Skip to main content

Wireline Permitting Study: Economic Impact on Fiber | FBA

Wireline Telecommunications Permitting Challenges: Economic Impact of State and Local Permitting Practices

Download the Study

The Fiber Broadband Association (FBA) commissioned Cartesian, a telecom strategy and economic consulting firm, to give a fact-based view of wireline permitting in the United States. The study looks at how state and local permitting practices affect fiber broadband deployment, measures their economic impact, and recommends policies for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The report comes as the FCC considers its June 2026 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments (WC Docket No. 25-253). The NPRM proposes rules under Section 253 of the Communications Act. Section 253 bars state or local requirements that “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” any entity from providing telecommunications service. It also keeps the authority of states and localities to manage public rights-of-way (ROW) and charge fair, reasonable, competitively neutral compensation.

What the Research Found

Cartesian gathered more than 100 real-world permitting examples from 30 states and territories and 71 local jurisdictions. Sources included an FBA member survey, provider interviews, the FCC NPRM record, public litigation filings, and municipal, county, and state websites. The evidence shows egregious permitting practices in cities and counties of all sizes, from rural to urban. They fall into four areas: fees, requirements, timelines, and approvals.

Documented examples include:

  • A recurring charge of $0.25 per foot per year in Bristol, Tennessee, which totaled $442,000 in annual ROW charges.
  • A $325 per-street fee that added $200,000 to a citywide fiber project in a Massachusetts suburb.
  • A review fee set at 3.5% of project value, which produced a $75,000 invoice on a $2.2 million project in Washington.
  • One fiber application in Ohio that went through 13 departments and 70 individuals.
  • An average of nine months to get an underground fiber permit in Los Angeles.

Policy Recommendations for the FCC

The report recommends that the FCC:

  • Prohibit fees that aren’t based on cost. This includes charges based on linear feet of ROW occupied or on a provider’s revenue.
  • Set a safe harbor for fees: $200 per permit, capped at $5,000 per jurisdiction for large projects. The cap covers all reviews, inspections, and approvals and is based on 100 government labor hours at $50 per hour.
  • Adopt a 120-day shot clock. All reviews, inspections, and approvals for large, complex projects would be due within 120 days, with shorter windows for smaller builds and aerial builds. States such as Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin already have shorter statutory review deadlines.
  • Count in-kind compensation against fee limits. Demands such as dark fiber or free municipal connections would receive a dollar value counted against the jurisdiction’s cost-recovery limit.
  • Require parallel review, not sequential review, and allow no-cost permit extensions for delays outside the provider’s control.
  • Lock in requirements at approval and apply them consistently to incumbents and new entrants.
  • Set up fast dispute resolution. The Section 224 pole attachment complaint process would serve as the model.

Who Should Read This Report

The study is written for federal and state policymakers, municipal and county ROW managers, broadband offices, and the ISPs, network operators, and fiber engineers who plan and pay for wireline deployment.

Whitepaper FAQs

  1. What is the FBA Wireline Permitting Study?
    It’s an economic study Cartesian prepared for the Fiber Broadband Association. It documents state and local permitting practices that slow or block fiber broadband deployment, measures their effect on project economics, and recommends policies to the FCC under Section 253 of the Communications Act.
  2. What is Section 253, and why does it matter for fiber permitting?
    Section 253 of the Communications Act bars state and local requirements that prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting, the provision of telecommunications service. States and localities keep the authority to manage public rights-of-way and to charge fair, reasonable, competitively neutral compensation. The FCC’s June 2026 NPRM, Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments, proposes rules to define where local permitting crosses that line.
  3. Which permitting practices do the most harm to fiber deployment?
    Per-linear-foot ROW charges, both one-time and recurring, did the most damage in Cartesian’s modeling. They made 100% of modeled projects economically unviable. ROW approval delays, sequential reviews, and approvals that depend on other permits also made every modeled project a “no go.” High street degradation fees, extra restoration requirements, and revenue-based ROW fees also met the study’s “materially inhibiting” standard.
  4. How did Cartesian measure economic impact?
    Cartesian modeled a 10,000-home, 100-route-mile underground fiber build. It applied 12 egregious permitting scenarios, one at a time, to projects with starting IRRs from 10% to 15%. A practice was classified as materially inhibiting when more than half of the modeled projects fell below the 10% hurdle rate that providers commonly use for go/no-go decisions.
  5. How do permitting delays affect a fiber project’s return?
    Delays add costs through idle crews, remobilization, rework, and premium labor. They also push revenue further out and increase uncertainty. In the study, a 12-month ROW approval delay lowered a project’s IRR from 11% to about 6%, turning a viable build into a “no go.”
  6. What fee limits does the report recommend?
    Up to $200 per permit should be presumed reasonable, with a total cap of $5,000 per jurisdiction for large projects. The cap covers all reviews, inspections, and approvals. Charges above those limits would need an itemized showing of actual, direct costs. The report recommends that recurring ROW rent and revenue-based fees not be allowed at all, because they don’t reflect a jurisdiction’s actual costs of managing the right-of-way.
  7. What is a permitting shot clock?
    A shot clock is a firm deadline for a jurisdiction to act on a permit application. The report recommends a 120-day, all-inclusive shot clock for large, complex projects, with shorter windows for smaller builds. Several states already use shorter deadlines, including Indiana (10 days), Tennessee (30 business days), Michigan (45 days), and Hawaii, Ohio, and Wisconsin (60 days).
  8. What is in-kind compensation in permitting?
    In-kind compensation is a non-cash contribution a jurisdiction requires as a condition of approval, such as dark fiber, free municipal service, conduit, or poles. The study documents cases like a New Jersey permit that required six fiber strands for a single site. The report recommends giving these contributions a dollar value and counting them against the jurisdiction’s cost-recovery limit.
  9. How do permitting practices in one town affect neighboring communities?
    Many fiber builds, including BEAD-funded projects, cross several jurisdictions. If a larger town makes deployment uneconomic, smaller neighboring communities may not have enough scale to justify a build on their own. The report cites this spillover as further justification for state and federal oversight.
  10. Where did the permitting examples come from?
    Cartesian collected more than 100 examples from 30 states and territories and 71 local jurisdictions. Sources were a 2026 FBA member survey, provider interviews, the FCC NPRM record (WC Docket No. 25-253), public litigation filings, and municipal, county, and state websites.