Broadband franchising and rights‑of‑way debate pits incumbent cable company against new entrants; residents cite utility damage

Craig Stevens, representing Cox Communications, told the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee Assembly Bill 509 would update Nevada’s right‑of‑way statutes to create a dedicated pathway for “broadband‑only” providers to obtain local franchise agreements appropriate to their services rather than forcing them into existing telecommunications certificates.

“Broadband‑only providers are coming into our state,” Stevens said. “They’re not providing telecommunications services in the legacy sense, but they need a clear lane to access the public right of way without being required to take a certificate on services they don’t provide.” Stevens said the bill would close a loophole in which some providers obtain a telecommunications certificate they do not actually use and that the change would allow local governments to negotiate franchise terms that reflect the provider’s business model.

Supporters and local officials said a modernized framework could help cities negotiate access and compensation that reflects the new market. Patricia Haddad Bennett, co‑founder of the Downtown Las Vegas Neighborhood Coalition, described long, disruptive construction near homes and said the local governments’ franchise and permitting processes left residents without adequate notice. “For the past 280 days and counting, my neighbors and I have experienced significant and costly disruptions to our daily lives due to a wholesale fiber installation project,” she said.

Opposition from multiple broadband and wholesale providers was stark. Angie Welling, general manager for expansion at Google Fiber, told the committee AB 509 would destabilize the legal foundation providers use to plan and finance networks and said Google Fiber would likely halt investment in Nevada if the law allowed retroactive revocation of certificates of public convenience and necessity. “If passed in its current or frankly any similar form, we believe Google Fiber would have no reasonable option but to halt all investment in Nevada immediately,” Welling testified.

GigaPower, a wholesale open‑access operator, and other wholesale providers told the committee they negotiate tailored agreements with individual municipalities; they said a one‑size‑fits‑all statewide approach would favor incumbent operators and could force wholesale builders to reassess expansion plans in Nevada.

Municipal officials and city legal representatives said local governments already negotiate franchise and right‑of‑way agreements and that the bill’s sponsor and other stakeholders should refine statutory language so new entrants and cities can reach consistent, enforceable deals. Randy Robinson of the City of Las Vegas and Nicole Roark of the City of Henderson said they were working with proponents on technical amendments to address municipal concerns.

The hearing also touched on fiscal and equity issues. Several witnesses recommended a standard practice of a modest gross‑revenue fee (witnesses cited 2 percent as a common local arrangement for broadband-only franchises), while proponents noted the federal mixed‑use rule historically distinguishes cable/video franchise fees from broadband‑only revenue. The bill’s fiscal note was flagged as large under the initial draft, and witnesses said amendments would be needed to reduce administrative impacts.

Ending

AB 509 exposed deep division between incumbent cable companies seeking what they describe as regulatory parity and new fiber firms, municipalities and consumer advocates who worry the proposed state framework would chill investment or favor established firms. Committee members directed additional stakeholder work; no committee vote occurred at the hearing.