Utilities Reject FCC Bid to Open Streetlights for Broadband

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24, 2025 – Electric utilities are mounting stiff opposition to the Federal Communications Commission’s proposal to treat streetlights the same as utility poles for broadband and wireless deployments.

“The FCC should restrain from attempting to regulate streetlight attachments… This is a legal and practical minefield,” some of the nation’s largest investor-owned utilities, including Southern Company, Duke Energy, American Electric Power, Oncor, Entergy, and Ameren, wrote in comments to the FCC submitted Monday.

The companies argued that streetlights were fundamentally different from distribution poles, citing the Eleventh Circuit’s Southern Company v. FCC decision as confirmation that the FCC’s jurisdiction stops short of light poles.

The dispute stems from a rulemaking the FCC adopted in July that proposed new deadlines and cost controls in an effort to more quickly resolve pole attachment disputes and speed broadband buildouts. The proposal also asked whether the FCC should interpret Section 224 of the Communications Act to cover light poles.

The question has been simmering since 2019, when wireless trade group CTIA first petitioned the FCC to clarify that carriers have a right to access streetlights on the same terms as other poles. In fresh comments Monday, CTIA renewed that push, saying the FCC “has a clear legal basis” to expand Section 224 to cover light poles, and that utilities were “misinterpreting” the decision in Southern Company v. FCC.

Utilities weighing in in force

Twelve more investor-owned utilities joined in opposing the idea initially sparked by CTIA’s petition, arguing the FCC was underestimating the complexity of light pole projects. 

“Should anyone seek to string overhead fiber from streetlight-only pole to streetlight-only pole, they would encounter numerous additional jurisdictional codes, engineering, operational and aesthetic issues associated with loading, clearances, guying, pole locations, proper streetlighting, and citizen oppositions, all of which are compounded by the limitless variety of streetlight-only poles and locations,” a coalition including Arizona Public Service, Evergy, Eversource, FirstEnergy, Hawaiian Electric, Minnesota Power and Xcel Energy, warned in comments to the FCC.

The earlier filing from Southern Company, Duke Energy, and others, struck the same note: “The Commission should take the same approach it took in response to CTIA’s 2019 petition: avoid it.”

The light pole question was just one element of the FCC’s July rulemaking. The rulemaking also proposed fixed timelines for utilities to process large orders of 3,000 to 6,000 poles. 

The FCC proposed allotting utilities 90 days to complete surveys and review applications, 29 days to provide the attacher with a make-ready cost estimates, 120 days for make-ready in the communications space, and 180 days for make-ready in the power space. 

The rulemaking would also require utilities to approve or deny new contractor applications within 30 days to keep projects from being stalled. 

FCC’s cost ceiling on make-ready charges

To address complaints from broadband providers, the FCC floated a cost ceiling on make-ready charges, so utilities could not issue final invoices that dramatically exceed their initial estimates. 

Utilities drew issue with several of those measures. Dominion Energy and Xcel Energy said the fixed timelines for large pole orders were unrealistic, noting that storms, permitting delays, and workforce shortages make rigid deadlines unworkable. 

The 30-day deadline to approve new contractors drew sharp pushback as well, with utilities warning that safety vetting and training for crews working in the electric space cannot be rushed. 

And investor-owned utilities across multiple coalitions opposed the idea of a cost ceiling on make-ready invoices, arguing that field conditions often change and that the FCC should not prevent them from recovering legitimate expenses.

“Dominion Energy and Xcel Energy oppose any proposal to impose a cost ceiling or limit a utility’s ability to true-up its costs,” the pair wrote in more comments filed Monday. “Preventing utilities from submitting invoices for the final cost of the work would violate Section 224 of the Act.”

“The proposed limitations are unwarranted and unfair,” wrote the coalition including Arizona Public Service and Evergy. “These proposals by communications companies appear more like a back door mechanism to have pole owners subsidize communications company deployments even more than pole owners already do.”

Broadband industry providers struck a different tone

Broadband providers that filed comments Monday struck a very different tone. Two leading trade groups urged the FCC to rein in what they described as utilities’ outsize leverage over pole access.

In a filing Monday, ACA Connects, which represents smaller and mid-sized cable and broadband providers, said that “pole owners continue to enjoy outsize leverage in negotiations with attachers, especially smaller attachers with limited scale and resources.” The group added that “utilities have the incentive and ability to impose unreasonable terms and conditions on pole attachments, which can delay and deter broadband deployment.” 

ACA urged the FCC to set limits on cost overruns, prevent pole owners from shifting their responsibilities onto attachers, and rein in excessive application fees.

WTA – Advocates for Rural Broadband, representing more than 360 independent broadband companies, echoed those concerns in a separate filing the same day. The association said “both broadband providers and utilities would benefit from clearer pole attachment ‘rules of the road.’” 

WTA also pressed the commission not to impose a 120-day deadline for providers to install equipment once make-ready work is complete. “WTA urges the Commission to leave the issues of deployment timing post-completion of the make-ready process to the parties rather than imposing by rule an arbitrary deadline,” the group wrote.

Pole attachments – agreements allowing broadband providers to affix wires and equipment to utility poles – have long been a flashpoint in deployment policy. While the FCC sets baseline rules under Section 224 of the Communications Act, many utilities retain significant discretion over application review, fees, and make-ready work. Providers say that discretion often translates into unpredictable charges and long delays.

Broadband Breakfast reporter Akul Saxena contributed reporting.