No. 25-253
The Commission seeks input on how local permitting practices, in-kind obligations, and non-cost-based fees may “effectively prohibit” deployment under Section 253 of the Communications Act. Key areas of inquiry include: -
- Adoption of uniform “shot clocks” to ensure timely review of ROW applications;
- Limiting fees to cost-based, nondiscriminatory amounts;
- Addressing in-kind compensation requirements such as free conduit or dark fiber; and
- Clarifying how commingled infrastructure—used for both telecom and non-telecom services—should be treated.
- Wireless Infrastructure NPRM — WT Docket No. 25-276
The FCC is simultaneously seeking comment on reforms to streamline wireless siting, including shorter shot clocks, limits on aesthetic review, and possible “rocket docket” dispute resolution mechanisms for siting disputes.
Together, these proceedings mark the Commission’s most comprehensive effort since the 2018 small-cell orders to confront the bureaucratic drag that continues to slow broadband buildout.
The Illinois Experience: A Case Study in Local Resistance
On September 24, 2025, The CommLaw Group secured a major win in City of Waverly v. Illinois Commerce Commission, where the Illinois appellate court confirmed that municipal application fees for fiber construction violate state law.
Read more here: The CommLaw Group Secures Illinois Court Win: Municipal Fiber Optic Building Permit Application Fees Are Prohibited Under State Law
The decision should have been the end of the matter. Yet even after the ruling, broadband providers continue to face demands for “processing,” “inspection,” or “administrative” fees—and in some cases, veiled “voluntary” payments—as conditions for permit approval.
This pattern illustrates a sobering truth: legal clarity does not always translate into practical compliance. Municipalities, aware of their leverage over time-sensitive construction projects, continue to use permitting power as a negotiation tool. The result is delay, uncertainty, and higher deployment costs—directly at odds with federal broadband policy.
Connecting the Dots: Local Barriers, National Consequences
The FCC’s inquiry is not academic; it’s a direct response to these kinds of real-world friction points. Whether in Illinois, California, or Texas, providers are confronting:
- Protracted permitting timelines, often stretching months beyond industry norms;
- Inconsistent and opaque fee structures, sometimes exceeding project value;
- Duplicative reviews across overlapping local jurisdictions; and
- Pressure to fund unrelated local projects under the guise of “community benefit.”
Each friction point represents another shovel delayed, another household left unserved. When thousands of municipalities each pull differently, the national broadband strategy loses coherence.
The FCC’s renewed focus on Section 253 preemption authority—and potential rulemakings to enforce shot clocks, fee caps, and dispute resolution—is a recognition that localism has tipped into obstructionism in too many cases.
What to Expect Next
The FCC’s record-building process in WC Docket No. 25-253 and WT Docket No. 25-276 could lead to significant policy shifts, including:
- National shot-clock standards with “deemed granted” outcomes for delayed decisions;
- Establishment of safe-harbor fee levels or cost-based caps;
- Creation of an FCC-administered expedited appeal process for unreasonable local conditions; and
- Preemption orders invalidating specific classes of local fees or permitting requirements.
Providers, municipalities, and industry stakeholders have an opportunity—and incentive—to shape this record before rules are written.
The Bottom Line: Law Alone Isn’t Enough
The Waverly victory demonstrated that state law can prohibit excessive fees in plain language—and courts can uphold that principle. Yet even with that clarity, compliance remains inconsistent. Local governments continue to test the boundaries, and companies are left weighing the cost of standing on principle against the cost of delay.
This is precisely the dysfunction the FCC is now confronting. Federal action may finally offer a path toward uniformity, predictability, and accountability.
Call to Action: Join the Effort to Fix What’s Broken
The FCC is actively seeking input from affected stakeholders—network operators, ISPs, and broadband builders—on how local permitting practices hinder deployment.
If your company has:
- Experienced unreasonable permitting delays or fees;
- Faced demands for “voluntary” payments as a condition of approval;
- Been required to perform in-kind construction or make duplicative filings; or
- Encountered inconsistent application of state or local law—
then your experience matters.
The CommLaw Group is organizing a multi-party comment filing to ensure that the FCC’s record reflects the full scope of the problem and the need for decisive federal guidance.
Interested participants can contact our team to discuss coordination, confidentiality, and filing options.
For more information or to join our coalition filing, contact: