The Legislature has signed off on an agreement between wireless providers and cities that the telecoms predicted will allow them to provide faster internet service for their customers.
The telecommunications giants — AT&T, Sprint and Verizon — had asked lawmakers to prohibit cities from forcing them to sign franchise agreements they said hurt their ability to expand service for consumers.
The bill prevents cities from requiring franchise agreements but allows cities to require so-called small cell facility deployment agreements or master license agreements.
The bill also gives cities control over the public right-of-way through those types of agreements as well as through other permitting requirements.
The bill passed the House on Tuesday with a 112-12 vote. It passed unanimously in the Senate. It now goes to the governor.
“We are pleased that the Legislature balanced local interests with the need to once again position Kansas for the future,” AT&T spokeswoman Molly Kocour Boyle said in an email.
“We remain committed to working with Kansas communities to bring investment to their residents, businesses, and visitors that will enable our state to take advantage of what comes next — 5G, smart cities, telemedicine, and more,” she said.
Erik Sartorius, executive director of the League of Kansas Municipalities, said the bill was “a difficult piece of legislation for cities.” While both sides compromised, Sartorius said he thought cities moved more from their original position.
Sartorius said he hopes the telecoms live up to their promise to increase their deployment of small-cell technology with the passage of the legislation.
“Our expectation is that wireless companies do, in fact, rapidly increase their deployment in Kansas,” he said.
“We will be watching closely to see that deployment reaches across Kansas, as well, and not just into their more lucrative markets,” he said.
The telecoms had been engaged in a session-long battle at the Capitol with cities who said the telecommunications companies were overstating their claims about the harm they suffer because of franchise agreements.
The cities said franchise agreements did not prevent the deployment of small-cell technology — lightweight, low-power devices placed in areas where customers experience connectivity problems. The small cells are usually attached to utility poles, traffic lights and even on buildings.
The cities argued that if the telecoms were exempted from the franchise agreements, other companies might seek exemptions as well. At one point, cable providers asked for an exemption from franchise agreements for a similar type of technology, but they failed to get added to the bill.
Officials from the telecoms had said there was a significant difference between signing a franchise agreement and the master license agreement enumerated in the bill.
There is nothing regulating a franchise agreement in state law, meaning cities would be open to impose any number of rules and fees, such as potentially taxing the companies based on gross receipts, the telecoms said.
The telecom companies, during a hearing earlier this session, told legislators that cities were doing an end-around a law passed in 2016 that was intended to streamline and expedite deployment of small cell technology.
The 2016 law — called the Wireless Siting Act — didn’t contemplate wireless franchise agreements. It opened the door for local governments to charge franchise fees for small-cell deployment.
The companies said if they knew then what they know now, they would have tried to prohibit the wireless franchise agreements in the 2016 law.
