Although the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just approved an update to its pole attachment rules, the FCC also launched a new proceeding to make the process more efficient. With the goal of expediting broadband deployment in mind, the FCC is seeking public input on how to further reduce barriers to infrastructure investment. The FCC has questions about six specific proposals and their potential impact on the industry.

1. A Broadband Deployment Shot Clock

The FCC is asking about the frequency with which attachers (internet service providers) fail to deploy in a timely manner or not at all after make-ready¹ is complete, and why this occurs.

The FCC is considering requiring attachers to deploy equipment on poles within 120 days of completion of make-ready work. What would be the potential repercussions for an attacher who fails to deploy equipment within 120 days? Would requiring these attachers to restart the pole attachment process negatively impact broadband deployment such that any benefit would be outweighed by the cost? Should the FCC tie any potential repercussions for attachers to whether a utility completed the prior phases of the pole attachment process in a timely manner? If a utility fully complied with the FCC’s timelines, does the utility incur any costs from an attacher’s late deployment or failure to deploy?

Alternatively, rather than the FCC codifying rules on these issues, should any deployment timeframes and noncompliance fees be dealt with through the FCC’s complaint process, the FCC's Rapid Broadband Assessment Team, other enforcement mechanisms, or by the parties in their pole attachment agreement? 

Should there be any FCC rules, policies, or guidance governing the terms of such provisions in a pole attachment agreement?

2. Payment Deadlines

The FCC is considering whether it will require attachers to make payment on an estimate to a utility within a specific period of time after the attacher’s acceptance of the estimate. 

How common is it for attachers to delay payment after accepting an estimate? In those instances, why are attachers delaying payment to utilities? Will imposing a deadline to make payment incentivize broadband deployment and allow utilities to more efficiently allocate their resources?

Should the FCC prohibit utilities from requiring full or partial up-front payment? Or should the FCC allow utilities to require that attachers pay a portion of make-ready costs up-front and make further payments based upon make-ready work progress?

Alternatively, rather than the FCC codifying rules on these issues, should establishing payment deadlines and schedules similarly be left to the parties in their pole attachment agreement? If that is the better option, should there be any FCC rules, policies, or guidance governing the terms of such provisions in a pole attachment agreement?

3. A Cost Ceiling

The FCC has tentatively concluded that adopting a cost ceiling will prevent some disputes over unexpectedly high final make-ready costs by increasing transparency between attachers and utilities during the make-ready process.

The FCC seeks comment on limiting the amount that final make-ready costs can exceed the utility’s estimate without requiring the utility (the pole owner) to have obtained prior approval from the attacher.

Would a cost ceiling incentivize utilities to meet the FCC’s pole attachment timelines to avoid price increases that could lead to significantly higher costs than had been estimated?

What cost ceiling would best motivate utilities and attachers to timely deploy broadband?

4. One-Touch, Make-Ready & Complex Project

The one-touch, make-ready (OTMR) process allows a single construction crew—with sufficient skill and experience to be approved and chosen by the utility—to complete all the work to make a pole ready for a new attachment. 

Under the FCC’s current rules, an attacher has the option to elect the OTMR process for attachments involving simple make-ready, an election the attacher makes in its application. When an attacher avails itself of this option, it achieves certain efficiencies by not having to rely on the utility to complete each phase of the pole attachment process within the prescribed timelines. But, apparently, few attachers have elected to use OTMR since it was created in 2018, in part because it is not available for complex work. 

The FCC is seeking comment on whether attachers would be more likely to elect OTMR if it were available for complex work. If the FCC were to make OTMR
available for complex work, would the Commission need additional requirements for contractors to safely perform complex work in the communications space, such as any qualification requirements necessary for contractors to do work on wireless equipment in the communications space? 

5. Deadlines for On-Boarding Approved Contractors

Under the FCC's current rules, utilities are required to respond to requests to add additional qualified contractors to a utility’s existing approved contractor list within 30 days of receiving the request. Utilities may need to take additional steps to onboard the contractors for work on the utility’s poles to ensure that the individuals working on their poles are properly trained, have access to their internal systems, and do not present a safety or security risk. But if a utility misses survey or make-ready deadlines, an attacher may find that none of the contractors on the utility’s approved list are available, and needs to request the addition of qualified contractors to the list in order to get the work done. In such a circumstance, an excessively long onboarding process could effectively thwart the goals of the self-help remedy.

The FCC seeks comment on how much time it actually takes for a utility to responsibly onboard a new contractor and whether the Commission should modify its rules to set a deadline for utilities to complete the onboarding process.

6. What is a "Pole"?

With all this talk of pole attachments, the reader might be surprised to learn that neither the law nor the FCC’s rules define the term “pole.” In this proceeding, the FCC inquires whether a light pole constitutes a pole. 

The FCC notes that it has previously recognized that light poles are suitable hosts for small cells. 5G wireless networks rely on dense deployment of smaller antennas across provider networks in locations closer to customers. Requiring nondiscriminatory access to light poles for communications attachments at rates, terms, and conditions that are just and reasonable could thus be a significant positive step toward the FCC’s broadband and 5G deployment goals.

In 2019, CTIA, the lobbying arm of the U.S. wireless communications industry, asked the FCC to clarify that the term “pole” as used in Section 224 of the Communications Act of 1934 and the Commission’s rules includes utility-owned light poles. CTIA also asked the FCC to declare that utilities must afford nondiscriminatory access to light poles and comply with Section 224 and the Commission’s pole attachment rules with respect to light poles. CTIA argued that:

• Light poles are optimal locations for small cells (which play a critical role in 5G networks) and are likely to be the only feasible location along rights-of-way where electric lines are buried;
• Utilities are denying access to light poles or are charging high fees for access in a manner that impedes deployment;
• Excluding light poles from the definition of “pole” would be inconsistent with the FCC’s rules and congressional intent;
• Construing section 224 to apply to light poles would be “consistent with the real-world practice of commingling street lights and communications attachments on the same poles; and
• Applying section 224 to light poles would advance the public policy goals of promoting competition and the deployment of infrastructure to support broadband and 5G without harming utilities.

The FCC is now seeking targeted comment on whether the Commission should codify a definition of the term “pole,” whether any codified definition should include light poles, whether any rule changes would be necessary to implement a definition that includes light poles, and the impact that requiring nondiscriminatory access to light poles at rates, terms, and conditions that are just and reasonable would have on the deployment of broadband and 5G.

General Questions

In addition to the specific issues raised above, the FCC is also seeking comment on causes for delay or other issues that stakeholders believe will help facilitate deployments.

The FCC also seeks comment on the extent to which application fees and related costs that utilities impose upon prospective attachers before an application is even accepted for filing may impact deployments by smaller providers. To what extent do the fees that utilities charge to file applications and the utilities’ various pre-filing engineering requirements inhibit broadband deployment? Are there specific examples where these costs have prevented or delayed deployment? What, if any, actions might the FCC take to address utility-imposed fees or engineering requirements before the make-ready stage that inhibit broadband deployment?

Timeline

The FCC launched this proceeding on July 24, 2025, and with recent publication in the Federal Register, the schedule for comments is now set. Initial comments from the public are due on September 22, and Reply Comments are due October 21, 2025. There is no timeline for the FCC to take any further action; the Commission is unlikely to adopt new rules until 2026.

For more details on the FCC's questions, see the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment. 

Notes

1. Make-ready is a process that involves entities with lines on the poles—typically cable TV providers, electric utilities, and telephone companies—relocating their equipment to make space for new attachments.

Kevin Taglang is the Executive Editor at the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. 

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring that all people in the U.S. have access to competitive, High-Performance Broadband regardless of where they live or who they are. We believe communication policy - rooted in the values of access, equity, and diversity - has the power to deliver new opportunities and strengthen communities.

© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2025. Redistribution of this email publication - both internally and externally - is encouraged if it includes this copyright statement.

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, please email headlinesATbentonDOTorg

Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Institute
for Broadband & Society
1041 Ridge Rd, Unit 214
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-220-4531
headlines AT benton DOT org

Share this edition:

Broadband Delivers Opportunities and Strengthens Communities