U.S. Code » Title 47 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— COMMON CARRIERS › Part Part II— Development of Competitive Markets

47 U.S.C. § 253

Removal of barriers to entry

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In general

No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.

(b) State regulatory authority

Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254 of this title, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.

(c) State and local government authority

Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government.

(d) Preemption

If, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, the Commission determines that a State or local government has permitted or imposed any statute, regulation, or legal requirement that violates subsection (a) or (b), the Commission shall preempt the enforcement of such statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct such violation or inconsistency.

(e) Commercial mobile service providers

Nothing in this section shall affect the application of section 332(c)(3) of this title to commercial mobile service providers.

(f) Rural marketsIt shall not be a violation of this section for a State to require a telecommunications carrier that seeks to provide telephone exchange service or exchange access in a service area served by a rural telephone company to meet the requirements in section 214(e)(1) of this title for designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier for that area before being permitted to provide such service. This subsection shall not apply—(1) to a service area served by a rural telephone company that has obtained an exemption, suspension, or modification of section 251(c)(4) of this title that effectively prevents a competitor from meeting the requirements of section 214(e)(1) of this title; and(2) to a provider of commercial mobile services.(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 253, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title I, § 101(a), Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 70.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 329 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 380 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2004). · cites it 10× “Qwest argued that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 253 (“TCA”), and state law preempted the Ordinance.”
City of Portland v. United States, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020). · cites it 11× “In Judge Bress’s view, the FCC did not adequately explain how all above-cost fees amounted to an “effective prohibition” on telecommunications or wireless service under 47 U.S.C. §§ 253 (a) and 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I).”
Nixon v. Missouri Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125 (2004). · cites it 8× “70 , 47 U. S. C. § 253 , authorizes preemption of state and local laws and regulations expressly or effectively "prohibiting the ability of any entity" to provide telecommunications services.”
Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. Cnty. of San Diego, 543 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 11× “Soon after the County enacted the Ordinance, Sprint brought this action, alleging that the Ordinance violates 47 U.S.C. § 253 (a) [1] because, on its face, it prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting Sprint's ability to provide wireless telecommunications services.”
Planned Parenthood KS & Mid-MO v. Brownback, 747 F.3d 814 (10th Cir. 2014). · cites it 10× “Rather, the statement appeared in a discussion addressing Qwest’s (losing) argument that it had a personal right under 47 U.S.C. § 253 that was enforceable under § 1983, so it could recover attorney fees under 42 U.”
Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. Cnty. of San Diego, 311 F. Supp. 2d 898 (S.D. Cal. 2004). · cites it 14× “First, plaintiffs claim defendants violated the TCA’s prohibition of provision of telecommunications service, 47 U.S.C. § 253 (a). See id. ¶ 34-36 . Plaintiffs’ second cause of action alleges that defendants violated section 253(c)’s prohibition against discriminatory regulation…”
Sw. Bell Tel., LP v. City of Houston, 529 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 6× “47 U.S.C. § 253 (a). The safe-harbor provision, § 253(c), states: Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively…”
GTE Mobilnet of South Texas Ltd. P'ship v. Pascouet, 61 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause (iv) may petition the Commission for relief.”
At&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999). · cites it 5× “See 47 U. S. C. § 253 (a) (1994 ed., Supp. II).”
Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. Mun. of Guayanilla, 450 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2006). · cites it 7× “This appeal requires us to apply § 253 of the Federal Telecommunications Act (“TCA”), 47 U.S.C. § 253 , which sets limits on the authority of state and local governments to regulate telecommunications providers.”
Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N. A., 550 U.S. 1 (2007). · cites it 2× “, 47 U.S.C. §§ 253 (a), (d) (authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to preempt "any [state] statute, regulation, or legal requirement" that "may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate…”
Qwest Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 224 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (D.N.M. 2002). · cites it 9× “Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 253 (West Supp.2001), provides, in relevant part, that: (a) In general No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of…”
Show all 329 citing cases →
— 47 U.S.C. § 253(a) — 4 cases
Sprint Telephony PCS, L.P. v. Cnty. of San Diego, 543 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2008). “Soon after the County enacted the Ordinance, Sprint brought this action, alleging that the Ordinance violates 47 U.S.C. § 253 (a) [1] because, on its face, it prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting Sprint's ability to provide wireless telecommunications services.”
Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. City of Hawthorne, 188 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 385 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2004).
Sprint Telephony Pcs v. Cnty. of San Diego (9th Cir. 2008).
— 47 U.S.C. § 253(c) — 1 case
Crown Castle Fiber LLC v. City of Pasadena, Texas (S.D. Tex. 2022).
— 47 U.S.C. § 253(d) — 1 case
ASAP Paging Inc. v. Centurytel of San Marcos Inc., 137 F. App'x 694 (5th Cir. 2005).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.