skip navigation
MRSC logo

Have a Research Question?

Ask MRSC

Have a Research Question?

Ask MRSC

Telecommunications Regulation

This page provides information on the authority of cities and counties in Washington State to regulate access to public rights-of-way and publicly owned infrastructure for telecommunications providers, including relevant laws and examples of local codes.

MRSC also offers Telecommunications Franchise and Lease Agreements.

Overview

“Telecommunications” is the transmission of information over distances to the general public. This can be through the use of wire, radio, optical cable, or a similar transmission means (excluding broadcast television or radio), and the information transmitted may be in the form of voice telephone calls, data, text, images, or video.

The manner in which a provider delivers telecommunication services often involves access to the public right-of-way (ROW) or other locally owned infrastructure, such as property, poles, towers, reservoirs, etc. Telecommunications providers draw up lease agreements to ‘rent’ space on locally owned infrastructure in order to develop networks that can deliver reliable services to the public.

Since telecommunications services involve both interstate activity (transmitting information) and state and local activity (using local ROW to facilitate the information transmission), such services are regulated by laws at the federal and state level, and local governments may also regulate them to some extent.

Telecommunications Regulations

Franchises and master permits are general grants of authority by a city, town, or county to a telecommunications provider that allows the provider to install, maintain, and repair telecommunications infrastructure within the ROW or other locally owned infrastructure while minimizing interference with public use of the ROW.

Federal Regulation

Federal law regulates the interstate nature of telecommunications information transmission activity through the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. Sec. 251, et seq; “the Act”). The Act generally forbids local telecommunications franchise ordinances that prohibit (or have the effect of prohibiting) the provision of telecommunications services.

A 2008 opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) ruled that local legislation violates the Act only by actually or effectively prohibiting telecommunications services — the mere “possibility” that local legislation could prohibit telecommunications service is not enough to invalidate the local legislation. For more details, see Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego (2008).

The Act also authorizes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to preempt and invalidate state and local legislation that violates the Act. The scope of FCC telecommunications regulation depends on the type of telecommunications service provided. For example, the FCC has classified broadband internet providers as “information services” (services allowing access to telecommunications information) rather than “telecommunications services” (services that operate or manage a telecommunications system itself). Since the FCC exercises less regulatory authority over information services, this FCC classification allowed a California State net neutrality law to regulate broadband providers without federal preemption. See the FCC's 2022 declaratory ruling In the Matter of Restoring Internet Freedom (33 FCC Rcd. 311) and ACA Connects v. Bonta (2022).

However, federal law also recognizes that local governments have authority over their public ROW, so the Act allows local regulations that “manage the public rights-of-way,” and that “require fair and reasonable compensation” from telecommunications providers for their use of the ROW. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 253.

State Regulation

Washington State law allows localities to regulate use of the public ROW through franchising, but state law also recognizes the federal telecommunications authority noted above. For example, RCW 35.99.040(2) allows localities to regulate the placement of telecommunications facilities in the ROW, but only if the regulation doesn’t prohibit facility placement entirely or violate 47 U.S.C. Sec. 253.

State law also prohibits local telecommunication franchise ordinances that:

  • conflict with federal or state laws related to telecommunications facility design, construction, or operation; or
  • regulate the services or business operations of a telecommunications provider, unless authorized by federal law.

So, while cities, towns, and counties can regulate the placement of telecommunications facilities within their locality, state and federal laws preclude cities, towns, and counties from regulating the operations or services of the facilities themselves.

Applicable state law provisions include the following examples:

  • Ch. 35.99 RCW – Telecommunications, Cable Television Service - Use of Right-of-Way (cities and towns)
  • RCW 35A.21.245 –  Facilities and rights-of-way — Requirements and restrictions (code cities)
  • RCW 36.55 – Franchises on Roads and Bridges (counties)
  • RCW 35.27.370(12) – Provides authority of towns to grant franchises or permits to use and occupy the surface, the overhead and the underground of streets, alleys and other public ways.

Not all telecommunications providers are required to obtain franchises or master permits. According to the definition of “master permit,” telephone and telegraph providers operating in Washington when the state constitution was adopted possess a “statewide grant.” Local governments may request but not require such entities (which are the successors to the original telephone companies) obtain a master permit pursuant to RCW 35.99.030(1). The statewide grant is generally understood to apply to wireline telecommunications — voice and data information that travel electronically over a network of fiber optic, copper wires, or similar telecom cables — but not to cable/broadband or wireless facilities. 

Local Regulation

Washington local governments may, to an extent, regulate the location, placement, dimensions, and design of telecommunications facilities such as large antennae, poles, and towers, but also small cell facilities. Below are selected examples of local ordinances. They generally set forth the procedures and requirements for obtaining and maintaining a franchise to construct, install, operate, maintain, remove, repair, or replace facilities within the ROW. Some also require a provider to obtain a master use permit. 

Franchise Fees

For the use of a locality’s ROW or other property, telecommunications companies must pay the locality a franchise fee. Both state and federal law regulate local government telecommunications franchise fees.

At the state level, RCW 35.21.860 prohibits cities and towns from imposing franchise fees on telephone businesses (after April 20, 1982) and restricts cable TV franchise fees to those permitted by federal law (see below). Otherwise, RCW 35.99.040 allows cities and towns to charge telecommunications franchise fees as long as the fees do not conflict with state or federal law. 

Chapter 36.55 RCW authorizes counties to grant franchises on county roads and bridges for railways (see RCW 36.55.030) and “construction and maintenance of waterworks, gas pipes, telephone, telegraph, and electric light lines, sewers, and any other such facilities” (see RCW 36.55.010). The chapter does not specifically address the fees that may be charged for such franchises, but case law suggests that a franchise fee may be imposed to recover costs associated with creation and administration of the franchise. See City of Lakewood v. Pierce County (2001) 

Federal telecommunications franchise fee requirements are set forth in 47 U.S.C. Sec. 253(c), which allows localities to impose franchise fees that are “fair and reasonable,” and charged on a “competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis.” Cities, towns, and counties charging telecommunications franchise fees must also “publicly disclose” the fees charged, which is often accomplished when a locality adopts a publicly published ordinance approving a telecommunications franchise.

Cable TV franchise fees cannot exceed to 5% of a cable TV provider’s gross revenue from the franchise area over a 12-month period under federal law — see 47 U.S.C. Sec. 542(a) and (b). Generally applicable utility taxes and common franchise costs related to insurance and bonding requirements are not considered franchise fees — see 47 U.S.C. Sec. 542(g)(2).

In 2019, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed FCC-19-80, which restricts local government cable franchise fees and agreements. In particular, the order:

  • Holds that a city’s maximum 5% cable tv franchise fee includes most non-monetary "in-kind" contributions that cities require from cable companies as a condition or requirement of a franchise. Such in-kind contributions include city franchise provisions that require cable companies to give free or discounted service in public buildings; make contributions toward public, education or governmental programming (PEG) access facilities; and construct, maintain and provide I-Net service (institutional networks to facilitate public safety communications) as a part of the franchise; and
  • Preempts and prohibits local governments from regulating most non-cable services (such as broadband Internet) that are offered over cable systems.

FCC regulations relating to cable franchising are set forth at 47 C.F.R. 76.41 - 76.43.

For sample Washington State local government telecommunications franchise and lease agreements, visit our webpage on Telecommunications Franchise and Lease Agreements.

Cable TV Franchises and Public Access Television ("PEG") Channels

Local governments authorizing cable television franchises may require cable providers to set aside channels for public, educational, or governmental (PEG) use, including:

  • Public access channels, which are available for use by the general public and administered either by the cable provider or by a third party designated by the franchising authority, 
  • Educational access channels, which are used by educational institutions for educational programming (time on these channels is typically allocated by either the franchising authority or the cable provider among local schools, colleges, and universities), and
  • Governmental access channels, which are used for programming by local government.

PEG channels are not mandated by federal law; rather, they are a right given to the franchising authority (i.e., city, town, or county), which it may choose to exercise. If the franchise authority does require PEG channels, that requirement will be set out in the franchise agreement between the franchising authority and the cable provider.

In accordance with applicable franchise agreements, the local franchising authority or the cable provider may adopt on their own, non-content-based rules governing the use of PEG channels. For example, rules may be adopted for allocating time among competing applicants on a reasonable basis, minimum production standards may be required, or users may be required to undergo training.

Examples of PEG Channels and Documentation

Wireless Communications Facilities

In regulating the location of macro cell wireless communication facilities like large antennae or towers, local governments often seek to preserving the existing visual and aesthetic character of local neighborhoods and to minimize noise impacts. 

Examples of Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinances and Codes

  • Kenmore Municipal Code Ch. 18.60 — Wireless Communications Facilities. Details the review process; allows a single permit to be used for multiple small cells to provide coverage in a contiguous area.
  • Lake Stevens Municipal Code Ch. 14.62 — Wireless Communications Facilities. Covers both small cell and macro cell.
  • Langley Municipal Code Ch. 18.23 — Personal Wireless Facilities. Covers both small cell and macro cell; requires early, strong evidence (beyond simulations) of gaps in service and provides options for the city to deal with any suspected or discovered breach of FCC standards.
  • Sequim Municipal Code Sec. 18.61 — Wireless Communications Facilities. Provides that small cells are allowed in all zones and that the applicable permit process depends on whether stealth technology is used and/or a new support structure is being proposed; requires a franchise for all wireless facilities in the public ROW unless otherwise exempt. 
  • Snohomish County Code Ch. 30.28A — Development Standards and Siting Process for Personal Wireless Service Facilities. Exempts military and civilian radar systems, wireless radio for temporary emergency communications, and temporary mobile cellular towers used for testing; encourages collocation.
  • Snoqualmie Municipal Code Ch. 17.77 — Wireless Communications Facilities. Regulates the placement of wireless communication facilities with a focus on preserving the “visual and aesthetic character."
  • Thurston County Ordinance No. 16311 (2024) — Establishes the permitting process for numerous types of wireless facilities, the criteria for approval, and design guidelines for each type.
  • Walla Walla Ordinance No. 2022-26 (2022) — Amends zoning code to allow wireless facilities in residential zoning districts, on houses of worship or offices, or on top of buildings that are taller than 35 feet, as long as they use stealth design and technology so that they blend into the surrounding environment.

Small Cell Wireless Facilities

Beginning in 2018 local governments were faced with the expansion of 4G and 5G wireless communication facilities, known as “small cell” facilities. Small cell networks typically require the installation of numerous, dispersed, low-powered antennas that enhance connectivity by increasing the capacity of an existing macro cell wireless network. Unlike macro cell facilities, small cell facilities are attached to existing poles, towers, buildings, reservoirs, or other public infrastructure. 

Examples of Small Cell Wireless Facilities Ordinances, Codes, and Permits

  • Buckley Ordinance No. 02-19 (2019) — Revises the city's franchising requirements to address the siting of small wireless facilities located in the ROW.
  • Centralia
    • Municipal Code Ch. 14.32 — Small Wireless Communication Facilities – Establishes locations, site development standards, and permit requirements for small wireless.
    • Pole Attachments — Includes downloadable fee sheet, permit application, and specifications.
  • Enumclaw Municipal Code Ch. 19.27 — Small Cell Deployment – Franchise and Small Cell Permits. Details the process for the deployment of small cell and microcell technology.
  • Jefferson County Ch. 18.42 — Personal Wireless Service Facilities. Establishes development standards with a focus on protecting the “rural character, natural beauty, and scenic resources” of the county; encourages colocation and requires prompt removal of abandoned facilities.
  • SeaTac Ordinance No. 19-1001 (2019) — Adopts interim land use regulations and official controls for small wireless facilities; declares an emergency to address land use review and eligible facilities requests.
  • Tacoma Public Utilities: Pole Attachment Requirements for Telecommunications (2024)
  • Tukwila Ordinance No. 2652 (2021) — Adds a new chapter to the municipal code authorizing and establishing permitting regulations and aesthetic and design standards for the deployment of small cell wireless facilities.

Recommended Resources


Last Modified: June 16, 2025