Broadband is a powerful communications technology that supports many applications. Closing the gap between people who have access to broadband and those who do not—the digital divide—has been a long-standing congressional goal. Pole attachment (hanging telecommunications equipment on existing utility poles) is a key factor in closing the digital divide because it may be the most efficient method to deploy broadband in many areas. However, disputes within the industry over pole attachments pose deployment challenges. Pole attachments are of particular concern in the context of implementation of the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, as broadband providers must operate within the constraints of grant-mandated timelines and finite awards. Some Members of Congress have expressed concerns about this issue. A variety of technologies are capable of delivering fixed (i.e., not mobile) broadband. Consumers typically prefer fiber because of its fast speeds and low latency (or lag time). Fiber can be hung aerially on poles or buried in the ground and can be connected directly to individual residences. Some broadband service providers may choose to deploy fiber aerially on existing poles—which may be more cost effective than burying it. The process of attaching telecommunications equipment to a pole is referred to as a pole attachment. For a broadband provider to deploy fiber aerially, the provider must work with the owner of the pole(s) (usually a utility). Disagreements sometimes occur between a broadband provider and a pole owner, typically with respect to the costs to attach and the timing of access to a pole. Disagreements can delay the deployment of broadband—leaving consumers without connectivity. Pole attachments are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which, over the years, has promulgated rules on a number of pole attachment issues. The Pole Attachment Act of 1978, which added Section 224 to the Communications Act of 1934, governs federal pole attachment rules. Section 224 contains a “reverse preemption provision” that allows states to regulate pole attachments themselves. Currently, 23 states and the District of Columbia have certified to the FCC that they regulate pole attachments. Further, under Section 224, certain pole owners (i.e., municipalities, electric cooperatives, and public utilities) are exempt from FCC pole attachment rules, while investor-owned utilities and private companies are subject to them. These variations have led to a complex and fragmented pole attachment regulatory scheme and have introduced challenges to the deployment of broadband. If Congress believes that pole attachment issues are impeding rural broadband deployment, it may consider reforming pole access rules. Potential options for reform proposed by stakeholders have included establishing deadlines (to prevent delays in pole access) and removing the exemption of certain pole owners under Section 224. The core debate involves balancing the acceleration of broadband deployment against the interests of pole owners. In the 119th Congress, the Barriers and Regulatory Obstacles Avoids Deployment of Broadband Access and Needs Deregulatory Leadership (BROADBAND Leadership) Act (H.R. 278) would place limits on the authority of a state or locality to regulate the placement, construction, or modification of telecommunications service facilities (i.e., the physical infrastructure such as towers, cables). A challenge for Congress may be understanding how the proposals in this bill, or other specific changes to the regulatory landscape, may affect implementation of the BEAD Program and broadband deployment generally. Congress could also choose not to enact new legislation and to defer to the FCC and the states to regulate pole attachments under the existing statutory framework.
Full content not yet available.