FCC Seeks Comment on Whether Certified States Are Effectively Regulating Pole Attachments

The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Wireline Competition Bureau has issued a Public Notice reminding states and territories that have "reverse‑preempted" federal pole attachment regulation of their obligation to actively regulate pole attachments. The Notice also seeks comment on whether changes to the FCC's certification rules are needed—including changes that could facilitate revocation of a state's certifications—to ensure that broadband providers are not subject to unnecessary delays and costs when deploying networks. A full or partial revocation would transfer jurisdiction to the FCC, allowing providers to pursue expedited dispute resolution through the FCC's Rapid Broadband Assessment Team (RBAT).

Under Section 224 of the Communications Act, the FCC regulates the rates, terms, and conditions of pole attachments unless a state certifies under 224(c) that it regulates those matters itself. Twenty‑three states and the District of Columbia have filed such certifications, which allow them to assume jurisdiction over pole attachment regulation within their borders.

The Bureau's Public Notice emphasizes that states that have exercised this authority must do more than simply assert jurisdiction. To maintain reverse‑preemption, a state must certify that it has issued and implemented rules governing pole attachments, effectively regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of such attachments, and maintain procedures for timely resolving attacher complaints. The Notice explains that, absent the required certification, the FCC's rules create a rebuttable presumption that the state is not regulating pole attachments. It also notes that 18 of the 23 certified states, as well as the District of Columbia, filed their reverse‑preemption certifications before the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded Section 224 to cover attachments by telecommunications carriers and established a mandatory right of access.

The FCC's inquiry reflects growing concern that inconsistent or incomplete state pole attachment regimes could delay or increase the cost of broadband deployment—particularly as federally funded projects move forward under programs such as the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The Bureau cites reports suggesting that inadequate or unclear state pole attachment regulation in some jurisdictions may have created barriers to broadband deployment.

In light of these concerns, the FCC is seeking comment on the current status of pole attachment regulation in states that have reverse‑preempted federal jurisdiction and whether additional steps are needed to ensure that those states are meeting the requirements of Section 224(c). It asks what it can do to best address the "urgency and potential for broadband deployment brought about by government and private funding opportunities." Among other issues, the FCC asks whether it should require states to update or recertify their authority with greater specificity regarding the entities and attachments they regulate; whether state certifications filed before the Telecommunications Act of 1996 remain sufficient now that pole attachment regulation also applies to telecommunications carriers; and whether the FCC should review existing certifications to ensure that states have implemented effective regulatory frameworks.

The FCC also seeks comment on what steps it could take if it determines that a state has not established effective rules governing pole attachments or does not actually regulate the rates, terms, and conditions of attachments. The Bureau asks whether, in such circumstances, the FCC should treat a state's certification as invalid and assert federal jurisdiction over pole attachment disputes arising in that state.

Comments in this proceeding are due July 13, 2026, and reply comments are due July 27, 2026.

This proceeding could have significant implications for broadband providers, utilities, and other stakeholders operating in states that regulate pole attachments. Entities that rely on pole access for network deployment may wish to consider participating in the proceeding, particularly if state pole attachment frameworks have affected deployment timelines or costs.

+++

Maria Browne is a partner in DWT's Washington, D.C. office. For questions or more insights, please reach out to Maria or another member of our communications team and sign up for our alerts.