Broadband Expansion May Hinge on States’ Processes for Attaching Lines to Utility Poles

Overview

Increasing broadband deployment has been a critical component of the United States’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic and a central aspect of the recent wave of funding aimed at modernizing the country’s infrastructure. Two federal programs in particular, the Capital Projects Fund (CPF) and Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD), represent broadband investments of unprecedented scale and ambition.

However, achieving the goal of those federal commitments—connecting every American to highspeed, affordable internet—will require a new degree of public and private sector collaboration. And policymakers and broadband providers already have expressed concern that projects funded by CFP and BEAD will face headwinds and delays because of state and local regulatory processes.

One issue in particular is causing a disproportionate amount of uncertainty: the attaching of lines for broadband—which for purposes of this brief include fiber, the highest-speed option, as well as cable used for cable TV and internet—to utility poles.

Getting a pole attachment permit approved can take months or even years. And depending on the cost of the permit and the condition of existing utility poles, attaching lines to poles can significantly affect a project’s cost and timeline.¹ With up to $52 billion available under BEAD and CPF for broadband deployment projects to connect more than 10 million unserved or underserved homes and businesses, concerns over delays and cost increases as a result of the pole attachment process have come to the fore.² Although the federal funds are significant, they are also time-limited, and absent state action, the delays and cost uncertainty risks undercutting this historic wave of federal investment.

To better understand pole attachment challenges and begin to identify possible policy solutions, The Pew Charitable Trusts conducted individual interviews and a June 2024 roundtable with state, local, and federal policymakers; representatives from pole owners and internet service providers (ISPs); policy experts; and researchers. The interviews revealed that, despite decades of attention from broadband advocates and policymakers, officials in many states do not have access to the data they need to effectively monitor progress and proactively intervene when pole attachment practices threaten deployment of high-speed internet.³

Pew’s interviews identified a set of state-level policy interventions to improve the pole attachment process, with a particular emphasis on the states that regulate poles independently. (The Federal Communications Commission [FCC] adopted new rules in 2023 for pole attachments in states under federal jurisdiction.⁴)

• Increase access to standardized data about pole assets and the costs and timelines of attachment to enable public agencies to make funding and regulatory decisions.
• Create tools to digitize and streamline local permitting systems and build local capacity to handle the anticipated influx of pole attachment requests and related permitting applications.
• Standardize and monitor pole attachment timelines, cost allocations, and other practices and create mechanisms to promptly resolve disputes.
• Ensure that pole-replacement programs and disaster mitigation funds promote increased standardization and transparency of the attachment process.

What is the pole attachment process?

To build a fiber broadband network, wires and other equipment must be placed on utility poles, buried underground, or a mix of both. Therefore, utility poles and how ISPs gain access to them is central to network deployment.

The pole attachment process involves utility pole owners, usually telephone or electric companies or local governments granting broadband providers (i.e., “attachers”) permission to attach wires to poles along the path of a planned broadband construction project. This process has several steps, and the regulations that govern it vary by state and type of pole owner.⁵

Application

Before a new fiber line can be deployed on a pole, the attacher submits an application to the owner who then surveys the requested poles and provides a cost estimate for the proposed deployment. Poles deemed by the owners to be in “good condition” are physically sound and have enough clearance between existing wires to accommodate a new line. Poles determined to be in “poor condition” are not yet at the end of their useful life but would need to be replaced to accommodate a new attachment. And “red-tagged” poles are physically compromised and need to be replaced regardless of any new attachment.

The pole review and application approval process can be lengthy, especially among pole owners with limited administrative staff capacity.

"Make-Ready”

Before attaching a line, a process known as “make-ready” must be completed. This process involves entities that have lines already on the poles—usually cable TV providers, electric utilities, and telephone companies—relocating their equipment to make space for new attachments. In certain cases, especially when poles are in poor condition, the make-ready process can also require costly and time-intensive replacement of the pole.

In most instances, make-ready costs—primarily for labor to rearrange existing attachments, pole replacements, and ancillary work, such as tree trimming—are the responsibility of the new attacher. However, in states where FCC regulations govern pole attachments, owners must pay for replacements of red-tagged poles.

Typically, pole owners complete the make-ready work themselves or allow the various service providers using the pole to select a preapproved subcontractor to move the equipment. Limited availability of qualified subcontractors can cause delays.

Attaching fiber

Once a pole is ready, broadband providers can physically attach the fiber line to the pole and to customers’ homes. Most providers will also “preconfigure” poles to allow for future deployments to new customers, which requires a larger upfront investment but lessens the costs of later network expansions.

State jurisdiction, federal implications

States generally fall into two categories related to pole attachment policy: those that defer to the FCC’s process and rules and those that have their own. As of 2024, 23 states and Washington, D.C., have opted to manage their pole attachment processes independent of the federal rules; they are known as “reverse preemption” states.

In 2023, as required by the BEAD program, every state and territory produced a five-year action plan, charting the state of broadband deployment and digital equity in their communities and outlining a list of potential barriers that could threaten their ability to meet federal funding requirements or undercut efforts to increase internet access, adoption, and affordability.⁶ Virtually identified permitting processes as a possible obstacle, with many narrowing in on pole attachments.⁷ For example, New York noted that the costs and uncertainty around the pole attachment process could affect industry participation, and Virginia emphasized that utilities need to increase their capacity to conduct necessary make-ready work.⁸ Make ready capacity may include internal staff, systems and platforms for managing applications, and third-party contractors.

Among states’ most serious concerns about the pole attachment process is that delays could prevent states from satisfying the federal programs’ timeline requirements. BEAD gives states 365 days to select projects that can reach every unserved location within their state and another four years to complete construction. And under CPF, states have until the end of 2026 to complete construction on all funded projects.

Given these tight timelines, any cost increases incurred after all available funds have been allocated can leave states with little recourse to complete projects that require more funding. And as Virginia Delegate Scott Wyatt explained, “The cost of adding lines to poles is increasing…. Original negotiations and contracts were $30,000 a mile, and now those prices have changed to $90,000 a mile.” ⁹

These upfront costs are related to but separate from another major point of contention between owners and attachers: the cost of ongoing annual rental and maintenance fees paid for each pole attachment. Some owners are regulated under FCC or state rules that define how pole attachment rates are calculated, while others are free to develop their own calculations. Variance in fee structures or a lack of transparency in how fees are calculated can lead to disputes and delays.

The uncertainty around the pole attachment process is also affecting other federal programs. In April 2024, a major ISP returned awards from the FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund because it could not provide service to tens of thousands of locations across Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, and Wisconsin due to “unforeseeable costs, primarily costs associated with the need for extensive utility pole replacements.”¹⁰ (Advocates for pole owners argued that the provider should have anticipated and accounted for these costs in its proposal.¹¹)

This dispute reflects the long, divisive history of the pole attachment process. On one side, prospective attachers routinely criticize the process as a barrier to broadband deployment that delays construction projects and improperly transfers costs that should accrue to pole owners— such as for maintenance and replacement of poles—to those seeking attachments.¹² On the other side, owners argue that facilitating attachments can necessitate costly changes, such as reorganizing the existing arrangement of wires, increasing the height of the pole, or outright replacing the pole, and that the attachers should be responsible for those costs.¹³

Although both perspectives have some merit—and despite recent policy efforts, including the adoption of new rules by the FCC and passage of legislation in some states, such as Maine and West Virginia—the continued uncertainty over the pole attachment process, as reflected in states’ five-year action plans, underscores how much work remains to be done.¹⁴ CPF and BEAD provide states with an opportunity to implement pragmatic solutions and deliver a more transparent process for the long term.

Solutions to pole attachment challenges

Several critical components of the process could be improved at the state level to create more standardization and transparency to better inform broadband offices’ funding deployment decisions and to finally address the long-standing concern that pole attachments are a barrier to broadband availability.

The FCC’s latest actions on pole attachments aimed to “expedite the resolution of pole attachment disputes that impede or delay broadband deployment” can serve as a reference point for states exercising their own authority over poles. The agency’s efforts included creation of a Rapid Broadband Assessment Team to review and mediate pole attachment disputes and updates to the definition of a red-tagged pole.¹⁵ Further, the FCC established a new standard timeline for owners and attachers to reach agreement on terms and conduct needed work, which scales depending on the number of poles affected.¹⁶

The Pew Charitable Trusts

Previous FCC changes could also guide state action. In 2018, the FCC sought to reduce the cost and delays associated with make-ready work on a single pole with its “one-touch-make-ready” (OTMR) policy.¹⁷ The OTMR process allows the attacher to hire an approved contractor to relocate all existing communications-related attachments at once rather than relying on each provider to relocate its equipment separately. Under OTMR rules, once the work is completed, the providers whose lines were moved have a set period of time to inspect the work.

Such policies and deadlines can help projects stay on time and on budget while allowing all parties to ensure that the work meets all necessary safety standards. However, the success of this approach relies on attachers and owners availing themselves of it, the ease and speed of approving qualified contractors, and those contractors’ ability to meet the demand.

For the 23 states and Washington, D.C., that manage pole attachments independently of the FCC, state public utilities commissions (PUCs) or their equivalent agencies serve as the adjudicating body for disputes.¹⁸ So although state broadband offices are tasked with implementing federal broadband funds, the capacity and operating authority of each state’s PUC is critical for navigating pole attachment issues.

In some states, PUCs are authorized only to engage in pole attachment oversight during individual disputes between a pole owner and attacher, while in others, the commissions are directly involved in broadband-related issues, setting guardrails and proactively monitoring progress. For example, Maine’s PUC began reforming the state’s broadband permitting processes in 2015, and together with the state Legislature, has continued to make updates to the pole attachment process, including adopting OTMR policies and revising the terms and conditions for reasonable costs.¹⁹

But beyond case-by-case solutions, state officials would need access to basic information on pole conditions and attachment agreements in order to more broadly monitor progress and fix bottlenecks in the pole attachment process. California’s PUC, for instance, identified the significant problems associated with inadequate data after pole-related failures caused a series of wildfires and other incidents between 2007 and 2015, noting that “the failure to adopt and enforce a comprehensive and transparent data management system for the many communication attachments and conduit will leave California residents susceptible to property damage, personal injury, and potential loss of life….”²⁰

To address the gap in information available to public officials to help them monitor pole attachments and create a more predictable, transparent, and accountable process for owners and attachers, several state PUCs have undertaken new initiatives to improve data collection or create standardized asset systems:

• The New York Public Service Commission adopted new rules in July 2024 requiring pole owners to file annual reports, beginning in 2025, on the pole attachment requests they receive and complete, including the number of poles, new attachments, and pole replacements, along with the time and charges to complete relevant make-ready work.²¹
• In 2023, the Maine PUC updated its rules to require the state’s three large pole owners to report information on shared utility poles in a central database. Owners must submit pole and attachment data to the database, and existing and prospective attaching entities must use it to submit requests and report on make-ready work.²²
• The California PUC in 2021 created data reporting standards for shared inventories of poles and attachments. In its statement, the commission observed, “Given the sheer number of utility poles, it is difficult for the Commission, as well as for the utilities themselves, to achieve the goal of adequate oversight over the poles without adequate management and sharing of pole data.” The PUC intended the new inventory to help address this challenge by standardizing reporting on the condition of the state’s estimated 5 million poles, but owners and attachers have expressed concern over the amount of data required and the time and expense necessary to gather the information.²³
• In Connecticut, pole owners use a shared asset management and communications system to track replacements and attachment applications. Although the system does not yet include all poles in the state, in July 2022, the Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority required pole owners to report on the condition of any pole for which they receive a complaint about its structural integrity and give state officials access to the system.²⁴
• In 2012, the Utah Public Service Commission adopted an electronic system to enable pole owners to process attachment requests. Entities seeking to attach to a pole must use the system to submit their applications, work orders, and other pole-related information.²⁵
• To address coordination and capacity challenges related to the anticipated spike in broadband-related permitting, West Virginia’s broadband office plans to take two key steps: creating a “Permits and Licensing Coordination Committee,” with members from the state’s Division of Highways, Public Service Commission, Department of Environmental Protection, and Historic Preservation Office, along with representatives of local governments, pole owners, and ISPs receiving BEAD grants, and dedicating a portion of its BEAD funding for temporary or contracted staff capacity at each of those state agencies.²⁶ Similarly, South Carolina will use some of its BEAD funding to support the additional workload across relevant permitting agencies.²⁷

Fortunately for these and other states hoping to address pole attachment issues, BEAD funding can be used for certain permitting expenses. BEAD requires grant applicants to provide a minimum of 25% of the project’s cost, and ISPs can opt to waive pole attachment costs as an in-kind match toward that obligation, which also reduces the capital those providers would need for their applications.

States will need to identify and implement steps to reduce the costs of and barriers to broadband deployment of federal funds, but they have limited time to do so before BEAD projects are finalized. Key policy reforms can help states meet the tight timelines and be ready to deploy their federal allocations and ensure that all of their unserved and underserved communities receive the highspeed internet service they urgently need.

State policy recommendations

These recommendations, developed through Pew’s interviews with local, state, and federal policymakers, broadband industry stakeholders, and key policy experts, can help address several of the persistent challenges in the pole attachment process. However, each is also worth considering within the context of deployments that are tied to federal funding programs. For example, in April 2024, the Kentucky General Assembly directed the Kentucky Public Service Commission to set emergency pole attachment rules that would advance the build-out of broadband service in unserved or underserved areas funded through BEAD and the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.²⁸ The new rules include timelines for responding to attachment requests, OTMR allowances, and a path for approving qualified contractors. Although the pole attachments process warrants holistic reform, these recommendations can help states target policy change specifically for CPF and BEAD projects.

Increase data collection and create centralized asset inventories

The lack of available and usable data has hindered efforts by public officials throughout the country to monitor pole attachment work and make process improvements when necessary. Routinely gathering and incorporating relevant data on pole attachments into a standardized online system can help improve the accuracy of cost and time estimates for state and federally funded broadband deployments, allow for more targeted efforts to replace infrastructure that is at risk of failing during a disaster, and increase the evidence base available to public officials to help them adjudicate disputes between owners and attachers.

For instance, in its five-year action plan, Alaska noted that in the absence of “a centralized repository or map of State assets and infrastructure. … Conducting a comprehensive statewide inventory of existing public hard assets like utility poles, rights-of-ways, etc., has been very challenging and is an ongoing effort.”²⁹

Creating an accurate inventory requires owners and attachers to first submit their existing data on poles and attached equipment. And to be useful, these parties must continue to regularly update the information on the location, age, condition, existing attachments, and available space, as well as any maintenance that has been performed, for each pole. Additionally, state PUCs should be collecting a detailed accounting of annual pole attachment costs to inform policymaking and dispute mediation and interceding if costs have exceeded a reasonable level.

The California, Connecticut, Maine, New York, and Utah examples detailed earlier in this brief offer potential strategies for collecting relevant data or creating standardized platforms. Given the urgency of federal funding and the time required to gather the necessary information, states should consider prioritizing the collection of the most essential existing data necessary to accurately estimate costs in BEAD-eligible locations. And states may choose to designate a portion of their allowed administrative expenses under BEAD to cover costs for collecting and using this data.

Digitize permitting systems, build local capacity, and eliminate redundancies

Local governments and smaller utilities that own and operate poles often use their own application systems and forms to manage attachment requests. If a broadband project spans multiple jurisdictions, the attacher may need to provide different information in different formats to each jurisdiction, creating unnecessary delays.

One potential solution is for states to create a sample online permitting process or open-source application that these small pole owners and local governments can adopt. Uniform platforms would have the added benefit of supporting consistent statewide data collection efforts.

Centralized systems already exist for other permitting processes—such as the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency’s permit tracking system and the Michigan Infrastructure Office’s projects dashboard—and they help users to understand the technical requirements of construction and provide reliable information to the public.³⁰

However, adopting online permitting platforms does come with costs to state and local governments. States can anticipate and help manage the administrative costs of streamlining permitting in preparation for BEAD funding by offering technical assistance to communities. Several state broadband offices, including those in Alabama, California, and Maine, operate technical assistance programs that use state and federal resources to provide operational support and funding for needs assessments, local planning activities, administrative costs, and more.³¹

For example, in 2022 the California PUC awarded $50 million to 106 local agencies to cover the costs of planning for broadband deployment.³² Several other states have launched “Broadband Ready Community” programs, which focus on supporting communities that voluntarily enacted reforms, such as adopting online permitting, committing to respond to applicants within a specific time frame, or designating a single point of contact for permit applications and questions.³³

In addition, building local government staff capacity to process and manage the permitting process can also help to reduce delays. The city of Mesa, Arizona, for instance, created a reimbursement model that allows service providers to pay a fee to cover the cost of hiring contractors to review requested permits.³⁴ This has enabled the city to adjust its staff capacity during spikes in permitting demand and presents an option for other local governments struggling with an imbalance between internal capacity and the volume of requested permits.

Finally, the process for obtaining permits to access rights of way around a utility pole—which is related to but separate from the attachment process—can also be a barrier to broadband deployment. Some states administer separate right of way agreements for telecommunications and electric utilities in the same area, which may require utilities to apply for duplicative permits when accessing the same right of way for different services (electricity, broadband, etc.), adding time and cost.

States can resolve this problem by enacting multipurpose rights of way statutes that grant telecommunications and other public utilities access to public rights of way for broadband deployment under existing agreements. These types of permitting reforms are available to all states, regardless of how their poles are regulated. For example, in 2023, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt (R) signed House Bill 1965, allowing existing agreements that authorize electric utilities to access land (i.e., easements) or attach a power line to a pole to be used for the installation of broadband service.³⁵ At least 22 other states have passed similar bills in recent years.³⁶

The Pew Charitable Trusts

Standardize policies and create rapid-response teams to resolve disputes

Although some of the states that regulate pole attachments themselves have enacted OTMR policies similar to the FCC’s, not all have adopted this streamlining strategy. Massachusetts, for example, said in its five-year action plan that it was the only New England state without an OTMR policy and that “Massachusetts’s current pole attachment process is less streamlined than those of some other states, and may pose challenges for expanding broadband during the BEAD deployment.”³⁷ The plan also noted that pending legislation to adopt an OTMR standard could reduce network construction costs and delays.³⁸

States seeking to set an OTMR policy can either mirror the FCC’s rules or create their own. But however they are developed, these policies should be continually evaluated and strengthened, including by increasing transparency around contractor approvals, standardizing the processes across pole owners, and creating a consistent, detailed statewide accounting of attachment timelines and costs.

Additionally, several states have instituted timeline requirements and allocations of cost responsibilities for make-ready work to reduce confusion and avoid disputes. In December 2022, Connecticut adopted a Single Visit Transfer Pilot Program to address an issue related to the removal of duplicative poles, but critically, the program also collected data on the status of each affected pole and on the cause of any delays related to the work.³⁹ The state judged the program to be a success, facilitating accurate documentation of all pole transfer data.⁴⁰ The pilot also identified limitations of the database platform the state used, which would need to be addressed to effectively scale the program.

Further, one frequent complaint among new attachers is that, during the make-ready work, they must spend extra time and funds to fix other providers’ existing wire connections that have fallen out of compliance with safety standards. Establishing rules for who should bear the cost for updating out-of-compliance wires during the OTMR process could help prevent these cost increases and delays for attachers. For example, the Louisiana Public Service Commission in 2014 clarified that the cost of fixing preexisting safety violations found during a new attachment is the responsibility of the entity that owns the out-of-compliance line.⁴¹ In the instance that the violating attacher cannot be identified, the costs of rearranging the attachments will be shared among the pole owner and all the attachers using the pole.

Similarly, the Oregon Legislature in 1999 required pole owners and attachers to establish the Oregon Joint Use Association to resolve disputes—through an elected board with representatives from owners, attachers, and government—and advise the Oregon PUC.⁴² Since then, Oregon has updated its rules to allow pole owners to impose sanctions on attachers for attachments that are out of compliance with safety standards and to resolve violations found during post-construction inspections⁴³

Even states that defer to the FCC’s authority can enact make-ready-related policies to help standardize their processes. For example, Virginia passed two reforms in its 2024 legislative session. House Bill 800 requires that public utilities and telecommunications service providers establish “mutually agreeable” contracts for pole attachments, that public utilities respond to requests within 75 days, and that service providers receiving federal funds coordinate with utilities within 30 days of the award.⁴⁴ Further, the bill would require utilities to enter into negotiations with third-party contractors to perform work when attachment requests exceed certain thresholds. Additionally, the commonwealth allocated $30 million from the American Rescue Plan Act’s State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to help pay for make-ready work for broadband projects.⁴⁵

Finally, states should consider ways to better coordinate between their broadband office and PUC, such as by creating a rapid-response team to resolve disputes on BEAD-funded projects. In 2002, the Maine PUC created its Rapid Response Process to settle conflicts between competing carriers, including pole attachment complaints. Commission staff are authorized to mediate complaints, and participating utilities and service providers are bound by the commission’s decisions. And as previously discussed, the FCC created its own Rapid Broadband Assessment Team in 2024. These dedicated bodies may be particularly impactful in helping states meet BEAD’s four-year construction timeline.⁴⁶

Leverage pole replacement programs and disaster mitigation funds

Because of the high cost of replacing poles, unexpected replacements can derail broadband deployment plans. To mitigate this, several states have taken steps to subsidize pole replacements. North Carolina’s Broadband Pole Replacement Program reimburses broadband providers for eligible pole replacement costs, using $100 million from the American Rescue Plan Act.⁴⁷ Similarly, Ohio’s Broadband Pole Replacement and Undergrounding Program has $50 million in state funding to support grants to qualifying providers for pole replacements, installation of equipment between two poles, and projects to relocate existing aerial utility equipment underground.⁴⁸ Similar programs are in varying stages of development in Kentucky and Texas.⁴⁹ Such subsidies can be useful for alleviating cost problems in the pole attachment process, but some experts have questioned whether they are the best use of limited state and federal funds and whether they risk discouraging owners from voluntarily replacing failing poles.⁵⁰

States that operate pole replacement funding programs or are considering doing so should also consider how those funds could be leveraged to increase the standardization and transparency of the pole attachment process. For instance, states could condition pole replacement funds on participation in a statewide electronic asset inventory or the adoption of one-touch-make-ready policies. Further, although one-time appropriations may fix existing problems, creating an ongoing funding source to respond to future replacement needs by collecting fees from owners and attachers would create a more sustainable program and allow the state to invest in standardized systems to benefit all parties.

Further, poles that are insufficiently resilient, overloaded, or past their useful life represent a significant safety risk in terms of customers and responders losing access to essential utility services during an event and of directly causing wildfires. States have opportunities to leverage federal funding for energy grid modernization to create more disaster-resilient infrastructure for pole upgrades.⁵¹ The U.S. Department of Energy administers a $10.5 billion Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships Program to modernize and increase the resilience of the nation’s electric infrastructure, including utility pole management. Separately, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Assistance Grants, Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, and Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund Program all can be used to pay for some pole improvements or replacements.⁵² Resiliency efforts related to utility infrastructure, including strengthening existing poles and undergrounding wires, should be coordinated with broadband deployment efforts.

Conclusion

The historic investments under the American Rescue Plan Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provide state broadband offices with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address one of the key drivers of the digital divide by funding the deployment of new network infrastructure to every unserved and underserved household and business in the country. The success of these investments will depend on each state broadband offices’ capacity to accurately predict the cost and timelines for each funded project, mitigate predictable barriers, and manage challenges as they occur.

Before the bulk of these funds are awarded, state policymakers can take steps to address the frequent sources of delays and cost increases that occur during the permitting process and to create a more predictable and efficient policy landscape for broadband deployment. Although pole attachments are just one of many permitting requirements for a broadband project, they represent a significant determinant of projects’ deployment timelines and budgets. Whether a state manages the pole attachment process independently or defers to the FCC’s authority, the recommendations in this issue brief provide policy reforms that can help create a more transparent, standardized, and predictable attachment process.

External reviewers

This brief benefited from the insights and expertise of external reviewers Kristen Corra, policy counsel, Schools, Health, and Libraries Broadband Coalition, and Sherry Lichtenberg, senior manager, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Although they have reviewed the draft, neither they nor their organizations necessarily endorse its findings or conclusions.

Acknowledgments

This brief was researched and written by Pew staff members Jake Varn and Sarah Ali. The team thanks Doug Dawson, Peggy Schaffer, and Jeff Sural for their help with the initial research. The team also thanks Pew colleagues Jacquelyn Bianchini, Jennifer V. Doctors, Shamyra Edmonds, Benny Martinez, Tricia Olszewski, and Allie Tripp for providing important communications, creative, and editorial support for this work.

Endnotes

1. Federal Communications Commission, “Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,” https://transition.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf.
2. “National Broadband Map,” Federal Communications Commission, https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/.
3. John Windhausen, “Enough Talk About Pole Attachments—It’s Time for Action!” Broadband Breakfast, July 29, 2024, https://broadbandbreakfast.com/enough-talk-about-pole-attachments-its-time-for-action/.
4. Fourth Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23-109A1, Federal Communications Commission, 2023, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-109A1.pdf.
5. Either the FCC or the state where an installation occurs regulates the deployment of lines on poles and sets the required timelines and allowable costs. However, poles owned by electric cooperatives or municipalities are exempt from the rules in FCC-regulated states and in some states that exercise their own authority over poles. In these instances, the attacher must negotiate directly with the pole owner.
6. “States Work to Address Barriers to Broadband Expansion,” Jake Varn, The Pew Charitable Trusts, April 3, 2024, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/04/03/states-work-to-address-barriers-to-broadband-expansion.
7. “States Work to Address Barriers to Broadband Expansion,” Jake Varn, The Pew Charitable Trusts.
8. New York State ConnectALL, “Five-Year Action Plan,” ConnectALL, https://broadband.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2023/09/nys-bead-5-year-action-plan.pdf. Commonwealth of Virginia Office of Broadband, “Commonwealth Connect: Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program Five-Year Plan,” Viriginia Department of Housing and Community Development, 2023, https://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/sites/default/files/Docx/vati/virginia-bead-5-year-plan.pdf.
9. Tad Dickens, “Virginia Is Trying to Get Broadband to 162,000 Locations Without It. Old Utility Poles May Get in the Way,” Cardinal News, https://cardinalnews.org/2024/01/03/as-broadband-funding-flows-expansion-projects-hit-a-low-tech-snag-utility-poles/.
10. Luke C. Platzer, Counsel, Jenner & Block LLP, Letter to Trent Harkrader, Chief, Wireline Compeition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 05/31/2024, https://www.neca.org/docs/default-source/wwpdf/public/6324charter.pdf. Luke C. Platzer, Letter. Elizabeth Andrion, Senior Vice President, Charter Communications, Letter to Trent Harkrader, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10425099581567/1.
11. Brian M. O’Hara, Senior Director Regulatory Issues, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Comments to The Federal Communications Commission, https://www.cooperative.com/programs-services/government-relations/regulatory-issues/documents/nreca%20comments%20on%20fcc%20pole%20replacement%20cost%20fnprm.(06.27.2022).final.pdf.
12. Edward Lopez and Patricia Kravtin, “Advancing Pole Attachment Policies to Accelerate National Broadband Buildout,” Connect the Future, 2021, https://connectthefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Advancing-Pole-Attachment-Policies-To-Accelerate-National-Broadband-Buildout-National-Report.pdf.
13. “Myth Vs. Fact: Broadband Pole Attachments,” National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, April 2022, https://www.cooperative.com/programs-services/government-relations/regulatory-issues/Documents/Myth.v.Reality.Pole.Attachment.Replacement.04.07.2022.FINAL.pdf.
14. Maine Legislature, An Act to Establish Municipal Access to Utility Poles Located in Municipal Rights-of-Way, Public Law 127 (2019), https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/bills_129th/chapters/PUBLIC127.asp. West Virginia Legislature, Small Wireless Facilities Deployment Act, Senate Bill 3 (2019), https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=SB3%20SUB1.htm&yr=2019&sesstype=RS&i=3.
15. Federal Communications Commission, “Enforcement Bureau and Wireline Competition Bureau Announce Launch of Rapid Broadband Assessment Team to Speed Resolution of Broadband-Related Pole Attachment Disputes,” news release, July 25, 2024, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-719A1.pdf.
16. Pole Attachment Complaint Procedures, 47, Federal Communications Commission, 2025, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subpart-J?toc=1.
17. Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling Chapter Iii Section a Part 1: New Otmr-Based Pole Attachment Process, Federal Communications Commission, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-111A1.pdf.
18. Federal Communications Commission, “States That Have Certified That They Regulate Pole Attachments,” news release, June 13, 2022, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-630A1_Rcd.pdf.
19. Chapter 880: Attachments to Joint-Use Utility Poles, Determination and Allocation of Costs, Procedure, 65-407-880, State of Maine Public Utilities Commission, 2023, https://www.maine.gov/mpuc/sites/maine.gov.mpuc/files/inline-files/Ch%20880%20Order%20Adopting%20and%20Dated%20Rule_1.pdf. “Pole Attachments in Maine,” Maine Public Utilities Commission, https://www.maine.gov/mpuc/regulated-utilities/telecom/programs/pole-attachment.
20. Order Instituting Investigation Into the Creation of a Shared Database or Statewide Census of Utility Poles and Conduit in California, 21-10-019, State of California Public Utilities Commission, 2021, https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M418/K659/418659905.PDF.
21. Order Adopting Modifications to the 2004 Policy Statement on Pole Attachments and Related Proceedings, 22-M-0101, State of New York Public Service Commission, 2024, https://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=22-M-0101&CaseSearch=Search.
22. Amendments to Chapter 880 of the Commission’s Rules - Attachments to Joint Use Utility Poles; Determination and Allocation of Costs; Procedure, 2023-00058, State of Maine Public Utilities Commission, 2023, https://mpuc-cms.maine.gov/CQM.Public.WebUI/Common/ViewDoc.aspx?DocRefId=%7b52C7FC6A-4B69-44B2-B62D-3937988B0948%7d&DocExt=pdf&DocName=%7b52C7FC6A-4B69-44B2-B62D-3937988B0948%7d.pdf.
23. Order Instituting Investigation Into the Creation of a Shared Database or Statewide Census of Utility Poles, State of California Public Utilities Commission.
24. State of Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, “Pura Investigation into Complaint Regarding Unsafe Utility Poles in Avon and Simsbury,” 2022, https://www.dpuc.state.ct.us/dockcurr.nsf/8e6fc37a54110e3e852576190052b64d/585f6dd7333020e1852588770054058d/$FILE/211105-070622.pdf.
25. Inc. Alden Systems, “Alden’s Notify™ Approved by Utah Psc as State’s Electronic Pole Notification System (Ens),” https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aldens-notify-approved-by-utah-psc-as-states-electronic-pole-notification-system-ens-151593785.html.
26. West Virginia Department of Economic Development Broadband Office, “State of West Virginia Bead Initial Proposal Volume 2,” 2024, https://broadband.wv.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/West-Virginia-Initial-Proposal-Volume-2-15Mar2024-Final.pdf.
27. South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff, “South Carolina BEAD Initial Proposal Volume 2,” South Carolina Office of Regulatory Staff, 2024, https://ors.sc.gov/sites/scors/files/Documents/Broadband/BEAD/Intake%20Summary-Volume%202-08-20-2024%2011-30-EXECUTIVE%20OFFICE%20OF%20THE%20STATE%20OF%20SOUTH%20C-GRN-000156.pdf.
28. State of Kentucky General Assembly, Access and Attachments to Utility Poles and Facilities, SJR 175 (2024), https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/kar/titles/807/005/015/. Statement of Emergency, 807 KAR 5:015E, State of Kentucky Public Service Commission, 2024, https://psc.ky.gov/agencies/psc/Proposed%20Amendments/05312024/807%20KAR%205015E%20Access%20and%20attachments%20to%20utility%20poles%20and%20facilities.pdf.
29. State of Alaska Broadband Office, “Five-Year Action Plan,” Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/Portals/19/pub/Alaska%E2%80%99s-BEAD-Five-Year-Action-Plan.pdf.
30. “Permitting Overview,” Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, https://epa.illinois.gov/topics/forms/permitting.html. “Project Dashboard,” State of Michigan Infrastructure Office, https://somgovweb.state.mi.us/miinfraprojects/.
31. “Alabama Community Broadband Technical Assistance Program,” Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, https://adeca.alabama.gov/alabama-community-broadband-technical-assistance-program/. “Get Ready: Community Support Program,” Maine Connectivity Authority, https://www.maineconnectivity.org/get-ready-community-support.
32. State of California Public Utilities Commission, “Local Agency Technical Assistance (Lata) Awards,” https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/communications-division/webposting-with-awarded-021224-(4).pdf.
33. “How 5 States Are Creating Broadband-Ready Communities,” Jake Varn, The Pew Charitable Trusts, https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2023/04/broadband-ready-communities-ta-memo-pdf.pdf.
34. Drew Garner, “Permitting Success: Closing the Digital Divide Through Local Broadband Permitting,” Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, 2024, https://www.benton.org/publications/permitting-success.
35. State of Oklahoma State Legislature, An Act Relating to Easements, HB 1965 (2023), http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB%201965&Session=2300.
36. Thomas B. Magee and Casey Lide, “Using Electric Utility Easements for Broadband,” Beyond Telecom Law Blog, July 6, 2022, https://www.beyondtelecomlawblog.com/using-electric-utility-easements-for-broadband/.
37. Massachusetts Broadband Institute, “Commonwealth of Massachusetts Five-Year Action Plan,” Massachusetts Broadband Institute, 2023, https://broadband.masstech.org/sites/default/files/2024-05/BEAD%20Five%20Year%20Action%20Plan%20%28Revised%20-%20October%206%2C%202023%29.pdf.
38. General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, An Act to Establish Standards for the Pole Attachment Process to Facilitate the Construction of Broadband Networks, S.2133 (2024), https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/S2133.
39. State of Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA), “2023 Annual Report - Section 7: Telecommunications and Utility Poles,” 2023, https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/pura/2023-annual-report---section-7-telcomm-and-poles.pdf.
40. State of Connecticut Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, “Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (Pura) 2023 Annual Report,” 2023, https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/pura/2023-annual-report---section-7-telcomm-and-poles.pdf.
41. Louisiana Public Service Commission, Ex Parte. In re: Review of the General Order Dated March 12, 1999 (Pole Attachments). R-26968, State of Louisiana Public Service Commission, 2014, https://lpscpubvalence.lpsc.louisiana.gov/portal/PSC/ViewFile?fileId=d75lySfQpZU%3d.
42. Division 28: Pole and Conduit Attachments, 860-028, State of Oregon Public Utility Commission, https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=4042.
43. Division 28, State of Oregon Public Utility Commission.
44. Virginia General Assembly, House Bill 800: An Act to Amend and Reenact § 56-466.1 of the Code of Virginia, Relating to Public Service Companies; Pole Attachments; Cable Television Systems and Telecommunications Service Providers., HB 800 (2024), https://legacylis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+HB800. Virginia General Assembly, Senate Bill 713: An Act to Amend and Reenact § 56-466.1 of the Code of Virginia, Relating to Public Service Companies; Pole Attachments; Cable Television Systems and Telecommunications Service Providers., SB 713 (2024), https://legacylis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+SB713.
45. Virginia General Assembly, Budget Bill, HB 30 (2024), https://legacylis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+sum+HB30.
46. “Rapid Response Process,” State of Maine Public Utilities Commission, https://www.maine.gov/mpuc/regulated-utilities/telecom/approved-companies/rapid-response.
47. “Broadband Pole Replacement Program,” North Carolina Division of Broadband and Digital Opportunity, North Carolina Department of Information Technology, https://www.ncbroadband.gov/polereplacement.
48. “Broadband Pole Replacement and Undergrounding Program,” State of Ohio Department of Development, https://broadband.ohio.gov/grant-opportunities/pole-replacement/pole-replacement.
49. Office of the Governor of Kentucky, “Gov. Beshear Announces Funding to Help Deliver High-Speed Internet to Unserved Areas,” news release, Aug. 31, 2022, https://www.kentucky.gov/Pages/Activity-stream.aspx?n=GovernorBeshear&prId=1482. “Funding Programs: Texas Broadband Development Office,” Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, https://comptroller.texas.gov/programs/broadband/funding/.
50. USTelecom, “Pole Replacements—a Reasonable Cost of Doing Business,” U.S. Telecom, Dec. 6, 2023, https://ustelecom.org/pole-replacements-issuebrief/.
51. Lena Foster, “AT&T Customers Experiencing Phone Issues around Louisiana Due to Hurricane Beryl,” KLFY News 10, July 10, 2024, https://www.klfy.com/louisiana/att-customers-experiencing-phone-issues-around-louisiana-due-to-hurricane-beryl/.Federal Communications Commission, “Communications Status Report for Areas Impacted by Hurricane Beryl,” news release, July 9, 2024, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-403805A1.pdf. Michael E. Webber, “The Electric Grid Is a Wildfire Hazard. It Doesn’t Have to Be,” The New York Times, Aug. 17, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/17/opinion/electric-grid-wildfires-outages.html. Office of the Governor of Hawaii, “Gov. Green Announces $4 Billion Global Settlement in Principle to Resolve Maui Wildfire Lawsuits,” https://governor.hawaii.gov/newsroom/office-of-the-governor-news-release-gov-green-announces-4-billion-global-settlement-in-principle-to-resolve-maui-wildfire-lawsuits/. “New Federal Funding Accelerates America’s Clean Energy Future,” Brian Watts and Laura Lightbody, The Pew Charitable Trusts, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/04/21/new-federal-funding-accelerates-americas-clean-energy-future.
52. Congressional Research Service, “Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance,” 2024, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11187.