House File 3554 came up pretty quickly. The short description is – Small wireless facility deployment provided. It was introduced by Representative Sander on March 23. It was discussed twice last week March 30 and 31.

The proposed legislative changed an existing law by adding “wireless communications service provider” to the list of other communications providers that may use public property to build out infrastructure…

“Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 222.37, subdivision 1, is amended to read: 1.4 Subdivision 1. Use requirements. Any water power, telegraph, telephone, wireless 1.5 communications service provider, pneumatic tube, pipeline, community antenna television, 1.6 cable communications or electric light, heat, power company, or fire department may use 1.7 public roads for the purpose of constructing, using, operating, and maintaining lines, 1.8 subways, canals, conduits, hydrants, or dry hydrants, for their business, but such lines shall 1.9 be so located as in no way to interfere with the safety and convenience of ordinary travel 1.10 along or over the same; and, in the construction and maintenance of such line, subway, 1.11 canal, conduit, hydrants, or dry hydrants, the company shall be subject to all reasonable 1.12 regulations imposed by the governing body of any county, town or city in which such 1.13 public road may be…

And adding lot of language was introduced related to the addition. (You can get all of the text online.)

What happened was that a counter was made to allow the inclusion of “wireless communications service provider” to the existing list and proposed establishment of a Task Force to look into deployment of small wireless telecommunications facilities and deleting the rest of the proposed language.

It opens the doors to looking into changes suggested in the original version but makes very few changes. And even with that Friday (April 1) was the deadline for policy changes to move forward in the Legislature and the proposed bill wasn’t moved forward. So it sits in a limbo of sorts. There is a chance that it could move forward via Rules but that looks unlikely. It seems as if maybe this door has been opened for a future legislature. It sounds like Verizon, not local providers, was behind these changes.