Whatever Industry Wants: How the FCC Is Steamrolling Locals in the Cell Tower Rollout

The Federal Communications Commission is poised to release two orders that would steamroll states and communities on behalf of the wireless industry. Long in bed with that industry, it will soon eliminate virtually any say locals have in the rollout of new infrastructure. Reflecting the industry’s wish list, these rules would override already-limited state and local control over how and where cell tower infrastructure is built, further erode environmental review safeguards, and trample on states’ rights.

Federal law already restricts states and communities from taking actions that “prohibit or effectively prohibit” the provision of wireless service. Yet Congress also recognized that local governments serve an essential role in responsible siting of telecommunications deployment through land-use planning, zoning, engineering oversight, public safety, and preservation of neighborhood character.

Historically, states and localities have retained the authority to charge industry reasonable fees and to regulate for public welfare—setting standards for structural safety, wildfire risk, flood exposure, resiliency, decommissioning, environmental protection, and aesthetics. Before siting, city councils, boards of supervisors, and other officials evaluate the impacts of large, industrial towers on homes and critical community assets, like parks, slope stability, or historic buildings.

For years, however, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has steadily chipped away at these core local functions through litigation and rulemakings that sharply curtail community authority to impose requirements on carriers. In November, the FCC proposed an even more aggressive series of changes that would all but obliterate what remains of local authority over wireless siting. The FCC claims these measures are necessary to “free towers and other wireless infrastructure from unlawful regulatory burdens imposed at the state and local level.”

As wireless technologies proliferate—with presumably even less scrutiny, oversight, and public input—the environmental and community impacts will only multiply.

One proposal would mandate automatic approval of tower and small-cell applications if localities miss federal deadlines. California officials warn these “unrealistic timelines” risk incomplete safety review and “threaten to silence the very people who must live with the consequences.”

The FCC would broadly preempt local aesthetic standards and cap fees that fund environmental review, rights-of-way management, and safety inspections, shifting industry costs on to taxpayers. It would treat setbacks aimed at limiting noise and visual impacts as impermissible RF radiation regulation, bar local requirements for industry-funded RF testing to verify compliance, prohibit updated safety and design standards at permit renewal, and override requirements that carriers consider less intrusive alternatives or demonstrate actual service need.

Taken together, these measures would eviscerate any local role in siting decisions that consider neighborhoods, landscapes, safety, and environmental integrity in communities across the nation, and replace it with the will of the wireless industry.

At the same time, the FCC is finalizing another rule that would eliminate community input in the agency’s already weak environmental review process. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal agencies must assess and disclose environmental impacts and consider public concerns, yet the FCC has one of the least rigorous NEPA frameworks of any agency. Few of its authorized activities undergo any meaningful review. It delegates the preliminary environmental review to industry with no oversight or agency record; industry also prepares the few environmental assessments that may be required from the preliminary review. Its notice and comment procedures seem designed to exclude the public, and, unlike most agencies, the FCC has no web page devoted to NEPA documents or compliance. It has almost never enforced its environmental rules against industry violators.

The consequences of these failures are visible nationwide: protected landscapes and historic viewsheds marred, wetlands filled, endangered species habitat destroyed, sacred sites desecrated, burial mounds disturbed, and fragile underwater environments degraded. Equally important, the voices of communities and citizens have been suppressed and ignored.

Now, echoing industry demands to cut “regulatory red tape,” the FCC is proposing to further weaken its skeletal NEPA rules, exempt more of its actions from environmental review, and further exclude the public. It would redefine which actions trigger environmental review so that even fewer authorizations—covering most cell towers and satellite deployments—would be assessed for environmental effects. It would narrow the scope of the few environmental documents that remain and make them less available to the public. Most egregiously, the FCC proposes eliminating its lone public notice provision that alerts communities when a new tower is proposed, thereby allowing residents to object. Although the FCC routinely dismisses objections, the provision complies with a key NEPA requirement.

Both of the FCC’s proposals are a draconian solution to a nonexistent “problem.” At the end of 2024, industry statistics show 651,000 cell towers and wireless facilities operating nationwide, with thousands more, including satellites, approved or underway. Every major wireless carrier has nationwide coverage. Industry has prepared few environmental assessments over the years, and the FCC has never produced a more thorough environmental impact statement. Contrary to industry claims, red tape has not hindered deployment.

As wireless technologies proliferate—with presumably even less scrutiny, oversight, and public input—the environmental and community impacts will only multiply. Taken together, the FCC’s twin proposals would render an already weak NEPA process largely meaningless, strip local and state governments of nearly all of their congressionally granted authority, and leave the agency even less accountable to the public.

With almost 30 bills introduced on accelerating broadband siting this session, Congress too is doing its part to “free” industry from local control and environmental laws. Any and all of these radical new frameworks will hand industry a carte blanche to deploy infrastructure that runs roughshod over local, state, and public interests as well as the environment.