Best Best & Krieger News Feed

Best Best & Krieger Partner Included on the 2014 Washington DC Super Lawyer List

25 Apr 2014 00:00:00 -0800

Joseph Van Eaton, a Best Best & Krieger partner in the firm’s Washington D.C. office, was named to the 2014 Washington D.C. Super Lawyers list, published on April 25, 2014. He represents government agencies in a broad range of communications issues in federal and state courts, before government agencies and at the negotiating table. His work on behalf of local governments has helped communities develop and implement their wireless and wireline communications ordinances, develop their own communications networks and regulate placement of wireless facilities.

About Super Lawyers

Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. In the United States, Super Lawyers Magazine is published in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., reaching more than 13 million readers. Super Lawyers is published by Thomson Reuters.

BB&K Telecommunications Attorney Helps Stop Massive Cell Tower in Texas Town

18 Sep 2013 00:00:00 -0800

Best Best & Krieger attorney James Hobson helped a small Texas community prevent a major telecommunications company from building a nearly 300-foot-tall, lattice-style cellular phone tower along a scenic and historic road.

The citizens of Brenham, Texas formed a group known as CAVEAT (Citizens Against Verizon’s Enormous Antenna Tower) after Verizon had filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission on June 27 to build the tower along La Bahia Road. The road was originally an east-west Indian trail in southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas. The citizen’s group contacted politicians at the local and federal levels, sought help from historic commissions and hired attorneys to aid them in their quest to stop the tower from being constructed.

Hobson, based in BB&K’s Washington, D.C., office, helped the citizens group understand the documents submitted by Verizon to the FCC, strongly urged the group to maintain local pressure for an alternative site for the tower and advised it to file papers with the National Register of Historic Places to determine if the landscape that would be affected by the massive tower was eligible for selection to the list.

On Sept. 10, Verizon notified the FCC that it decided to withdraw its application and canceled the project on La Bahia Road.

Federal and State Agencies Considering Telecom Regulations that Could Dramatically Impact Local Authority

27 Jun 2013 00:00:00 -0800

By Joseph Van Eaton

Federal and state agencies are considering new regulations that could dramatically affect local authority to ensure communications companies –including wireless companies and cable/video franchises – serve the public well and install broadband facilities in a way that does not harm the community. Many observers are concerned that these new regulations could chip away at the traditional local rights critical to the protection of local communities.

Understanding the issues is important; even more important is participating in the dialogue and helping to protect your community’s interests.

Wireless Siting and the FCC
The Federal Communications Commission is expected to issue proposed rules within the next 90 days to implement a new provision of federal law, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 1455. That section states that a local government “may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.”

California law already requires localities to approve collocations (the installation of additional facilities or the modification of facilities at an existing wireless installation) if a proposed collocation meets certain design requirements established by the locality. However, what the FCC may propose could be quite different, as the reaction to a non-binding guidance issued by the FCC earlier this year suggests. The wireless industry is arguing that the guidance requires the approval of a 20-foot addition to the rooftops of historical buildings that house stealth wireless facilities; the approval of a 20-foot addition to towers in environmentally/culturally sensitive areas regardless of environmental impact; and the approval of additions to existing utility poles, wireless towers and privately-owned light poles without any design restrictions.

Locally-established permit conditions designed to limit the size of wireless installations may not be enforceable if the FCC adopts binding collocation rules along the lines urged by the wireless industry. Localities may need to include provisions allowing for the termination of permits whose conditions may not be enforced. Where there is a historic or environmentally sensitive area involved, it may be important to file a complaint with the FCC about the proposed wireless facility rather than simply rely on local or state processes for environmental protection. The FCC could condition construction of a facility on compliance with local conditions, and a FCC-established condition would be enforceable.

Localities may be able to influence the rulemaking before it begins by meeting with the offices of FCC commissioners (and with Congressional representatives). Localities should also participate in the FCC rulemaking process both financially (by supporting joint action with other communities) and by filing comments. Expect the rulemaking to commence sometime in the next four months.

CPUC, CEQA and Wireless Siting
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is also conducting a proceeding that may affect local authority to control placement of certain wireless facilities. Currently, local governments in many California cities regulate the placement of wireless facilities in the rights of way, establishing conditions on the size and design of the facilities to prevent harm to the community. After a pause of more than a year, the CPUC has revived its effort to determine whether and how it will conduct environmental review of certain telecommunications projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and whether and how it will share authority over CEQA reviews of those projects with local jurisdictions. The upcoming CPUC rulemaking proceeding will affect whether localities may continue to regulate the placement of wireless facilities (including distributed antenna systems or DAS) in the rights of way. Local agencies need to respond quickly to counter what will surely be a strong push by the wireless industry for rules that preempt local authority.

In a joint ruling released in May to re-launch the rulemaking, CPUC Commissioner Catherine Sandoval and Administrative Law Judge Kelly Hymes reiterated the CPUC’s position of 2011 that it has authority to preempt the discretionary review and permitting powers of all local land use jurisdictions. However, the rule could be crafted in a way that continues to defer to local zoning judgments.

To avoid the preemption of review and permitting powers, local governments may need to demonstrate to the CPUC that placement of facilities in the rights of way can present real problems for communities and that these problems are most effectively addressed at the local level.

For communities that wish to protect siting authority, it is important to participate in and monitor this proceeding. The due date for opening public comments has been extended to July 15 and reply comments are due by August 1.

Cable/Video TV Franchising and CPUC
California’s Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA) shifted cable/video franchising from localities to the CPUC. Without local franchises and strong enforcement tools, many communities have found it difficult to protect consumers from customer abuses or to require companies to comply with DIVCA obligations.

The CPUC has launched a proceeding to establish rules that the holders of state-issued cable/ video TV franchises (such as Time Warner, Comcast, Cox, Verizon, and AT&T) must follow to obtain renewal of their state-issued franchises. The CPUC is asking for comments on:

The appropriate procedures for considering renewal of DIVCA franchises
The timing of renewal applications
Whether the legislature has identified all the future video-related obligations that video service providers must fulfill in relationship to each community
Whether the legislature intended to limit the role of individual communities in the renewal process
Whether there are irreconcilable differences between DIVCA and federal law and what alternatives would ensure consistency with federal law

Undoubtedly, the cable/video TV industry will advocate for a renewal process as streamlined and cursory as the initial application process under DIVCA. However, the questions cited above, for which the CPUC is looking for comment, open the door to arguing for a renewal framework that provides for effective enforcement of DIVCA and ensures cable operators are responsive to customers and to local communities. This may be the only opportunity for local governments to push for that framework, short of amending DIVCA itself.

Once again, the best way for local governments to help affect the outcome of these important issues is to participate. The deadline for filing initial comments was just extended to July 22, with reply comments due on August 12. Once comments are received, the CPUC may hold a prehearing conference and issue a scoping memorandum outlining the schedule and issues to be considered in the proceeding.

Making your position known may not ultimately result in the most desirable outcome for your community. However, the industries will certainly create a record that supports the regulations that they desires, arguing that local regulations are an impediment to development of advanced communications systems. If local governments do not tell their stories and advocate for their positions, it is much more likely that the rules adopted will have negative consequences for local communities.

The bottom line: Speak Up!

Joseph Van Eaton is a partner in Best Best & Krieger LLP’s Municipal Law practice group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. He specializes in representing municipalities on a broad range of communications issues in federal and state courts, before federal and state agencies, and at the negotiating table. He has helped communities develop wireline and wireless communications ordinances, negotiated franchises for cable and telecommunications service providers, assisted communities in developing their own communications networks and successfully defended local government efforts to establish and operate municipally-owned systems. Mr. Van Eaton can be reached at Joseph.VanEaton@bbklaw.com.

* This article was originally published in PublicCEO.com, on June 26, 2013. Republished with permission.

Cell Phone Towers: Supreme Court To Tackle Key Case Determining If a Federal Agency Can Trump City, County Decisions

20 Nov 2012 00:00:00 -0800

By Matthew K. Schettenhelm

A wireless service provider wants to put a new cell tower in your city. A vocal segment of the community is outraged. The tower is big, disruptive and dangerous, they contend. The provider, meanwhile, threatens to sue your city. The issue is now on your desk. You have reviewed the application, and you have important questions. How quickly must we act? Do our community’s policies control the outcome? Can the Federal Communications Commission say otherwise? A U.S. Supreme Court case to be argued this January may begin to suggest answers to these and other important questions that cities in California and across the country are asking. The case, Arlington v. FCC, asks the nation’s high court to resolve whether a court must accept a federal agency’s determination of its own jurisdiction when, under the controlling statute, that question is uncertain. The case arises out of the FCC’s effort to impose “shot clocks” limiting the time that local governments can consider wireless facility applications, under a statute that does not directly grant the federal agency this authority. Local government officials and staff interested in wireless facility siting and the limits of a federal agency’s authority should watch the case closely. The decision may clarify how far the FCC — or any federal agency — may expand its authority into matters of concern to your community.

Local Zoning Authority Preserved
In 1996, Congress adopted the chief statute addressing local zoning authority over wireless service facilities as part of a major update of the Communications Act. For advocates of preserving local government authority over cell tower placement, the statute was a significant victory. Two years earlier, the situation looked dire. An industry trade group, the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, had petitioned the FCC to make rules to bar state and local governments from “interfering with the build out” of wireless infrastructure through zoning and other similar regulations. The House of Representatives then passed a bill that would have empowered the FCC to create a policy about state and local regulation of wireless facilities and require that local governments act within a reasonable period of time.

But Congress rejected this “national” model, and replaced it with the 1996 statute that most local government advocates found vastly superior. The statute, Preservation of Local Zoning Authority, prevented FCC preemption of local and state land use decisionsand preserved their authority over zoning and land use matters except in limited circumstances. The statute provided a role for the FCC in one (and only one) respect: the Commission may resolve disputes regarding radiofrequency emissions concurrent with the courts.

Local advocates had little reason to doubt this view for the next decade. Local governments and industry frequently clashed over whether and where facilities may be placed, but these disputes were not resolved by a federal agency in Washington D.C. Instead, they were resolved by a state or federal court that would often give substantial deference to a local government’s decision so long as it did not defy the statute’s five express limitations.

“Shot Clock” Adopted
In 2009, everything changed. Thirteen years after Congress adopted the Preservation of Local Zoning Authority statute, the FCC claimed it had authority to implement the statute with its own federal administrative policy framework. Granting an industry petition, the FCC created 90- and 150-day “shot clocks” for state and local governments to approve or turn down a completed application. The FCC ruled that if a state or local government did not act within these time frames (absent an agreement to extend the deadlines between the locality and the applicant), a “failure to act” under the 1996 statute will have occurred.

The most surprising aspect of the FCC’s decision was the agency’s conclusion that it had authority to address this area at all. Questioning this conclusion, the city of Arlington, Texas, sought review by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in early 2010. Arlington and supporting intervenors noted that the FCC’s jurisdictional conclusion could not be squared with the federal statute’s plain language and history. The FCC relied on its general authority under the Communications Act in sections outside of the statute. But the agency did not directly explain how it could use these provisions to affect state and local authority when the statute states that “[e]xcept as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect” state and local authority.

To the local governments’ disappointment, the Fifth Circuit upheld the FCC’s order in a decision released last January. Importantly, however, the court did not uphold the order because it agreed that the FCC had presented the better reading of the jurisdictional statutes. Instead, the court found that its precedent required it to apply the deferential Chevron doctrine, which the Fifth Circuit interpreted to mean that in every circumstance—even where the issue is whether an agency has jurisdiction—a court must defer to an agency’s reasonable statutory interpretation. The court found that the statute does not “unambiguously preclude” the FCC from regulating in this area, and that the agency’s determination that it could implement the statute was “permissible.”

Supreme Court Takes The Case
Petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, Arlington and other local governments noted that the Fifth Circuit’s view that Chevron applies to jurisdictional issues is at odds with decisions of several other federal appellate courts. On Oct. 5, the Supreme Court agreed to take the case, and arguments will be heard on Jan. 16. A decision, which will be rendered no later than July, could have widespread ramifications on local control of wireless facilities, and on the limits of federal agencies’ authority in other areas.

Matthew K. Schettenhelm is an attorney in Best Best & Krieger LLP’s Municipal Law practice group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office and is among the firm’s attorneys working on the Arlington v. FCC case for various cities and counties. He has drafted briefs in cases before the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, and in various other federal and state courts. Schettenhelm also assists local governments and other clients with various telecommunications matters. He has developed wireless facility, right-of-way and cable ordinances for local governments, and has assisted with the negotiation and drafting of agreements regarding cable franchising, municipal Wi-Fi and 700 MHz public safety communications. He can be reached at Matthew.Schettenhelm@bbklaw.com.

BB&K Appellate Advocate Wins Key Award for U.S. Supreme Court Case

23 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0800

For Immediate Release: Oct. 23, 2012
Media Contact: Jennifer Bowles • 951.826.8480 • jennifer.bowles@BBKlaw.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. _ Matthew K. Schettenhelm, an appellate advocate at Best Best & Krieger LLP, received the prestigious President’s Award to the Most Outstanding Associate Member from the International Municipal Lawyers Association.

Schettenhelm was honored Monday for helping to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal appellate court’s decision that sided with the Federal Communications Commission and the agency’s so-called shot-clock rule. That rule encroaches on local government decisions by giving them a limited time to review requests from the telecommunications industry for placement of cell towers and antennas in their own localities.

Oral arguments in the case, Arlington, Texas, v. FCC, are expected to be heard before the nation’s high court in January or February.

“Matt has played a key role in this very important case since the beginning, and I felt it was appropriate to recognize the hard work of an up-and-coming attorney at BB&K,” said Jay Doegey, city attorney for Arlington, Texas who is also the association’s president.

Schettenhelm, based in BB&K’s Washington D.C. office, received his award during the association’s annual conference, which this year was held in Austin, Texas.

“I am very honored,” Schettenhelm said. “I have been fortunate enough to work on a number of significant appellate matters for local governments, but no case compares to this one. I'm grateful to the association for this award, and to the clients and BB&K attorneys who have given me the opportunity to do this interesting and important work.”

Schettenhelm, a BB&K associate, is working on the case with Joseph Van Eaton, a BB&K partner based in Washington D.C. Besides Arlington, they are representing the cities of Los Angeles and San Antonio, Texas, along with Los Angeles County and the Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues. Tom Goldstein, an attorney at Goldstein & Russell P.C., is representing San Diego County.

The Supreme Court only agrees to hear less than 5 percent of the cases requested. Earlier this month, the justices agreed to hear the Arlington case, based on arguments contained in appellate briefings written by Schettenhelm and the two other attorneys. The high court will look specifically at the issue of whether a federal agency can define the scope of its own jurisdiction.

If the arguments by BB&K and Goldstein prevail, it could lead courts to recognize that Congress did not intend the FCC to establish national policy in this area, giving local governments more discretion in handling requests by the telecom industry. The case could also settle the question of whether any federal regulatory body can use ambiguity to claim jurisdiction to impose regulations on local governments or other entities.

“I have seen Matt develop into one of the best appellate writers and advocates within my career,” said Nicholas Miller, a BB&K attorney who manages the Washington, D.C. office. “He writes nuanced and powerful briefs, which are persuasive enough to convince the Supreme Court to take on a case.”

Schettenhelm graduated in 2004 from George Washington University Law School.

The Clash of Federal Policy and Local Zoning Over the Placement of Wireless Communications Facilities

18 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0800

By Jay Doegey and Matthew K. Schettenhelm

For decades, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) like the federal government generally -- has played only a limited role with respect to the placement of wireless communications facilities in America's towns, cities, and counties. This may be changing.

The FCC has pushed the bounds of its authority under the Communications Act in an effort to influence and accelerate local communities' zoning decisions. It has also released a far-reaching inquiry, asking whether it should regulate local decisions in this area more extensively. Now Congress has stepped into the area as well, mandating that local governments "shall approve" certain industry requests to replace and modify facilities on existing towers. Meanwhile, wireless service providers are reaching deeper into local communities with antennas that line local highways, streets, and neighborhoods. These facilities are sometimes unsafe; they are often unsightly; and they are frequently controversial.

This article provides an overview of some recent developments in the evolving law of wireless communications facilities. It traces the clash between federal policymakers and local zoning authorities, and highlights a case that may allow the Supreme Court to definitively resolve the proper sphere of authoriity in this important area.

Click here to read the entire article, published in the July/August 2012 issue of Municipal Lawyer, a bimonthly magazine offered by the International Municipal Lawyers Assocation.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear FCC Cell Tower Dispute

05 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0800

Eds Note: Click here to read the brief in the case filed by BB&K on Nov. 19, 2012.

For Immediate Release: Oct. 5, 2012
Media Contact: Jennifer Bowles • 951.826.8480 • jennifer.bowles@BBKlaw.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. _ The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday decided to hear a case brought by cities and counties across the country challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to establish federal regulations governing local zoning of wireless cell towers.

The nation’s highest court granted the petition for certiorari filed by the cities of Los Angeles, San Antonio and Arlington, Texas; Los Angeles County, San Diego County and the Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues.

“We’re very pleased with the court’s decision,” said Joseph Van Eaton, a Best Best & Krieger attorney based in Washington D.C., who represents several of the petitioners.

“The outcome could have huge implications for local and state governments, which are dealing with increasing efforts by the telecommunications industry to push the federal government to interfere with basic local functions such as zoning, right-of-way management and compensation,” Van Eaton said.

Local and state governments have long regulated the placement of cell towers through local zoning processes and right-of-way rules. In November, 2009, at the request of the cellular industry, the FCC issued an order that, among other things, established national deadlines for acting on applications filed with state and local governments for construction of cell towers.

The FCC rejected local and state government arguments that it lacked authority to regulate these local processes. A coalition of local governments appealed the FCC’s ruling to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Rather than reviewing the FCC’s authority independently, the Fifth Circuit deferred to the FCC’s interpretation of its own authority.

At issue with the Supreme Court challenge is whether the Fifth Circuit properly deferred to the FCC’s interpretation of its own authority when the federal agency established the tower-siting “shot clock” rules.

“But the issue the Supreme Court has decided to address is not just a telecommunications issue,” Van Eaton emphasized. “The question of how courts should decide whether an agency can define the scope of its own jurisdiction arises in many cases, in many different areas of the law. It is a basic, undecided question of administrative law.”

The Supreme Court is likely to hear arguments in the case in January or February, Van Eaton said.

Best Best & Krieger Among Nation’s Most Diverse Law Firms

18 Jun 2012 00:00:00 -0800

For Immediate Release: June 18, 2012
Media Contact: Jennifer Bowles • 951.826.8480 • jennifer.bowles@BBKlaw.com

RIVERSIDE, Calif. _ Best Best & Krieger LLP ranked 15th among the nation's most racially diverse law firms, with nearly 20 percent of its attorneys hailing from minority backgrounds, according to The American Lawyer's annual Diversity Scorecard, published in the magazine’s June issue.

BB&K, with 200 attorneys in nine offices in California and Washington D.C., placed in the Top 20 for the fifth year straight. In all, 233 of the nation’s largest and highest-grossing firms responded to this year’s survey, placing BB&K’s No. 15 ranking in the top 6.5 percent.

Eric Garner, BB&K’s managing partner, said he was very pleased with the results of the Diversity Scorecard, which also placed the firm ninth overall for the highest percentage of minority partners.

“We believe that our continued presence in the Top 20, and our highest ranking yet, reflects the firm’s longstanding commitment to diversity, which we believe is essential to foster the kind of creative solutions our clients need in 2012,” Garner said.

BB&K clients includes cities, counties, public agencies, water and school districts, companies and individuals.

The survey showed:

- BB&K’s percentage of minority attorneys, at 18.5 percent, or 35 attorneys, is nearly five percent higher than the national average of 13.6 percent.

- Of the 195 attorneys at BB&K, 15 are Hispanic-American, 15 are Asian-American, four are African-American and one is of mixed race.

- The percentage of BB&K’s minority attorneys who are partners, at 14.4 percent, rose more than 2 percent from the year before and was the ninth highest overall.

One of those partners, Gene Tanaka, sits on the firm’s executive committee and is managing partner of the Walnut Creek office. Another partner, Marco Martinez, is managing partner of the firm’s Irvine office.

Tanaka, who is Japanese-American, said the firm has always been welcoming to attorneys from diverse backgrounds.

“In my 27 years at BB&K, I can honestly say that my race has never been a consideration or issue,” he said. “I frankly do not think anyone really thought about it professionally or socially. I cannot imagine any better treatment by a group of people.”

Tanaka said shortly after he arrived at the firm, BB&K’s partners appointed him to lead an ad hoc committee to consider diversity and, as a result, the firm adopted a policy in the early 1990s to encourage diversity based on race, ethnicity and sexual orientation before many other firms.

In 2008 and 2009, BB&K ranked 19th in the Diversity Scorecard; 17th in 2010; and 19th last year.

Last year, BB&K launched a scholarship/fellowship program for a law student from a diverse background. The program offers the recipient a paid summer associate position for two summers during law school in addition to a $7,500 scholarship once the program is completed. The program’s current recipient, Leo Li from Loyola Law School, will be working in the firm’s Riverside and Ontario offices for his second summer this year. Fluent in Mandarin Chinese, Li is on track to graduate in 2013.

According to American Lawyer, large firms slightly reduced their percentage of minority attorneys to 13.6 percent. The magazine editors said they weren’t too worried about the slight dip from 13.9 percent from the year before because the editors tweaked the methodology for the latest survey to include full-time equivalent numbers for the entire calendar year. That meant that part-time attorneys were prorated in their statistics.

Boston Wins Authority from the Federal Communications Commission to Control Cable Fees

10 Apr 2012 00:00:00 -0800

The Federal Communications Commission said Monday that it will restore the City of Boston’s authority to regulate basic cable rates, a victory for Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who argued there is not enough competition between cable providers to protect customers from rising prices.

The ruling could mean lower bills for about 28,000 city residents who subscribe to basic cable service from Comcast Corp., by far the city’s largest cable provider, said Michael Lynch, director of Boston’s cable TV office.

The rest of Comcast’s 155,000 Boston customers, who purchase added services such as premium channels, won’t be affected, he said. The city will have no authority over the prices charged for services other than basic cable.

Click here to read more from The Boston Globe.

T-Band Licensees Advised to Consider Seeking Waivers

02 Apr 2012 00:00:00 -0800

Licensees in the 470-512 megahertz T band that will have to relocate to other spectrum within 11 years under spectrum legislation signed by President Obama in February could consider seeking waivers of the Jan. 1, 2013, narrowbanding deadline, speakers said today on a webinar sponsored by the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors.

While stressing that he was not prejudging how the FCC would respond to any such waive requests, Roberto Mussenden, an attorney-adviser in the Policy and Licensing Division of the FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, said "that's a very compelling argument to make."

He noted that the bureau in February gave agencies in the St. Louis, Mo., area an additional year to complete the narrowband transition so they could finish deployment of a multi-county interoperable 800 MHz band radio system. Those agencies made the argument that it didn't make sense to have to acquire narrowband equipment for their current channels only to relocate to other spectrum within a year.

Mr. Mussenden also urged part 90 licensees not to wait to file waiver requests, noting that any jurisdictions whose requests are denied after Jan. 1, 2013, will be in violation of the FCC's rules. "We're looking for a documented ... glide path t compliance," he said of waiver requests.

Mr. Mussenden also said that as of last month, 43.5% of license call signs did not have a narrowband emission designator, 20.1% had a narrowband-only designator, and 36.2% were in transition.

Regarding the T-band, Jim Hobson, of counsel at Best Best & Krieger LLP, noted that while the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 says the FCC has to auction the T-band channels within nine years and clear them of incumbents within 11 years, the agency could take those actions sooner.

- - -

Click here to read a BB&K legal alert that includes more details about the new law and recommendations.