Bill Maguire: Leveraging BEAD 'Non-Deployment' Funds for Permitting Reform

In recent speeches at the Hudson Institute and the Free State Foundation luncheon, NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth hinted at a potentially game-changing policy shift that would allow states to deploy some of their non-deployment BEAD funds toward permitting reform. Though only a passing reference in a dense speech, this was more consequential than a bureaucratic tweak.

While NTIA’s BEAD terms and conditions already place strong emphasis on streamlining permitting, enforcing FCC pole-attachment timelines and one-touch make-ready rules, minimizing permitting costs, and establishing state-led dispute-resolution mechanisms. Administrator Roth’s remarks suggest an opportunity to complement those requirements with targeted resources that help states translate policy expectations into operational reality. Without these improvements, BEAD will take longer and cost more, when it happens at all.

What could state use of non-deployment funds look like?

If NTIA greenlights this idea, states might use non-deployment BEAD dollars to:

• Build capacity at permitting agencies (hiring staff, training, or contractors)
• Digitize and streamline permitting systems (online application portals, standard forms, transparent dashboards)
• Standardize and monitor pole-attachment processes, including enforcing OTMR (one-touch make-ready) where possible
• Establish dispute-resolution mechanisms, such as rapid-response teams within state public utility commissions (PUCs) or broadband offices

Reforms of these sorts would align with policy insights from organizations including The Pew Charitable Trusts, which in a March 2025 brief highlighted permitting challenges and persistent pole-attachment issues — including cost, delays, and opaque processes — that threaten BEAD deployment. Pew recommends digitizing permitting, increasing data collection, creating shared pole inventories, and standardizing policies across pole owners. 

Of these insights, a new policy that would allow states to use BEAD non-deployment dollars to establish pole-attachment funds deserves particular attention. For decades, disputes between broadband providers and pole owners have slowed deployment. (See a 2023 article from SheppardMullin for more on pole attachment disputes.) Subsidizing pole replacement or make-ready work could significantly reduce those frictions.

States are already leading with pole-attachment funds

Several states have established funding programs to address pole-attachment costs directly:

• Kentucky offers grants up to $5,000 per pole (50% of cost) through its Rural Infrastructure Improvement Fund to reimburse providers for pole replacements. 
• North Carolina launched a Broadband Pole Replacement Program to reimburse providers when poles lack space for additional attachments. 
• Ohio created a $50 million Pole Replacement & Undergrounding Program that reimburses up to 75% of certain pole-work costs, including mid-span pole installation. 
• Texas, via its Broadband Infrastructure Fund, reimburses up to the lesser of 50% of costs or $5,000 per pole for eligible pole replacement work. 

These programs seem to be moving the needle. For example, in Texas, the first round of awards in November 2024 supported the replacement of more than 11,000 poles, worth approximately $18.5 million in reimbursements.  In Kentucky, the state broadband office’s recent reporting notes that a portion of replacement funds are specifically dedicated to minimizing “potential for disputes” between broadband providers and pole owners. 

Why this matters: The role of pole-attachment funds in reducing conflict

• The early data suggests that these funding mechanisms are already performing a critical role beyond cost recovery: they’re helping to reduce tension and friction between broadband providers (“attachers”) and pole owners.In Kentucky, part of the funding is explicitly aimed at minimizing disputes over attachments by sharing replacement costs. 
• By reimbursing replacement costs, states can mitigate what is sometimes referred to as the “hold-up problem,” where pole owners can delay or impose unfavorable terms on attachers. A detailed state-level analysis of several states including Kentucky estimated the economic cost of such hold-ups at millions of dollars per month. 
• These funds also create incentives for utilities to be more proactive and cooperative: if replacement costs are shared, utilities may be more willing to accept timely attachment agreements

Though academic studies of Pole Attachment Funds are still limited, the policy evaluation by Pew and state reporting suggest meaningful early wins: less delay, more pole readiness, and fewer adversarial interactions.

Benefits of pole attachment funds:

1. Accelerated deployment — Reforming permitting, along with shared-cost pole replacement, reduces delays, lowers risk, and helps providers deliver on BEAD’s tight timelines.
2. Long-term savings — Digitized systems, inventory databases, and dispute-resolution mechanisms can continue to benefit new broadband projects long after BEAD funding.
3. Conflict reduction — By subsidizing and streamlining pole work, states are helping to reduce the adversarial dynamics that historically slowed broadband expansion.
4. Reduced default risk — With fewer delays and more predictable costs, BEAD-funded projects are more stable, reducing the likelihood of defaults.

Designing for measurable outcomes

A key advantage of using BEAD non-deployment funds for permitting reform and pole-attachment support is that these investments can be tied to clear, measurable outcomes. This helps states demonstrate that such expenditures directly benefit BEAD-funded deployments. 

For example, states could track permit processing timelines, including reductions in average approval times and compliance with NTIA’s 90-day expectation; pole-attachment readiness, such as the number of poles replaced or made ready in advance of BEAD construction; and dispute-resolution metrics, including the number of attachment disputes resolved through permitting roundtables or avoided altogether.

Deploying broadband with an abundance mindset

If NTIA allows states to use BEAD’s non-deployment funds for permitting reform and ideas like pole attachment funds, it could inject a deeper sense of abundance into the BEAD program. Rather than viewing non-deployment funds as leftovers or backstops, deploying them for systemic improvements focuses on a central challenge that BEAD was designed to address: the need for universal access to high quality broadband networks across the country

Moreover, a decision to permit states to use BEAD funds to address the broadband network deployment delays (permitting, pole attachments, etc.) present in their jurisdiction will also strengthen the partnership between the Federal government, state governments, local jurisdictions, and broadband providers. Ultimately, a strong partnership across key stakeholders will result in faster builds, fewer defaults, and more connected communities.

Connected Communities LLC encourages NTIA’s leadership to adopt the vision Administrator Roth hinted at last month and support states in implementing permitting reforms, including pole-attachment funds. With the right design, this policy could accelerate the pace of deployment and make more certain we are able to deliver on the promise of BEAD.

Bill Maguire is the co-founder of ACE IoT Solutions, LLC and a Principal at Connected Communities, LLC. Before founding Connected Communities, Bill worked for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration from 2009 to 2012. This Expert Opinion is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.