[173460] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Correspondence to the FCC re: preemption of local government as a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Thu Jul 24 18:10:45 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <53D17822.7080006@nic-naa.net>
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:10:24 -0400
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
For the record, Eric, I'm certain that states can preempt municipalities. The question is can FCC preempt States?
- jra
On July 24, 2014 5:18:26 PM EDT, Eric Brunner-Williams <brunner@nic-naa.net> wrote:
>For those interested, first in my morning's inbox is a letter from
>Oregon State Senator Bruce Starr (R-15, Hillsboro), and Nevada State
>Senator Debbie Smith (D-13), President and President-elect,
>respectively, of the National Conference of State Legislatures to FCC
>Chairman Thomas Wheeler, expressing their firm conviction as of Tuesday
>
>of this week that states have the constitutional authority to preempt
>municipalities in the domain of communications infrastructure.
>
>The letter is not a legal memo, so it expresses little of any use.
>Anyone wanting a copy can probably find it on either the FCC or the
>NCSL
>websites.
>
>Next is "by hand" of today from Jim Baller, retained by the Electrical
>Power Board of the City of Chatanooga, to the FCC. It is a 64pp legal
>memo constituting a "Petition for Removal of Barriers to Broadband
>Investment and Competition", that is, an argument that Section 706 of
>the Telecommunication Act of 1996 takes precedence over Tenn. Code Ann.
>
>ยง 7-52-601 ("Section 601").
>
>Here is the link:
>https://www.epb.net/downloads/legal/EPB-FCCPetition.pdf
>
>I expect the second correspondence will make more interesting reading.
>
>Eric
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
