- The FCC and Congress (via bill H.R. 2289) are taking parallel actions to severely limit the authority of cities and towns to regulate the installation of 5G "small cell" infrastructure like cell towers and antennas in their communities.
- The proposed rules impose strict, short deadlines for municipal review of installation applications, with automatic approval if deadlines are missed. They also aim to restrict or eliminate local fees and remove requirements for environmental, historical and "gap in coverage" reviews.
- Critics label the effort an "unprecedented federal power grab" that treats public participation as an obstacle. The measures would dismantle key tools communities use to oppose projects based on aesthetics, property values or neighborhood character.
- The article notes that federal law since 1996 has forbidden denying applications based on health concerns about radiofrequency (RF) radiation, classified as a possible human carcinogen by the WHO. The new rules further threaten remaining avenues for local opposition.
- Opposition is growing, with advocacy groups launching public action campaigns and some local government associations filing legal comments or lawsuits. The conflict is framed as a decisive battle for local democracy against a centralized push for rapid 5G deployment.
In a move critics are calling an "unprecedented federal power grab," both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Congress are advancing measures that would severely curtail the ability of cities and towns to control the installation of cell towers and wireless infrastructure in their communities.
The dual-pronged effort centers on an FCC-proposed rule and a congressional bill, HR 2289, the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025. Together, they aim to dismantle local zoning authority and accelerate the deployment of 5G networks by limiting community input, imposing strict deadlines on municipal reviews and restricting the fees cities can charge telecom companies.
"This is the most aggressive push we've ever seen to override local zoning, erase public participation and force dense wireless infrastructure into residential areas under the guise of streamlining wireless infrastructure deployment," said Children's Health Defense (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation and Wireless Program Director Miriam Eckenfels.
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce advanced HR 2289 last week in a tight party-line vote. If enacted, the bill would impose short deadlines for cities to process applications for new "small cell" sites, the refrigerator-sized boxes and pole-mounted antennas that form the backbone of 5G networks.
If a municipality misses the deadline, the application would be automatically approved. The bill also seeks to remove requirements for environmental and historical preservation reviews for certain projects.
Tech attorney Odette Wilkens, president of Wired Broadband, Inc., argues the legislation is a direct response to successful local opposition. "The reason for HR 2289 is to prevent any further litigation and any further successes that people have had across the country in stopping cell towers," she said.
Perhaps most significantly, the bill would eliminate a key tool currently available to local governments: the requirement for telecom companies to demonstrate a genuine gap in coverage before installing new infrastructure. This would nullify the impact of a 2022 court decision that upheld that standard, opening the door for installations virtually anywhere.
The fight against telecom tyranny
"This is the moment where we decide whether local democracy survives," Eckenfels stated in a recent social media presentation. The FCC's parallel proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on Dec. 1, seeks similar ends, aiming to "free towers and other wireless infrastructure from unlawful regulatory burdens." Eckenfels calls the congressional bill a "legislative shortcut" for the FCC's goals.
Opponents warn the changes would leave residents powerless against unsightly or unwanted installations that could affect property values and neighborhood character. Historically, communities have often cited these aesthetic and economic concerns to block projects, as federal law since 1996 has forbidden denying applications based on health concerns about radiofrequency (RF) radiation.
As noted by BrightU.AI's Enoch, RF radiation is a form of electromagnetic energy emitted by wireless devices like cell phones and routers. It is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the World Health Organization due to evidence linking it to health risks such as brain tumors.
Now, critics say, even those remaining avenues for opposition are under threat. "They see community input as an obstacle," Wilkens said of the FCC and bill supporters.
The pushback is mounting. Advocacy groups like Children’s Health Defense have launched action campaigns, urging the public to flood the FCC with comments before its Dec. 31 deadline and to pressure their representatives to vote against HR2289. Some local government associations are also joining the fight; in California, groups representing counties and cities have filed joint comments urging the FCC to withdraw its rule.
Susan Foster, a fire and utility consultant, described the bills as "draconian." She argued that they give telecom companies the right to install cell towers almost anywhere, exposing people to RF radiation 24/7 against their will.
With the FCC comment period closing soon and a potential House floor vote on HR 2289 looming, the battle over who controls the streetscape, telecom giants or local communities, is reaching a fever pitch. The outcome will determine whether, in the race for nationwide 5G, local voices still have a say in what gets built next door.
Watch Scott McCollough describing the damaging effects of cell towers and RF exposure in this clip.
This video is from the GalacticStorm channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.