Category Archives: Regulation – What is it Good For?

Disaster Regulatory Policy

There has been a lot of talk over the last year at the state and national level about lowering the regulatory and paperwork barriers for ISPs building rural networks funded by BEAD grants. I don’t know any rural ISP that doesn’t think this is a good idea. Any efforts that can simplify processes like permitting, pole attachments, and environmental studies would be a big benefit for a rural construction effort.

There is another situation that probably warrants easier and simpler paperwork. Many communities have disaster and emergency plans that describe ways to ensure public safety and that government functions after a natural disaster. I think these plans should include ways to make it easier to restore electric utilities and communications networks after a disaster.

This topic came to mind as I am watching the stakeholders in Western North Carolina work to identify issues that hindered recovery and repair efforts after the region was devastated by Hurricane Helene. The damage from Helene was the worst imaginable for the communications networks. Power went down across the region. A lot of cell towers were knocked out of service. Over 1,700 miles of fiber were destroyed, including the backbone fiber paths that brought broadband to and from the area. Some roads were washed away by flooding, while many other roads were blocked by downed trees and landslides. Huge numbers of utility poles were knocked down or badly damaged.

As you might imagine, the local government’s ability to conduct anything resembling business as usual disappeared with the storm. Government communications were out like everybody else, and the local government properly turned its attention to public safety and getting people out of harm’s way.

Normal processes that would work after a less extreme disaster were not sufficient after this major disaster. For example, nobody at the local level was prepared to deal with the huge numbers of repair crews that poured into the area a few days after the storm. One issue that slowed down the out-of-town repair crews was the paperwork and contracts that had to be executed before a crew could begin to work. Local governments needed to identify incoming crews so they could eventually be compensated. Somebody had to verify that incoming linemen were certified to work in the power space. Incoming crews needed to provide proof that they carried the needed level of insurance. Even after an emergency, the local government wanted to make sure that crews understood any local ordinances and rules related to rights-of-way, safety, and other related issues.

Another issue that quickly arose was the paperwork and processes normally required for permitting and for rights-of-way. Permits are normally required for construction activities like digging up any portion of a roadway or erecting new utility poles. As every ISP knows, permitting means dealing with multiple government entities. The federal government controls Interstate highways, and in this region, the roads through national parks, forests, and the Blue Ridge Parkway. The State controls access to state highways and roads through State parks. The county controls access to county roads, and cities control access to city streets that are not under one of the other jurisdictions. This region is also full of privately owned roads in rural areas. There were also the usual complications associated with working to cross bridges and railroad tracks.

There were also a lot of other questions that are being raised. For example, does it make sense to replace a washed-away cabinet or hut in a flood plain without elevating it or locating it outside of the flood plain? What’s the right way to rebuild infrastructure where the old infrastructure was completely washed away by a flood?

Local governments, utilities, ISPs, first responders, and many other stakeholders in the region are working this year to understand what could have been done better. For example, a lot of the required paperwork for incoming crews could have been done online in the cloud. But that would have required some agency outside of the region to process the paperwork. It would mean incoming crews from around the country would have needed to know where to find such paperwork. Some of the normal requirements for paperwork could have been relaxed, and that probably means creating an ordinance that gives city and county officials the ability to declare a communications emergency that would ease rules for permitting and construction. Perhaps the biggest challenge of all is making any needed changes across multiple layers of government.

I’m impressed with the work being done in this region to look at improving our response to the next disaster. The discussions are going to continue throughout this year. The issues being discussed are things that local governments across the country should be thinking about – before they are struck by disaster.

Light Spectrum Licensing

There is an interesting spectrum battle going on between cell carriers and satellite companies. The heart of the contention is spectrum in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) bands, specifically the 24 GHz (GigaHertz), 28 GHz, upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, 47 GHz, and 50 GHz bands. These frequency bands are generally referred to as millimeter wave spectrum.

Satellite companies use some of this spectrum today via a shared arrangement with cellular companies that have purchased some of this spectrum in FCC auctions. Satellite companies are seeking greater use of this spectrum to communicate between satellites and ground stations, which is a growing concern as the number of different satellite providers and the overall number of satellites in the sky increases. Satellite companies want access to more shared spectrum using a process the FCC calls ‘light licensing’, which is a process to register new ground stations with relatively little paperwork.

The big cellular carriers don’t want any expanded use of light licensing. Like many spectrum disputes, at the heart of the issue is money. AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon each spent roughly $2 billion in millimeter wave spectrum auctions, and these companies would like to require satellite companies to come to them to negotiate individual site licenses for the spectrum, presumably as a way to recover some of their investment in the spectrum.

To some degree, at least so far, the millimeter wave spectrum has been a bust for cell companies. Millimeter wave spectrum comprises very short waves that can deliver immense amounts of data. You might remember the ads on TV in 2019 when Verizon touted gigabit speeds on the new Samsung Galaxy S10 smartphone. It was impossible that year to watch a sporting event without seeing these ads multiple times.

At the time, Verizon had deployed millimeter wave spectrum in a few downtown areas of a handful of cities in the hope that faster speeds would lure customers to buy a more expensive subscription to get access to faster cellphone speeds. The trial was largely a bust since it turned out that millimeter wave spectrum is blocked by everything in the outdoor cellular environment, even the body of a cellular customer. But the real issue was that the public had little appetite to pay for faster cellular speeds and still doesn’t today. Cellphones don’t run apps that need superfast downloads, and existing 4G networks at the time easily delivered video streams.

Cellular carriers argue that letting satellite companies use the spectrum for more ground stations diminishes their licenses. Satellite companies counter by pointing out that there are almost no outdoor uses of the spectrum today, and most applications are being used to wirelessly move a lot of data indoors.

This will change to some extent now that Verizon has purchased Starry, which is the only carrier to make extensive use of millimeter wave spectrum outdoors. It seems likely that Verizon plans to expand the Starry model and technology, which is only used today in a few markets.

This fight is a good example of the spectrum battles we are going to see over the next few years that tend to pit large, important constituencies against each other. I expect a lot of loud spectrum battles as the FCC tries to find 800 MHz of mid-range cellular spectrum for auction – almost all spectrum in this range is already used by somebody other than the cell carriers.

The FCC is forced to choose, in this case, between cell carriers and satellite companies. My bet is that the satellite companies will be allowed to use more spectrum under the light licensing rules. This is partly because they currently seem to have a favored status at this FCC, but also because the cell carriers have never utilized the millimeter spectrum in any meaningful way. This also might be a precursor to a future where the FCC decides that multiple parties can more easily share spectrum.

Fixing Federal Permitting

The House of Representatives recently approved H.R. 5419, a bill introduced by Representative Tom Kean of New Jersey. Titled the Enhancing Administrative Reviews of Broadband Deployment Act, the bill would attempt to improve the process of getting permits for broadband on federal land. The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Specifically, the bill would direct the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to conduct a comprehensive review of administrative barriers involved in reviewing applications to use federal rights-of-way. The two agencies would have a year to report their findings of the review to Congress, along with a plan on how the agencies can provide the needed staffing to review rights-of-way applications in a timely manner. The bill correctly recognizes that applications to build broadband on federal lands can be incredibly slow, to the point of creating hurdles that can stop broadband projects.

Looking back through old blogs, I see at least two other attempts by past administrations to improve access to federal lands for broadband.

In 2012, President Obama signed Executive Order 13616 that tried to make it easier to build fiber on federal lands. In a process that sounds similar to the one contemplated by the new legislation, the EO established a Broadband Deployment on Federal Property Working Group that was given a year to create a report to describe how to streamline applications for broadband on federal lands. The GAO was tasked with creating a standard set of forms and fees to apply for building broadband on federal lands. Finally, the EO ordered that all federal agencies implement a Dig Once policy that required placing conduit as part of any road projects on federal land.

In 2018, President Trump signed Executive Order 13821 that directed all federal agencies to seek to reduce barriers to capital investment, remove obstacles to broadband services, and more efficiently employ government resources related to broadband. The EO directed the General Services Administration to evaluate the effectiveness of the GSA Common Form Application used to get permission to locate broadband facilities on Federal land. Finally, the EO specifically directed the General Services Administration to complete the creation of a common form and master contract for placing wireless facilities on federal lands.

This repeating cycle of relooking at the same issues makes me wonder if this will ever be solved. And even if this legislation finally solves the issue, it will be far too late for BEAD implementation. BEAD grants are finally starting to be awarded this year, and those grants will have a four-year shot clock. For now, NTIA says that it does not expect to extend any grants beyond the four-year window.

This is not to belittle the legislation. Perhaps Congress can make progress on the issue when executive orders have failed. It just seems like the timeline contemplated by the legislation won’t provide solutions in time to make meaningful changes for broadband projects that will likely be underway this year. I hate to be pessimistic, but I have to wonder if the legislation or any executive orders will filter down to the dozens of agencies in charge of rights-of-way in various parts of the federal government.

What Happened to Accelerated BEAD?

The BEAD road has been a long one. BEAD was first created by Congress in November 2021, meaning we’re now more than four years into the program. There are now a handful of BEAD projects under construction in a few states, but in most places, the BEAD grant program is still mired in the paperwork process that precedes releasing funds to ISPs.

To contrast BEAD with other large broadband programs, two large federal grant programs were approved by Congress in March 2021 as part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). I estimate that the Coronavirus State and Local Recovery Fund (SLFRF) funded at least $9 billion in fiber projects. The Capital Project Funds (CPF) funded at least $11.5 billion in fiber projects. These programs were initiated only nine months before BEAD, yet the construction for awards for both programs must be completed by the end of this year.

That is blazingly faster than the BEAD timeline. BEAD proponents will rattle off a list of reasons why BEAD has taken so long, and I’ve even talked to some people who think the long BEAD timeline was intentional. A few States like Louisiana now have BEAD construction underway. But on the whole, there are still a lot of states that haven’t yet pulled the trigger.

In case you haven’t seen it, NTIA has a website that tracks the last major hurdles for each state to final federal approval. This website shows

  • Three states – California, Illinois, and Oklahoma – are still waiting for approval from NTIA for their Final Proposal that describes the BEAD grants they want to award.
  • 15 states and territories have NTIA final approval but are still waiting for NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) to approve the paperwork. NIST’s role is to make sure the grant paperwork is complete and meets the requirements of the original BEAD legislation.
  • 15 more states and territories have made it through NTIA and NIST approval, but still have not signed a contract with NTIA on the use of the BEAD funding. There is no way to know how much of this delay might be the typical delay from state and NTIA lawyers haggling over contracts versus states that are having disputes over contract requirements.
  • 23 states and territories have made it through all of these steps and are free to begin negotiating contracts with grant winners. I’ve heard from ISPs in some states that getting through the contract issue requires a lot of final paperwork and effort, but this seems to differ by state.

You might recall that before the election in 2024, Louisiana had made it through the BEAD process and was ready to start making grant awards. There were three or four other states that were very close behind.

When the new administration came in, one of the first things we heard from Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce, was that the BEAD process would be accelerated to put the grant funds to use. He was highly critical of the prior administration that hadn’t yet connected any households to broadband by the end of 2024. Everybody in the industry was hoping that NTIA was going to speed up the process.

However, the BEAD process went into a deep freeze while the NTIA decided what it wanted to do with the program. It took until June 6 last year before NTIA announced new Benefit of the Bargain rules. By then, almost all of the states had conducted BEAD grant application rounds and had identified potential winners. The Benefit of the Bargain required states to start over. It set a cap on the BEAD grant awards in every state, and many original potential winners dropped out of the grant process. We’re now back close to the same place the program would have been a year ago, with a number of states having BEAD winners. It’s pretty easy to argue that NTIA added nearly an additional year to the BEAD process. NTIA will say it was worth it since a lot less funding is being awarded. I’d bet the folks who will wait an extra year to see construction, or those who are now getting satellite instead of fiber, aren’t big fans of the extra delays.

FCC Alert on Cybersecurity Risks

The FCC recently took the unusual step of warning telecom companies about an increased risk of ransomware attacks. The FCC is warning telecom companies to regularly patch their systems, enable multifactor authentication, and segment their networks to avoid falling victim to ransomware attacks. The alert cited data that shows a fourfold increase in attacks on telecom companies from 2022 to 2025.

In the alert, the FCC said it has become aware over the past year of increased ransomware incidents involving small-to-medium-sized communications companies. These attacks have disrupted service, exposed company and customer information, and have locked ISPs and carriers out of critical files.

The FCC alert talks about how ransomware works and offers advice on how to protect against the problem. The FCC also offers advice on how to respond to a ransomware scammer, including advice for contacting the FCC and the FBI.

The most interesting recommendation was to monitor the cybersecurity practices of your critical vendors, which I take to mean vendors who supply network electronics or software systems. The FCC warns that a significant number of telecom intrusions have come from weaknesses in systems supplied by vendors. I’m not really sure how a small ISP is supposed to monitor this, because every major vendor you work with is going to swear that they have safe practices.

The FCC alert includes all of the standard cybersecurity practices related to regularly backing up data and training employees to avoid phishing and other bad practices. They also say that every ISP ought to have an incident response plan of how to deal with cybersecurity problems and to test it regularly.

An appendix to the FCC alert lists some best practices that are being recommended by the FCC’s Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council. This is a group formed that includes the FCC,  large ISPs, and carriers. This list recommends taking additional steps like requiring validation of software patches before using them.

This Council also strongly recommends using the least-privilege principle (PoLP) for network access. This is a process that limits access to critical software systems only to those who need access. It also involves granting minimum access rights so that users can only access the parts of a system they need while blocking access elsewhere. It can mean granting people temporary access only for the duration of a needed task. Finally, this means granting access by job function, and not by user identity.

I’s obviously impossible to fully protect a company from external attacks, as was witnessed when the Salt Typhoon hackers gained access to a number of giant corporations and government agencies that supposedly have world-class cybersecurity. But it’s worth reviewing your practices and systems, because of the downside of being unlucky enough to be a victim of one of these attacks.

The FCC’s Spectrum Challenge

The FCC has been tasked by Congress to find and auction 800 megahertz of mid-range spectrum. This was a key element of the One Big Beautiful Bill that planned to use the proceeds from spectrum auctions to offset other costs created by the bill. The bill specifically requires the FCC to auction 100 megahertz of spectrum in the upper C-Band, located at 3.98 – 4.2 GHz.

The new requirement to auction that spectrum has resulted in a strong response from the aviation industry and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This new controversy is a perfect example of the challenges the FCC is going to face as it tries to free up 800 megahertz of spectrum. Proposing to change any mid-range spectrum is going to rile up controversy and opposition from those who care about a given spectrum band.

In this case, the FAA’s concern is about interference. Apparently, they don’t want to take any chance of interference from cellular companies that would negatively affect airline altimeters. I think anybody who flies is on the FAA’s side – if they are concerned, I am concerned.

The FAA released new altimeter standards in 2023 that required changes to altimeters to be able to ignore any interference from the lower C-Band spectrum located at 3.7-3.98 GHz. Even though there is a gap between the lower C-band and the 4.2-4.4 GHz band that is used for altimeters, the FCC was worried about interference.

The FAA immediately reacted when Congress directed the FCC to auction off the 3.98 – 4.2 GHz band that sits directly adjacent to the altimeter spectrum. The FAA recognizes the reality that there are radios that don’t do a great job of fitting precisely in the spectrum band they are supposed to use.

The FAA warns that existing altimeters, including those that were retrofitted to meet the 2023 changes, are not going to be able to filter out interference from the upper C-Band spectrum. The FAA tracks reports of interference, and by the summer of 2025, it had received 659 reports of potential C-band interference. After analyzing the reports, the FAA identified 118 events that were directly attributable to lower C-band interference, and this was for spectrum that is not directly adjacent to the altimeter spectrum bands.

The FCC has a major dilemma since Congress specifically ordered the upper C-band spectrum to be auctioned. I’m not sure how the agency can resolve this other than by getting Congress to change the directive. The FCC could spend a lot of money to move altimeters to a different spectrum band, but there aren’t any convenient bands that meet the criteria. This would likely require the FCC to fund new altimeters.

Other wireless users are already starting to lobby to leave certain bands of spectrum alone as the FCC searches for 800 MHz of mid-range spectrum. Rural WISPs and others are already heavily lobbying for the FCC to leave CBRS spectrum alone, which is currently being used for rural broadband. The really big fight is going to come if the FCC wants to take any portion of the unlicensed 6 GHz spectrum that is being used for WiFi 7. The military had originally said it would go along with some changes in the mid-range spectrum bands, but already seems to be retracting from that commitment.

I don’t envy the FCC’s job of auctioning the spectrum as directed by Congress. I predict big lobbying battles and probably big lawsuits before much spectrum actually makes it to an auction.

Onshoring Customer Service

In one of the oddest actions I ever remember seeing at the FCC, the agency plans to vote on rules later this month that will curtail the use of overseas customer service by companies regulated by the FCC. I describe this as odd because it’s not clear to me that the FCC has the authority to tell ISPs, cellular carriers, and cable companies how to operate their day-to-day business. The FCC press release refers to  customer service, but I assume this also applies to overseas technical support.

The FCC is considering the following changes:

  • Onshoring Incentives. The FCC will encourage carriers to return call-center jobs to the U.S.
  • English Proficiency Standards. They are considering a requirement that foreign-based customer service agents must be proficient in American Standard English.
  • Location Disclosure. Companies must disclose to customers if an agent is located overseas.
  • Right to Transfer. Customers must be given an option to transfer to a U.S.-based agent.
  • Call Volume Caps. The FCC wants to limit the percentage of calls that can be handled by foreign agents.

The FCC says its proposed action is for security purposes since foreign call centers present a higher risk of not protecting customers’ personal data. The FCC insinuates that overseas call centers have been linked to the rise of robocalls and fraud, which may be true, but I’ve never heard of this before. The FCC says the changes are also intended to create U.S. job growth.

A quick review of the biggest carriers shows that Charter already uses 100% U.S.-based customer service agents. The FCC made the company agree to onshore customer service for its merger with Cox, but that was something the company had already promised when it first announced the Cox merger. Verizon mostly uses U.S. agents but has some limited overseas customer service. The big companies that will impacted the most are Comcast, AT&T, and T-Mobile, each of which uses a lot of overseas customer service agents. I’ll be curious to find out how smaller ISPs send this work overseas.

There is little doubt that this will be popular with many in the public. It’s not hard to find complaints on the web of customers who don’t like talking to somebody overseas. However, there are also a lot of online complaints about big companies like Charter, which uses U.S.-based customer service. I’ve always wondered how much people dislike overseas agents compared to the degree that they don’t like talking to any agents who use prepared scripts to answer questions.

One of the first things that came to mind when I read this is that it might provide an incentive for the big carriers that use overseas agents to transition to AI customer service. That would eliminate overseas workers, but it might also eliminate U.S. jobs. My gut feeling is that we are still not close to a day when a company can safely hand customer service completely to AI, but that doesn’t mean that some companies won’t try it. I suspect the public will hate talking to AI even more than talking to a live person, here or overseas.

The biggest question that will have to be answered is whether the FCC has the authority to order this. I can’t think of any section of the FCC code that would give the agency the authority to mandate the manner in which ISPs and carriers conduct day-to-day business. It will be interesting to see if anybody challenges them on this.

I also find it curious that this doesn’t feel like the light-touch regulation that was promised by the current FCC Chairman. This seems like new regulations that will add a lot to the cost of regulatory compliance. As I said at the beginning of the blog, it’s an odd idea on many fronts.

New Mexico’s New Broadband Affordability Plan

The legislature in New Mexico approved a broadband affordability plan, which it labels as LITAP (Low-Income Telecommunications Assistance Program). This plan is intended as a direct replacement of the expired federal Affordable Connectivity Plan (ACP).

Like the ACP plan, the New Mexico plan would provide a $30 monthly subsidy to qualified households, with up to $75 for those living on tribal lands. The total subsidy is capped at $10 million in the first year, and up to $45 million in future years.

The plan will be funded by the existing State Rural Universal Service Fund (SRUSF), which is administered by the Public Regulatory Commission. This program has historically been funded by surcharges on customer bills for telephone, VoIP, or cellular service. The SRUSF is currently being used to subsidize telephone bills, carrier support for access charges, and for broadband programs to help bring broadband to rural areas. The current surcharge on customers is $0.61 per month for 2026, down from $1.13 in 2024. It’s estimated that when the LITAP plan goes fully into effect, the surcharge might climb to $2 per month.

One feature of the legislation is that this new broadband subsidy will supersede the existing subsidies for telephone service. The legislation requires any ISP that uses the revised program to participate in the Lifeline program. The federal plan currently provides a $9.25 monthly subsidy for eligible households, and up to $34.25 on qualifying tribal lands.

Households will be eligible for the subsidy if they participate in two New Mexico plans for need-based health care assistance, or for “at-risk” students in the home. LITAP will also be available for any customer who is eligible for the federal Lifeline program. When fully funded at $45 million, the new fund will subsidize approximately 120,000 households.

The legislation was prompted by a recognition by legislators that affordability is the largest barrier to residents buying broadband. This makes sense in the state since New Mexico is ranked 46th in terms of household incomes. The state has also consistently been in the top three of states with the highest level of poverty.

This is the first state plan I’ve seen that largely mimics the now-defunct federal ACP subsidy. New York has a plan that requires larger ISPs to offer $15 rates to qualified low-income households. Hopefully the New Mexico plan will be welcomed by ISPs in the State, particularly those who are building grant-funded networks. This plan will make it far easier to achieve needed customer penetration rates.

It seems unlikely that the new plan can easily be challenged in court. The SRUSF was created in 1999 and has been providing subsidies for telephone bills since its inception.

Perhaps this will prompt other states to do something similar. There are a lot of other states that already have a Universal Service Fund for telecom that is based on surcharges to customers.

Broadband Grant Deadlines

The industry and the press have been laser-focused on BEAD grants for the last few years. It’s easy to forget that there are a lot of federal broadband grants that have been issued under other grant programs, many of which are facing completion deadlines. This includes grants from programs like CAF II, RDOF, ReConnect, the Capital Projects Fund, ARPA grants funded through SLFRF, NTIA middle-mile grants, and the NTIA Tribal Grants.

A lot of projects under these grants have a deadline to be completed this year or in 2027. Today’s blog looks at the consequences of not finishing a grant project by the legislative deadline.

The grants that face the most immediate deadlines at the end of 2026 include State grants that were funded by the Capital Projects Fund or through SLFRF. These grants would have been awarded through individual State broadband grant programs, but the underlying money came from federal legislation. ARPA grants might have also come from counties or cities. These grants have a hard completion deadline of December 31 of this year.

I’ve been hearing from State Broadband managers that the Federal government has no appetite for any extensions of this funding. This is not news, and they’ve been saying the same thing for the last year, but lately, they have been reminding states of this.

It’s been routine in the past for ISPs to get extensions for grant construction as long as they had a good story of why they needed the extra time. In today’s environment, there are a lot of reasons why construction might be delayed. It could be due to challenges in getting permits, rights-of-way, or easements. It might mean having problems getting onto poles because of recalcitrant pole owners. It might be due to supply chain problems in receiving needed materials. It might come from labor shortages that slow construction vendors. If the federal agencies behind the grants enforce the legislative deadlines, none of these excuses will matter.

Grant recipients need to do everything in their power to finish construction this year. With no extensions, any work done after the deadline will not be reimbursed. I’ve been hearing rumors that failure to complete a federal grant program on time might also make an ISP ineligible for any future federal broadband funding.

If hard deadlines are enforced, this could also be coupled with a hard deadline for submitting grant paperwork quickly. Most grant programs in the past have allowed grantees some leniency after construction is completed to submit invoices. Hard deadlines might result in rejection of invoices sent after the deadline. Most grants also require some kind of close-out reporting to document that the project construction is completed, and ISPs need to get any such report completed quickly.

Anybody working with a State Broadband Office needs to understand their specific requirements. For example, there might be states that want paperwork submitted and completed by the legislative deadline, meaning construction has to be completed even earlier than the end of the year. ISPs also need to push vendors to invoice for the grant-funded projects quickly to provide proof of the spending.

I am positive that some ISPs will be surprised if they don’t get reimbursed for work they have completed. Grant offices have sent out deadline warnings for years, but have often given routine exceptions for lateness. It sounds like, starting this year, that deadlines are firm with little or no room for exceptions.

The Challenge of Adding Fiber to Poles

On February 5, the FCC issued a Memorandum and Order related to a pole attachment dispute between Comcast and Appalachian Power Company (APCO). The Order was issued under the authority of section 224 of the Telecommunications Act, which gives the FCC the authority to “regulate the rate, terms, and conditions for pole attachments to provide that such rates, terms , and conditions are just and reasonable”. This order highlights the nuances of regulations that can make it a challenge to build new fiber. This particular case provides a cautionary tale that shows why it can be so hard to get on poles when working with an uncooperative pole owner.

Before discussing the FCC decision, let me review existing FCC pole attachment rules and processes that an ISP must follow to get onto a pole. Just starting the process of getting on a pole requires a well-defined step-by-step paperwork-heavy process that obligates both the pole owner and the attacher to take steps within specified time frames.

  • The ISP must formally request access to a pole. Every pole owner has a unique set of forms needed to make such a request. The request must be detailed and specifically describe the changes that are wanted, and the attacher often includes drawings showing the desired connection.
  • The pole owner then conducts a survey to determine if there are any issues involved in meeting the request. Some pole owners invite the attacher to participate in a physical survey.
  • If the pole owner accepts the request, it must provide an estimate of the ‘make-ready’ costs needed to accommodate the request.
  • If the attacher accepts the estimate, it must pay the make-ready costs upfront, and the make-ready work proceeds.
  • Finally, if the pole owner finds that the actual cost was higher than the estimate, the attacher can request a detailed invoice showing all of the costs.

The dispute in this Order arose over poles that APCO said needed to be replaced in order to accommodate Comcast. Comcast claims that many of the poles had preexisting violations of safety and engineering standards, and because of that, Comcast wanted to pay nothing for APCO to replace the poles. APCO wanted Comcast to pay the full cost of replacing the poles, which would mean that Comcast would be paying to fix problems caused in the past by other attachers.  As an aside, Comcast would be required to pay the full cost to replace a pole that didn’t have any safety violations, as long as the only reason for having to replace a pole is that there isn’t enough room to add the new fiber.

Comcast filed a formal complaint with the West Virginia Public Service Commission in May 2025. The Commission ruled in favor of Comcast and said that APCO unlawfully assigned costs to Comcast and also delayed the pole attachment process. Rather than comply with that decision, APCO appealed the case in July to the FCC’s new Rapid Broadband Assessment Team (RBAT). This was the first FCC case processed under the new RBAT appeal system. The parties entered into mediation, but failed to reach an agreement.

In September, APCO issued new rules across its pole network that require any attacher to pay 100% of the cost for a poles replacement, even when a pole has preexisting violations.  At the end of November, Comcast filed a complaint with the FCC that resulted in this Order. The FCC sided with Comcast and said that its rules had been clear for twenty years that an attacher is only responsible for the incremental cost of moving to a new pole when an existing pole is in violation of safety or engineering standards.

You might read this and view it as a victory for Comcast, but it’s really not. This process delayed Comcast by nine months, and this is one of the faster regulatory resolutions of a pole dispute I can remember. This case shows the challenge that any attacher faces when a pole owner elects not to follow existing pole attachment regulations. In this case, APCO wanted to charge Comcast incorrectly at the time of the application. APCO then ignored an order from the State PUC and took the issue to FCC arbitration, where it failed to come to a mediated agreement. Finally, Comcast had to appeal to the FCC for a resolution.

Most ISPs don’t have the budget or the legal resources to fight an issue like this through this maze of steps. A smaller attacher with a similar situation would likely either have to agree to meet the conditions of the pole owner, and pay far too much for the attachment, or it might instead elect to bury fiber to bypass the poles, also at an increased cost.

Most attachers also worry about getting into formal disputes with pole owners who can retaliate by making it more difficult or costly for other desired attachments. The FCC and States can pass as many rules and regulations as they want, but the pole owner still has the ultimate power to make life costly and miserable for an attacher. I don’t know if any amount of regulations can fix that.