Broadband Shorts January 2026

This blog covers topics that I found interesting but which don’t warrant an entire blog.

Indoor CBRS. Federated Wireless announced a new product and a system that allows cellular carriers to use CBRS spectrum inside large buildings like hotels, malls, office buildings, and sports venues. The system places CBRS antennas throughout a building to provide the needed coverage. The concept behind the deployment is to let the carriers use free CBRS spectrum inside buildings to preserve licensed spectrum for outdoors. Currently, big crowds, like at a sporting event, can use licensed spectrum that reduces the coverage in the immediately surrounding areas. All except really old cellphones are capable of using CBRS spectrum.

Map of Data Centers by State. I found this map that shows the number of existing data centers in each state to be interesting.

Customer Interest in Satellite Cellular. A report published by GSMA Intelligence showed that 56% of the U.S. respondents to a survey said they would pay extra each month to be able to connect to satellite cellular. One of the interesting statistics from the survey is that 23% of cellular customers reported that they were unable to use basic texting at least 5 times per month. That’s not surprising to anybody who has studied rural cellular coverage, and who understands that the typical city has numerous dead zones for a given carrier.

While this finding is clearly encouraging for the companies busy deploying satellites for cell service, the 60% finding is likely overstated for now and will probably decrease once the public understands the limits of satellite cellular. It doesn’t work well indoors and is a challenge from a moving vehicle. It seems likely that satellite cellular will be far less robust in terms of data capabilities. I suspect over time that the fledgling industry will tackle these shortcomings, and this could eventually become popular product for anybody who  lives or routinely works in areas with poor cell coverage.

Starlink Approved for More Satellites. The FCC recently authorized Starlink to operate an additional 7,500 next-generation satellites. This order doubles Starlink’s authorized next-generation satellites to 15,000, still only half of its request for 30,000 additional satellites. The FCC deferred any decision on the remaining 14,988 Starlink requests to use orbits above 600 kilometers. This order also allows Starlink to expand the use of spectrum in the Ku- and Ka-bands for links to customers, and the V-, E-, and W-bands for connections to earth station gateways.

CommScope Cancels Fiber Factory Expansion. On the day that CommScope was renamed as Vistance Networks, the company announced it is cancelling plans to expand its fiber manufacturing facility in Catawba, North Carolina. In doing so, the company will be foregoing a $2 million economic development grant that would have covered some of the $60 million expansion cost. The expansion was going to create 250 additional jobs.

One reason for the change is a recent transaction where CommScope spun off much of its manufacturing capacity to Amphenol.  The announcement also said part of the change was due to the smaller amount of fiber being constructed with BEAD grants. While there is a lot of current discussion about a short-term supply chain issue with obtaining fiber, it’s likely that the company also looked out at fiber demand five and ten years from now.

Who Lives in Rural America?

We’ve spent a lot of time and money in recent years to get better broadband for rural America. I thought it would be of interest to look at who lives in rural America. The statistics in this blog come from a recent blog published by FHFA, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The data comes from the U.S. Census Bureau and is supplemented by data from the Census’s American Community Survey (ACS).

Rural Population. There are 81.7 million people living in rural areas, or 24.4% of the total population. The percentage of rural residents varies widely by state, with Massachusetts being the most urbanized state with 4.1% of people living in rural areas, and Vermont the most rural state with 80.9% of residents living in rural areas.

Ages of Residents. There is a higher percentage of senior residents over 65 in rural areas, at 19.2%, compared with urban areas of 15.7%. A lot of the reason for this is the lower percentage of residents between the ages of 18 and 64 in rural areas, at 44.6%, compared to 49.7% in urban areas. This highlights one of the biggest issues for rural America – working-age people leave rural areas to find employment. Both rural and urban areas have 22% of the population under 18 years of age, but 5% of rural people leave to join the workforce.

The age issue is a real concern for rural counties. According to Census estimates, almost half of U.S. counties have lost population since 2021. The fear is that an aging rural population will mean an acceleration of the population loss issue.

Incomes. Median household incomes are lower in rural America. 39.5% of rural households have a household income under $50,000, compared to 32.5% of urban households. Rural areas also have what FHFA calls income compression, meaning that there is not as much difference between the poorest and wealthiest in rural areas. For example, around 13.5% of rural households have annual incomes over $150,000, while that percentage in urban areas is over 22%.

Housing. As you might expect, the rest of the FHFA report focuses on housing statistics. One of the most interesting statistics looks at the percentage of homes purchased as second homes or for investment purposes. In rural areas, those categories represented 18% of homes in 2018 and 21% of homes in 2019. That dropped to 11% of home purchases in 2023. In urban areas, these categories totaled to 11% in 2018, down to 9% in 2023. I can only guess, but factors that would contribute to this change in rural areas might be related to the overall economy, but also to the fact that a lot of retiring baby boomers may have invested in second homes in the earlier time frame.

A really interesting statistic is the median household income of those who bought homes. In rural areas, that was around $87,000 in 2019 and grew to almost $90,000 in 2023. In urban areas, the median household income of home buyers was $95,000 in 2019 and grew to over 102,000 by 2023. These statistics point to two trends. First, homes in rural areas tend to cost less, meaning that borrowers can qualify for loans with a lower household income. But the high level of the median household incomes in both rural and urban areas highlights the difficulty that young households have in affording to buy a home.

Low Latency AI Networks

A partnership has been announced that has the goal of creating a low-latency private Internet for AI traffic. The three partners involved are Moonshot Energy, a manufacturer of electrical and modular infrastructure for AI data centers, QumulusAI, Inc., a provider of GPU-as-a Service, and Connected Nation Internet Exchange, which has been promoting the creation of more Internet Exchanges.

The group’s goal is to initially create 25 carrier-neutral interexchange points designed to handle only low-latency traffic. The goal is to scale to 125 locations, many which would be located at major research university campuses and municipalities. The coalition has labeled the new hubs as AI Pods.

The goal of this coalition is to create a network designed specifically for AI and other data traffic that requires low latency. The network will be designed with highly efficient switches at the hub sites that will move traffic quickly. This would essentially be a private network that would isolate low-latency traffic from the large volumes of general Internet traffic that can clog up Internet hubs at busy times.

The idea of creating private networks for data is an old one. Many universities in the country are connected to the Internet2 fiber network that allows for low-cost transfer of large amounts of research and other data between universities. Many corporations have created private networks between company sites to keep corporate data traffic out of normal Internet traffic flow and to provide a higher level of security.

Tackling this as a new venture makes a lot of sense. If the companies that run the large Internet hubs  decided to somehow give priority to AI or other traffic to reduce latency, they would awaken cries about violations of network neutrality, since such behavior is exactly what network neutrality is supposed to block. If the normal Internet hubs gave priority to bits from AI data centers, then all other traffic would get a lower priority and see more problems from delays. However, a private network for AI avoids such issues by isolating AI traffic from other traffic.

The first data site for the network is scheduled for activation in July 2026, located at the campus of Wichita State University. The coalition is working towards providing dual, geographically diverse fiber routes between the new AI hubs using 400 GB transport. Each AI site would house redundant 400 GB IX ports and switches. Data centers that want to connect to the network would acquire dark fiber to one of the AI hubs.

QumulusAI says the new network would result in moving GPU computing directly to the network edge, meaning the AI network could be expanded to reach large businesses and other users of large amounts of AI data.

Connected Nation has been touting the benefits of creating more Internet hubs for a number of years. These new hubs would also become carrier-neutral locations for the interexchange of normal Internet traffic, which would lower the cost to ISPs to reach the Internet.

The Value of Broadband to a Community

Bento J Lobo, PH.D, of the University of Chattanooga, authored a report, From Gig City to Quantum City: The Value of Fiber Optic Infrastructure in Hamilton County, TN 2011-2035, that quantifies the benefit of the citywide municipal fiber network to the City.

The fiber network is operated by EPB, the electric and fiber utility owned by the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee. The utility serves just under 200,000 homes and businesses. EPB began offering communications services to the business community in 2000. The utility began offering gigabit broadband to residents in 2010 and offered 10 gigabit service in 2015. EPB implemented smart-grid technology to support the electric grid in 2013. Broadband speed offerings were increased to 25 gigabits in 2022. In the same year, the company started to offer fiber connections that support quantum computing.

The study concludes that the fiber network has brought $5.3 billion in value to Hamilton County and Chattanooga between 2011 and 2025. Lobo also says that the fiber network has created over 10,000 jobs during that time.

The study includes a lot of interesting statistics to support those conclusions.

  • The fiber network enabled 17.9% of employees in the City to work from home during the pandemic, compared to 9.7% for the U.S. as a whole.
  • From 2010 to 2025, there were 255 major projects that invested $6.3 billion in new or existing businesses. This was a major improvement over the decade preceding the fiber network.
  • The City has attracted numerous tech startups, particularly in the early years when the network was unique in offering gigabit speeds.
  • In June 2024, EPB achieved a penetration rate of 70% residential and a 41% business.
  • In 2025, 30% of customers are purchasing gigabit broadband.
  • Some of the community benefits come from affordable pricing. 300 Mbps service is $57.99, and gigabit is $67.99 – prices that have remained the same since 2019.

The following table is a summary of the claimed community benefits:Some explanation of the savings categories:

  • High-speed Broadband Contribution. This recognizes the financial benefit to the utility from profits generated by fiber and by savings in costs allocated to electric service. This includes an economic multiplier that assumes that for every dollar of EPB fiber revenue, an additional 67 cents of economic value us generated in the local economy.
  • Smart Grid Savings. Smart grid savings come from increased grid efficiency, peak demand reduction, reduced outages, faster restoration after storm events, reduced pollution, and reduced power theft.
  • Residential Bill Savings. These are the savings realized by the public due to broadband rates seen in similar communities that don’t have a municipal ISP.
  • Consumer Surplus. Consumer surplus refers to the difference between what a consumer is willing to pay and what they actually pay. The study uses this as a proxy to measure non-monetary benefits of broadband, such as shopping, entertainment, work and job searches, news, health care, personal finances, social networking, travel, education, and interactions with governments.

Media Coverage of Fiber Infrastructure. The City of Chattanooga has gotten tremendous nationwide publicity due to the fiber network. The high-quality exposure has drawn innovators and entrepreneurs to the city.

Supreme Court Examines FCC’s Ability to Fine

The Supreme Court has accepted a case that will determine the FCC’s ability to levy fines against the companies it regulates. The lower court cases that brought the issue to the Supreme Court come from fines that the FCC levied against AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon after the companies sold customer location data. The FCC said that the carriers did not properly vet the companies that bought customer data, and that many of those companies widely resold the data.

The Fifth Circuit Court sided with AT&T and said that the FCC’s process was unconstitutional. The Second Circuit Court sided with the FCC when reviewing the Verizon fine. The DC Circuit also sided with the FCC when reviewing the fine against T-Mobile.  As often happens when lower courts issue conflicting rulings, the Supreme Court has agreed to review the findings of the lower courts.

The Circuit Court cases invoked a Supreme Court ruling in 2024 in the case of SEC v Jaresky. In that case, the defendant was accused of committing fraud and misrepresenting himself to investors. The Securities and Exchange Commission fined Mr. Jaresky $300,000 and ordered him to disgorge the unlawful profits he made of $685,000. Mr. Jaresky appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that the SEC didn’t have the regulatory authority to directly fine him, and that the SEC had violated his right to a jury trial.

The Supreme Court surprisingly sided with Jaresky and ordered that he should have been given the option for a jury trial rather than a trial by an SEC administrative judge. It was obvious after the Jaresky ruling that companies that were fined by other regulatory agencies would make the same claim if they were denied the right of a jury trial. In this case, the three cellular companies made the argument that the FCC fines were unconstitutional and got contradictory rulings from different lower courts. It’s fairly obvious that the carriers went to different courts hoping for conflicting rulings.

This is a major case for the FCC, since a ruling against it eliminates its ability to fine regulated companies for violating FCC rules. The ability to levy fines has always been one of the agency’s most effective enforcement tools and is one of the few remedies that is less drastic than yanking an FCC license to operate. The FCC has been using fines a lot recently in its attempt to cut down on robocalls and texts. The FCC will become a fairly toothless regulatory agency without the ability to levy fines. Carriers, both large and small, will be less afraid to violate FCC rules if they don’t fear that their violation would warrant a referral to the Justice Department.

This is a really interesting tactic by the cellular carriers. If these particular cases had been referred to a jury instead of an administrative judge, it’s not hard to imagine the fines being a lot larger. It’s not hard to imagine a jury that doesn’t like the idea of a giant corporation selling data that shows everywhere they travel with their cellphone.

This also opens up the possibility of State regulators tackling these kinds of issues and issuing fines if the FCC finds itself unable to do so. I have to think that selling customer data violates the law in multiple states.

If the Jaresky case is the precedent, then it’s hard to think the Court won’t side with the carriers and rule against the FCC. This Supreme Court seems to be very much against what they view as regulatory overstepping of authority, and the Jaresky case is only one of their rulings that are weakening federal regulatory agencies.

2026 Urban Rate Study

One of the more curious undertakings done by the FCC every year is the Urban Rate Study. This is an exercise undertaken every year to determine the highest monthly broadband rates that can be charged by ETCs (Eligible Telecommunications Carriers). This basically means regulated telcos and other ISPs that participate in some grant or subsidy programs. At a minimum, these rate caps apply to incumbent rate-of-return telephone companies, and ISPs that participated in the Rural Broadband Experiment, CAF II Phase II Auction, RDOF (Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction 904), and Enhanced A-CAM. These rate caps will apply to any BEAD winners that are certified as an ETC. These rate caps also apply to any ISP that voluntarily became an ETC in order to participate in any other subsidy program, such as the Universal Service Fund.

The FCC publishes this rate near the end of each year, and by July 1 of the following year, every ETC must certify to the FCC that it doesn’t charge a rate higher than the benchmarks.

 The FCC determines rate caps for an interesting mix of speeds that match the minimum speed goals set over the years for different subsidy programs. The FCC samples actual rates in the market and sets the target rates by applying two standard deviations. The FCC also sets the minimum size of any rate cap, and for 2026 has raised any monthly rate caps to provide at least 800 megabytes of data as of July 2026.

Below is a table that compares the 2026 rates to the rates from the Urban Rate Study in 2019.

It’s interesting that the maximum rates allowed for slow speeds have increased significantly between 2019 and 2026. The FCC rate caps for speeds of 100 Mbps or greater have decreased since 2019. I think this is because gigabit rates were somewhat rare in 2019, and some ISPs that offered gigabit then charged a premium rate.

It’s commonly believed that the FCC is not in the ratemaking business, and for broadband, I think this is the agency’s only ratemaking role.

I’ve seen ISPs with rates higher than these benchmarks, but those ISPs are not regulated ETCs. I doubt that consumers are comforted by these rates, and luckily, market competition has pushed rates lower than everything in the table for most ISPs.

Cell Tower Regulation Changes?

Cellular carriers seem to be on a winning streak with federal regulators. In the Big Beautiful Bill last year, cellular carriers were able to insert language in the bill that mandates the FCC to auction 800 MHz of mid-range spectrum. That’s going to force the FCC to carve the spectrum from other uses, and it seems likely that most spectrum that goes to auction will be won by the big cell carriers.

Late last fall, the FCC opened a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments. In the NOI, the FCC asked the following questions.

  • Should the FCC establish a new set of shot clocks that cover permitting and construction of wireless towers and other wireless infrastructure?
  • Should the FCC consider a “deemed approved” rule that would mean that any proposed new tower project would be considered as approved if a local government doesn’t approve the project within a specified time frame?
  • Should the FCC preempt local governments from setting fees related to permits, rights-of-way, and construction processes, and should the FCC set national fees for these efforts?

As someone who has read a lot of FCC documents, the tone of this NOI suggests to me that the FCC has already largely determined what it is going to order related to the shot clock and fees. It looks likely that the cell carriers will likely achieve another big win on their regulatory wish list.

The NOI also seeks comments on a wide range of other questions:

  • Can localities reject a tower request for a carrier that will be providing interstate services?
  • The FCC is thinking about relaxing the rules for concealment elements, which is the process of hiding towers or disguising them to look like trees of other objects.
  • The FCC wants to make it harder for localities to disallow modifications to existing towers.
  • The NOI explores the definition of a macro cell site in relation to existing rules related to small cell sites.
  • The FCC asks if it can limit the ability of a locality to reject a tower application based on aesthetics.
  • The NOI asks if local franchise agreements that involve in-kind contributions are a violation of Section 253 rules.

The NOI saw over 4,000 public comments. AT&T, T-Mobile, and CTIA, the lobbying group for the cellular carriers, were in favor of what the FCC is proposing, while almost all of the other comments were against some or all of the FCC proposals.

A lot of the comments involved those that want local communities to have some say in the placement of towers for health reasons. Traditionally, these folks have an uphill battle since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other FCC rulings have made it hard for the FCC to consider “environmental issues’ related to cell site placement. But I read last week that HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. supports the idea that there are health risks from cell towers, so perhaps this now has some chance.

There were also comments from local governments and groups like the National Conference of Counties NACo), the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), the National League of Cities (NLC), and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) have all filed comments that disagree with allowing the FCC to override local authority. The comments from these groups asked the FCC to:

  • Preserve local aesthetic and placement authority.
  • Recognize that local governments are entitled to compensation which reflects the full costs of wireless deployment, not an arbitrary national assessment of what costs “should” be.
  • Reject the creation of a “rocket docket”.
  • Reject premature preemption of state and local AI regulations.
  • Facilitate industry and local cooperation rather than heavy-handed federal mandates.

I do fine it curious that an agency that is working feverishly to eliminate regulatory requirements won’t hesitate to create new rules it likes.

 

Competing with Satellite Cellular

A recent article in Fierce Network quotes AT&T’s CEO John Stankey as saying that he’s not too worried about competition from satellite cellular providers. He said the new technology is better suited for specialty niches like maritime and IoT.

His comments raise a lot of interesting questions. First, Stankey is right that satellite cellular is not going to compete well head-to-head with traditional cellular in markets that have strong cell coverage. An Ookla report for the second quarter of 2025 shows nationwide median download speeds for the big three cellular providers as 275 Mbps for T-Mobile, 134 Mbps for Verizon, and 129 Mbps for AT&T. Speeds in urban markets are significantly higher.

A market weakness for the big cellular carriers is rural coverage, which is going to be a target market for satellite cellular. You don’t have to drive far outside most urban areas and county seats to encounter areas with little or no cellular coverage by the big companies.

There seems to be interest and a potential market for satellite cellular. Viasat released the results of a survey that indicated that 60% of cellular customers worldwide, and 56% in the U.S., would consider paying extra to get access to satellite cellular connections. You have to take a survey done at the early stage of the new industry with a grain of salt since real interest is going to depend on the quality, ease, and cost of using satellite cellular. The survey results are interesting because they show a lot of people who must be encountering situations where traditional cellular is inadequate.

Stankey pointed out the weaknesses of the satellite cellular concept. The biggest weakness is that there isn’t good indoor coverage. However, I would be shocked if somebody doesn’t eventually solve that problem. Perhaps Starlink dishes or standalone outdoor receivers can be used to communicate with cellular satellites, which could then somehow get the signal into the home. The issue that I haven’t heard being discussed is the ability of satellite cellular to connect to moving vehicles.

Stankey’s more significant observation is that a satellite network can never duplicate the huge amount of bandwidth needed to give cellular customers the services they want. He’s absolutely right, and it’s unrealistic to think that satellite providers could have enough bandwidth collectively to become the fourth major carrier in the market. Cellphone usage is no longer just about texting and voice calls, and cell customers want to stream videos and upload pictures and videos. For satellite to become a viable rural solution, it will need to provide enough bandwidth to satisfy expected customer demand.

There are a few other issues that will also affect the long-term competition issue. Cellular broadband speeds are still improving. For example, AT&T recently installed the spectrum acquired from EchoStar in 23,000 towers to improve speeds. We’re five years away from seeing the beginning of the 6G generation of cellphones. It’s too early to know specifically what that means, but it has to mean more speed and capability for terrestrial cellphone networks.

One of Stankey’s comments is intriguing: that satellite cellular might be the solution for IoT. I’ve been reading for a decade about the potential for widespread agricultural sensors, but this has never happened in any material way. A big part of the problem is the bandwidth needed to communicate with sensors. Rural cellular networks are generally lousy or nonexistent in areas that are mostly farm fields. The second issue has always been power, but there have been advancements in small solar power units that could finally combine with ubiquitous satellite cellular coverage to make farm sensors a reality.

BEAD Rule Changes for Permitting

NTIA issued new General Terms and Conditions dated November 2025 that include dozens of changes to the BEAD rules for recipients, but also changes that impact state Broadband Offices that have wider implications on States. I’m not listing all of the changes here, but there is a great summary of the changes done by the Benton Institute on January 14. This blog will look at the issues related to permitting that have repercussions far outside of the BEAD grant recipients.

In Section 13.D of the revised NTIA Terms and Conditions, State Broadband Offices (SBOs – which are described as Grantees by the NTIA) have a lot of major new obligations related to permitting.

SBOs must “establish procedures to ensure that broadband-related permit applications are promptly accepted, and requests are approved or denied within 90 days”.

In general, SBOs don’t hold a position of authority in State governments to impose rules on anybody other than recipients of grants. Permits for BEAD will mostly mean getting permits to build along existing roads. SBOs are going to have to agree to this requirement, but it’s hard to imagine how an SBO can impose rules for State roads, County roads, Township roads, Municipal roads, roads through Tribal lands, and the biggest challenge – roads passing through federal lands. The goal of getting permits completed within 90 days is great, but it’s hard to think that the small number of people working in SBOs even know the identity of the many permitting authorities in a state, let alone can have any influence, other than perhaps begging, to get BEAD permitting authorities to meet the 90-day deadline. An even bigger challenge is permitting on private land, since a lot of rural roads are privately owned. What can an SBO possibly do to influence private permits?

SBOs must assist “state and local authorities in establishing a single, dedicated point of contact, which has knowledge of the application and review processes, for broadband-related permits.

The key word in this requirement is ‘assist”. Assuming that States even want to go through this process, they vary widely in how this would be achieved. There are States where a Governor might be able to do this. There are States where a State Regulatory Commission might have the authority to tackle this. But in many States, this might require action for a Legislature. What happens in States that don’t undertake the formation of a single, dedicated point of contact?

SBOs must provide technical assistance to permitting agencies to ensure sufficient capacity (e.g., Master Agreement and Consultant Reimbursement Agreement templates, surge support for permit processing, etc.)

This recognizes that local governments often will not have enough staff to quickly process all of the permits required by a BEAD project. SBOs must develop template contracts that can assist a locality if it wants to get help to speed up permitting. But this doesn’t address the issue and time required by local governments when hiring outside vendors. It doesn’t address if a local government has a budget for additional help. Interestingly, this extra funding could come in some states from BED nondeployment funds, assuming there is enough such funding for the purpose.

SBOs must provide “deference to the construction techniques chosen by BEAD Subgrantees (without seeking to influence those decisions), absent any identified safety concerns.

I don’t know if anybody, except perhaps for big ISPs that might have suggested this language to NTIA, really knows what this means, other than allowing construction practices that would otherwise not be allowed by pole owners or by the governments who control the rights-of-way for buried construction. SBOs are being directed to turn their heads to what would normally be non-compliant construction techniques. I’m not sure how pole owners and rights-of-way owners will be expected to comply with this.

SBOs must maximize “streamlined processing through permitting by rule; batch processing of substantially similar permit requests; and waiving or expediting duplicative or burdensome broadband permitting requirements where possible.”

SBOs can certainly promote language that allows batch processing. But, related to the staffing issue addressed earlier, how might a County with little or no staffing be expected to comply with big batches of permits? Even more confounding, are SBOs expected to look at local rules for permitting across the state to identify the ones that are duplicative or burdensome – and what do they do when they identify such rules?

SBOs must follow “FCC rules regarding timelines, rates, terms, and conditions for access to municipally owned poles and conduit for broadband projects – including provisions in the FCC’s rules providing for “one-touch make-ready” and “self-help” – and requiring BEAD Subgrantees that own poles (including cooperatives) to comply with FCC rules across their footprint.”

Around 23 states and D.C. have decided to have their own pole attachment rules, something that has been allowed by federal legislation. While most of these rules are largely the same as the FCC rules, many differ in substantive ways. How can an SBO in a state with its own pole regulation somehow force the State to suddenly follow the FCC rules. The specific requirement cites self-help and one-touch make ready, which are some of rules where States have taken a decidedly different stance than the FCC.

Overall impression of these requirements. SBOs will clearly try to follow these requirements since they must agree to them before they get BEAD funding. But these rules create huge problems for SBOs that don’t have the authority and muscle to impose these rules on the rest of the State and on the many entities that are involved in permitting. To some degree, the severity of these rules, when judged against the practical chance of an SBO accomplishing them, seems like a tool for NTIA to be able to say that any selected State has failed its obligations. I assume that if NTIA tries to withhold funding to a State based on these rules that it will be sued, but that means BEAD goes on hold in that State, to the detriment of the many rural residents relying on better broadband. Interestingly, none of these rules hinders satellite BEAD winners.

Rats Attack Fibre!

County Broadband in Norfolk, England, recently lost service to 442 customers over a weekend when rats chewed through fiber and caused an outage during a snowstorm. The ISP battled bad weather conditions, so it took a few days to replace almost 2,000 feet of damaged fiber cable. The ISP stayed in contact with customers by text and was apologetic that the snow had caused its call center to close on Sunday.

There was a great quote in the press, “Rats are also notoriously difficult vermin to stop, like mini tanks with teeth that often seem able to cut through almost anything . . . even concrete.”

I’ve never heard of a rat problem with fiber in the U.S., although it seems likely that it happens. Judging by the conversations I’ve had with ISPs, and the occasional news article, the primary animal damage to fiber in this country comes from squirrels and gophers.

Squirrels seem to be the primary culprit for animal damage to aerial fiber. Squirrels seem to mainly chew on cables as a way to sharpen their teeth. Squirrel teeth grow up to 8 inches per year, and if squirrels aren’t wearing their teeth down from their diet, they look for other things to chew. There has been speculation that squirrels prefer fiber to other types of cables due to some oil or compound used in the fiber manufacturing process that attracts them.

Years ago, Level 3, a major middle-mile fiber network owner, said that 17% of its aerial fiber outages nationwide were caused by squirrels, with the rest, I assume, from storm damage, auto accidents, and gunshot damage.

Companies use a wide variety of techniques to try to protect from squirrel damage, but anybody who has tried to protect a bird feeder from squirrels knows how persistent they can be. One deterrent is to use hardened cables that are a challenge for squirrels to chew through. However, there have been reported cases where squirrels partially chew through hardened cables, which then lets in water that can cause future damage.

A more common solution is adding a barrier to keep squirrels away from the cable. There are barrier devices that can be mounted on the pole to block squirrels from moving higher. There are also barriers that are mounted where cables meet a pole to keep the squirrels away from the fiber. A few companies have tried more exotic solutions, like deploying ultrasonic blasters to drive squirrels away from fiber.

The most common animal damage to buried fiber comes from gophers. Gophers also seem to like chewing on fiber to sharpen their teeth. There are thirteen species of pocket gophers in the country that range from 5 to 13 inches in length. The two parts of the country with the most pocket gophers are the Midwest plains and the Southwest. Gophers mostly live on roots or on plants they pull down through the soil.

Pocket gophers can cause considerable damage to fiber. These rodents will chew almost anything, and there have been reported outages from gophers that have chewed through buried gas, water, and electric lines. Gophers typically live 6 and 12 inches below the surface and are a particular threat to buried drops.

There are several ways to protect against gophers. The best protection is to bury fiber deep enough to be out of gopher range, but that can add a lot of cost to buried drops. I have a few clients who bore drops and install the fiber in conduit  rather than trench or vibrate the drops directly. Another strategy is to enclose the fiber in a sheath over 3 inches in diameter, which is supposedly too big for a gopher to bite. Another solution is to surround the buried fiber with 6 – 8 inches of gravel of at least 1-inch size – anything smaller gets pushed aside by gophers. These solutions are all expensive, and most ISPs just live with drop cuts.