Opinion ID: 783465
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 34 Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies. Pub.L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, 56 (1996). Among the technologies addressed by Congress in the TCA was wireless communications services. In regard to this technology, Congress found that siting and zoning decisions by non-federal units of government had created an inconsistent and, at times, conflicting patchwork of requirements that was inhibiting the deployment of wireless communications services. H.R. Rep. 104-204, at 94 (1995), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 10, 61. At the same time, Congress recognized that there are legitimate State and local concerns involved in regulating the siting of such facilities ..., such as aesthetic values and the costs associated with the use and maintenance of public rights-of-way. Id. To address the problems created by local zoning decisions, the House version of the TCA would have given authority to the FCC to regulate directly the siting of wireless communications towers. The Conference Committee, however, decided against complete federal preemption, opting to preserve[] the authority of State and local governments over zoning and land use matters except in [] limited circumstances. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 207-08 (1996). Therefore, § 704(a) of the TCA, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7), strikes a delicate balance between the need for a uniform federal policy and the interests of state and local governments in continuing to regulate the siting of wireless communications facilities. Under that section, state and local governments retain the authority to regulate the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities, but their decisions are subject to certain procedural and substantive limitations. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). 3 Only two of those limitations are relevant here. First, the County's denial of VoiceStream's permit must be supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). Second, the County's denial of the permit must not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).