Johannes Maassen: After September 4, Pole Accuracy Becomes BEAD's Real Test

With the September 4 “Benefit of the Bargain” deadline behind us, states and territories are now shifting from proposals to execution. The real test of BEAD’s billions begins: can projects move from paper to poles without preventable delays?

As the head of a national team specializing in pole load analysis, permitting, and make-ready engineering, I see one truth across all technologies and geographies: pole accuracy will determine whether BEAD timelines hold or slip.

A new phase, same chokepoint

BEAD gave states flexibility to weigh fiber, fixed wireless, or even satellite solutions. Low Earth Orbit satellites (LEO), of course, don’t require poles, but so far, their speed and reliability have not been proven at the scale needed to anchor state broadband strategies. For most policymakers, LEO is a supplement, not the backbone.

By contrast, terrestrial fiber deployments depend on poles at nearly every stage where buried fiber is either too costly or not a viable option. Even fixed wireless requires pole-mounted fiber backhaul to make service feasible. In short, poles remain the common denominator in BEAD’s most durable solutions.

And poles are where projects stumble. Utilities impose different rules, some require replacements at 100% capacity, others at 90% or even 80%. Certain regions apply stricter standards, like California’s General Order 95, while elsewhere National Electrical Safety Code thresholds apply. Each utility is its own kingdom.

Add to this a nationwide shortage of permitting staff, and one rejection can reset the clock by weeks. Operators have been forced to resubmit entire applications because a single data point was missing or because old GIS files didn’t match field conditions. These aren’t minor corrections; they’re schedule-killers.

Accuracy over speed

With BEAD timelines compressed, it’s tempting to chase speed above all else. But speed without accuracy guarantees rejections, and rejections are what truly slow projects down.

The fastest way through permitting is precision at the start. Every application that goes in right the first time eliminates weeks of costly rework.

We’ve seen this play out on the ground. In one case, an operator relied on outdated GIS maps and nearly budgeted for a pole replacement that wasn’t needed. By conducting early field verification, they avoided $10,000 mistakes — at one-tenth the expected cost. In another, rushed submissions left critical data missing, forcing applications back into review and setting crews behind by weeks. These are preventable setbacks, but only if accuracy is treated as the priority.

That requires detailed fielding, consistent data collection, and clear communication across stakeholders. In one project, my team gave a utility three weeks’ advance notice of a large batch of pole applications. That small step of coordination paid off in faster approvals and smoother scheduling. Conversely, when communication breaks down between contractors, engineering firms, and permitting offices, small errors multiply into major bottlenecks.

Process and precision

Attachment rules vary widely, not just from state to state but utility to utility. Inconsistent processes mean operators can’t assume what worked in one jurisdiction will translate to another. Without greater emphasis on front-end accuracy, BEAD deployments risk turning into BEAD delays.

Technology and process discipline can help keep projects on track:

• Digital field data: Geospatial photos and calibrated tools replace clipboards and tape measures, giving utilities confidence without extra site visits.
• Make-ready foresight: Identifying clearance and attachment conflicts upfront prevents mid-build surprises.
• Quality control and training: Ensuring every fielder captures consistent data reduces costly “go-backs.”
• Utility collaboration: Even a simple heads-up before a large submittal allows understaffed power companies to prepare, smoothing approvals.

We’ve scaled projects from thousands to tens of thousands of poles using these methods, saving operators millions while keeping schedules intact.

The real bargain

The phrase “benefit of the bargain” suggests that the lowest-cost option wins. But the real bargain is one that combines affordability with durability. Cutting corners in permitting may look like savings today, but it will cost far more tomorrow in resubmissions, rework, and lost time.

If BEAD is to deliver on its promise, pole attachments can’t be treated as an afterthought. They are the foundation of the build.

As you pivot from awards to execution, recognize that pole accuracy is not just a technical detail, it’s the hinge on which every timeline swings. Bring in partners who live and breathe this work, because the stakes are too high to gamble on inexperience.

The question after September 4 isn’t which technology a state chose. It’s whether those choices can reach real communities without preventable setbacks. BEAD’s success will be measured not by proposals on paper, but by connections on poles.

Johannes Maassen is president of Collaborative Synergy, a national leader in pole load analysis, make-ready engineering, and permitting services that support broadband expansion across the United States. His team has engineered and processed tens of thousands of poles annually, helping utilities, construction, and internet service providers accelerate deployment while reducing costs and delays. This piece 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.