Experts: BEAD Success Hinges on States Supplementing FCC Pole Rules

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30, 2024 – The success of expanding affordable internet access to all Americans hinges on a behind-the-scenes issue that only industry experts tend to discuss: the challenge of connecting broadband infrastructure to utility poles.

During a panel hosted by the Federal Communications Bar Association on Tuesday, telecom experts cautioned that the ambitious goals of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program could be slowed by the complex, costly, and often unpredictable process of attaching communications cables to utility poles.

Without substantial adjustments to address these obstacles, they warned, the nationwide expansion of affordable internet could fall short of Congress’s four-year timeline.

“If we can't solve for how those companies get on to these poles, it's either going to take a lot longer or it’s going to cost a lot more money than anyone has accounted for,” said Alex Minard, vice president & lead legislative counsel at NCTA, underscoring that workforce shortages, permitting delays, and make-ready work create real-world hurdles to deployment. “If that’s what...this country wants, we should all adjust our expectations accordingly.”

Panelists noted that certain states are already leading with creative, localized solutions that may offer a way forward. 

Kentucky’s Public Utility Commission has raised the maximum number of poles that can be included in a single attachment application, allowing providers to process larger requests at once and potentially speeding up broadband deployment. 

Meanwhile, Connecticut has authorized “boxing” techniques—placing attachments on opposite sides of poles—to avoid costly pole replacements and streamline the attachment process. 

New York has taken a collaborative approach, forming working groups between broadband and utility stakeholders to address issues early and keep projects on track.

“This state-level innovation may be the best way forward for the BEAD program’s ambitious targets,” noted Aryeh Fishman, associate general counsel at Edison Electric Institute. “The PUCs are in a very good position to convene those types of discussions among stakeholders. In general, it’s a better model when it comes from the states,” Fishman said. 

While the Federal Communications Commission has established baseline guidelines for pole attachments, states have the flexibility to create policies tailored to their communities’ specific needs. 

This state-led approach can help streamline deployment and, ideally, reduce costs. However, as seen last week in Massachusetts—where ISP GoNetspeed reported that make-ready work can take up to four years—differing state rules can also pose significant challenges for providers, driving up costs and complicating deployment timelines.

“Costs have skyrocketed in recent years. I think we're going to continue to see that with the BEAD funding being deployed. And I think, unfortunately, there's a sense that, because there is this funding in the market, that attachers are well-healed and can afford to pay for pole replacements that ordinarily would be replaced,” said Maria Browne, partner at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. Browne authored the letter to the FCC on behalf of ISP GoNetspeed last week, highlighting the burdensome make-ready costs and irregular delays faced in Massachusetts.

Nirali Patel, senior vice president of policy & advocacy at USTelecom, applauded the FCC's recent make-ready rules, adopted in December.

Patel explained that the FCC’s current rules for large orders — those involving more than 3,000 poles — reflect a flexible approach that USTelecom members find effective. “Our members have found that the best way to expedite a large make-ready order is through advanced planning and coordination of all relevant companies and through negotiated timelines,” she noted.

While some parties have requested that the FCC impose stricter timelines, requiring thousands of poles to be prepared within a 30-day window, Patel cautioned against it. “A one-size-fits-all timeline, in our view, cannot take into account these many site-specific variables,” she said, stressing that negotiated timelines allow providers to address deployment challenges more effectively.