California PUC Scheduled to Vote on Charter/Cox Transaction: Additional Bites at the "Conditions" Apple Shouldn't Be Allowed to Upset the Pro-Consumer Cart

Next Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) at long last is poised to vote on the transfer of control of Cox Enterprises, Inc. (Cox) to Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter). And with little time to spare. The question is, will extra-legal attempts to saddle this pro-consumer transaction with unjustified conditions "jeopardize the Transfer's public benefits altogether"?

In comments filed with both the CPUC and the FCC, a June 2025 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, and a series of blog posts, Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I consistently have argued that the proposed combination of Charter and Cox is likely to generate clear consumer-benefitting efficiencies and, as a result of the de minimis overlap of their service territories as well as the impact of intense competition from Big Tech, no significant offsetting harms.

As we concluded in our submission to the FCC:

[T]he combination of Charter and Cox promises numerous consumer benefits. These include [(1)] lower costs, greater choice, and additional innovation in traditional cable offerings (broadband and video) fostered by an enhanced ability to compete with often much larger rivals, including Big Tech platforms with global reach; (2) the expansion of Charter's hybrid [mobile virtual network operator] offering into Cox's footprint combined with lower costs through greater scale; and (3) the "onshoring" of Cox customer-service jobs. And given the lack of any meaningful overlap in service territories, not to mention the high level of third-party competition in all three marketplace sectors, there appears to be little, if any, basis for concern that the transaction could result in significant harms.

*    *    * 

Regarding the state of play in California, the last hurdle that the transaction must clear, let's start with (potentially) good news: as I noted in my June 23 post to the FSF Blog, the parties expressed concern in a June 18 notice of ex parte communication that the CPUC's failure to act by August 13 – that is, the very day upon which the vote is scheduled – could result in the expiration of the Department of Justice's Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) approval. That "would cost the companies $2.5 million in filing fees and require them to wait at least another 30 days for DOJ clearance."

Should a vote to approve proceed as scheduled, those imminent instances of inefficiency and waste would be averted.

And now, let's turn to the (potentially) bad news: as I described in that same blog post, commenters, certainly aware of that looming deadline, had urged the CPUC to impose still more conditions – that is, on top of those agreed to by the parties in comprehensive settlements (Settlements) with the CPUC's Public Advocates Office and the California Emerging Technology Fund (CETF) and described in a May 18 notice of ex parte communication.

(Without getting too far into the weeds, there are two proposals before the CPUC: (1) the Proposed Decision of Administrative Law Judge Ormond (PD), to which Charter and Cox roundly object, and (2) the Alternative Proposed Decision of Commissioner Matthew Baker (APD), which is based upon the Settlements.)

In reply comments, CETF took issue with the PD, contending that "[b]ottom-line, a settlement agreement requires the assent of its parties" (emphasis in original).

Similarly, in their reply comments regarding the PD, Charter and Cox asserted it "deviates from longstanding Commission precedent, resulting in 'clear legal error and technical inconsistency,' by improperly superseding Settlement terms, and imposing extraneous measures with no record support. It would materially impede Charter's ability to compete and jeopardize the Transfer's public benefits altogether" (citations omitted).

By contrast, Charter and Cox noted approvingly in their reply comments on the APD that it "correctly finds that the Transfer, with the Settlements, serves the public interest, and, 'paired with the mitigations' that Joint Applicants accept (subject to modest revisions), also 'address[es] concerns raised by parties outside the [Settlement A]greement[s]'" (emphasis in original).

*    *    *

The Settlements to which Charter and Cox – as well as the CPUC's Public Advocates Office – are a party appear to be more than sufficient to address any potential harms resulting from this transaction. The CPUC therefore should reject calls to unilaterally supersede those agreements and instead approve the APD at its meeting next week.

Is California Leveraging the Clock to Extract More Concessions From Charter and Cox?

In a March post to the FSF Blog regarding the merger between Charter Communications, Inc., and Charter Holdings, LLC (collectively, Charter) and Cox Enterprises, Inc. (Cox), I identified the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) as "the final, time-sensitive hurdle preventing the formation of a combined company better able to compete in broadband, mobile, and video." In recent days that time-sensitive hurdle has grown substantially.

In a video conference that took place on June 15 described in a June 18 notice of ex parte communication, representatives from Charter reiterated its concerns that the CPUC's timeline for action "would not sufficiently account for unforeseen or unanticipated delays that may occur, and that failure to complete the Transaction review prior to the [Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR)] expiration would jeopardize the Transaction and the consumer benefits it would produce."

Meanwhile, Broadband Breakfast (subscription required) reports that "[s]ome advocacy groups in California want the state to tack on more conditions if it approves Charter's $34.5 billion acquisition of Cox Communications." Any such conditions would be in addition to commitments – including, among other things, a "$275 million investment over three years to upgrade Charter's network to support symmetrical gigabit service across its legacy service areas" – already agreed to in comprehensive settlements with the Public Advocates Office and the California Emerging Technology Fund described in a May 18 notice of ex parte communication.

Coincidence? Who can say.

What we do know is that the parties to this transaction – which has obtained the approval of the FCC, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and every other state within which they operate – repeatedly have warned the CPUC that its failure to sign off on the deal by September 15 at a minimum "would cost the companies $2.5 million in filing fees and require them to wait at least another 30 days for DOJ clearance."

Accordingly, the parties have on numerous occasions urged the CPUC to act "promptly." Most recently, and as described in the June 18 notice of ex parte communication referenced above, Charter explained why CPUC action by August 13, rather than its next meeting scheduled for September 3 (that is, a mere 12 days before HSR clearance expires), is "necessary."

As Free State Foundation President Randolph May and I explained in comments submitted to the FCC, and as every other reviewing body has concluded, the combination of these two companies will benefit competition – and, in turn, consumers.

The time for regulatory arbitrage has run out.

The CPUC should act before the DOJ's HSR clearance runs out, too.

Charter/Cox Transaction, Approved by Federal Regulators, Awaits California OK

On March 19, the New York State Public Service Commission approved – with questionable conditions – the transfer of control of Cox Enterprises, Inc. (Cox) to Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter). Weeks before, the FCC signed off on this pro-consumer transaction with no strings attached. The Department of Justice (DOJ), for its part, cleared the deal in September 2025, thereby triggering a one-year countdown during which the transaction must close lest that approval expire.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) now stands as the final, time-sensitive hurdle preventing the formation of a combined company better able to compete in broadband, mobile, and video. The parties therefore requested on February 27 that, should the CPUC find it necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing, it do so "promptly" – specifically, at some point next week. However, on March 2, the CPUC announced that it would not hold evidentiary hearings until April 20-24.

In a June 2025 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, FCC comments coauthored with Free State Foundation President Randolph May, and a brief submission to the CPUC, I consistently have argued that this transaction likely would deliver tangible consumer benefits without imposing significant offsetting harms. For example, in those comments filed with the CPUC, I wrote that:

[T]he combination of these two companies promises to provide California consumers of broadband, wireless, and video services with cost savings, expanded choice, and accelerated innovation, particularly in Cox service areas. Moreover, potential concerns regarding transaction-specific harms are obviated by (1) the de minimis overlap between the parties' respective geographic footprints, and (2) the substantial competitive pressures cable operators face from Big Tech, rival distribution technologies, and over-the-top content providers.

In a February 27 order, the Chiefs of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau, Office of International Affairs, and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau agreed, concluding that there are "certain public interest benefits [that] are likely to be realized, including promoting competition and consumer benefits for broadband and other services the combined company will provide" – and not "a significant likelihood of any material transaction-related public interest harms."

But as these things go, Charter and Cox also must obtain approvals from the states within which they operate. As noted above, New York recently blessed the transaction – though not without first extracting a figurative pound of flesh in the form of commitments to (1) spend at least $100 million on network upgrades to deliver symmetric Gigabit per second broadband speeds (that is, speeds well above the FCC's definition of "broadband": 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) downstream and 20 Mbps upstream), (2) replace 500+ Wi-Fi access points and provide free Wi-Fi access to non-customers, and (3) "fund digital inclusion and community initiatives."

That leaves California.

At the Morgan Stanley Investors Conference earlier this month, Charter Communications, Inc. CEO Chris Winfrey acknowledged that, "[n]o secret, we're working through California as the big state that remains open." And as a Charter spokesperson was quoted in a recent Broadband Breakfast article, "[w]e are working with California state regulators to complete the transaction review soon so we can bring lower prices, higher wages, and our 100% US-based customer service to more communities across the country."

There is now widespread agreement, at both the federal and state levels, that the combination of Charter and Cox would net substantial consumer benefits. California therefore should conclude its review with all due speed. Specifically, it should do so with a watchful eye toward the September 15 expiration date associated with the DOJ's approval – a deadline that, if missed, "would cost the companies $2.5 million in filing fees and require them to wait at least another 30 days for DOJ clearance."

Streaming Continues to Surge as Short-Form Video Reshapes Consumer Habits

In a June 2025 post to the FSF Blog, I noted that streaming video had achieved a remarkable milestone: for the first time, it surpassed cable and broadcast television combined, capturing 44.8 percent of total viewing in May 2025. That trend continues. According to Nielsen's January edition of The Gauge™, streaming video's viewing share reached 47.5 percent in December 2025, setting yet another record. Perhaps even more impressive is the fact that, on two separate occasions, it represented over half of daily video consumption.

But the story of shifting consumer preferences extends beyond the longstanding streaming-versus-traditional-distribution-platforms narrative. An equally significant transformation is underway as social-media platforms – TikTok, YouTube Shorts, Instagram Reels, and so on – increasingly capture consumer attention with short-form content, particularly among younger demographics.

According to a Digiday article citing a report by GCI (subscription required), global consumers on average spend a tremendous amount of time each week watching short-form video content on social-media platforms: six hours and 39 minutes. In fact, the amount of time global consumers spend accessing such content significantly exceeds the amount of time they view streaming video: 5 hours. This represents a fundamental realignment in how people – especially younger generations – consume video.

These twin trends carry significant implications for communications policy. Indeed, the (1) ongoing ascendance of streaming video over legacy distribution platforms, and (2) explosive growth of short-form video underscore what I and others affiliated with the Free State Foundation long have argued: that the video marketplace is intensely competitive and consumer-driven. Consequently, legacy regulations born of a bygone era interfere with marketplace mechanics and artificially constrain competition-fueled growth in consumer welfare.

This reality is particularly relevant in the context of the FCC's ongoing review of the proposed transaction between Charter Communications, Inc. and Cox Enterprises, Inc., currently on day 101 (out of 180) according to the Commission's informal timeline. As the Free State Foundation noted in its comments, the combination of these geographically distinct distribution platforms appears likely to benefit video subscribers, in particular the Cox customers who would gain access to Charter's packages bundled with popular streaming options (HBO Max, Disney+, Paramount+, and ESPN Unlimited, among others).

Wi-Fi 7 Innovation Is Now Deploying to Consumers

On November 25, Charter Communications announced that it has started deploying Wi-Fi 7 routers. Charter is apparently the first major broadband Internet service provider to launch an exclusively designed Wi-Fi 7 technology system for both its residential and business subscribers. In September, AT&T announced that it plans to introduce a new Wi-Fi 7-capable gateway before the end of the year. Also, it is reported that there are dozens of Wi-Fi 7-certified non-exclusive devices in the market as of 2024.

Wi-Fi 7 is an innovative upgrade over prior generations of Wi-Fi technology. It is reported that Wi-Fi 7 enables wider channels for increased bandwidth, improved reliability, and better speeds. In 2025, look for the deployment of Wi-Fi 7 routers, TVs, cell phones, and other Wi-Fi 7-compatible devices to improve network performance and capabilities for American broadband subscribers – starting with Charter's subscribers. 

 

Wi-Fi 7 operates in the 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6 GHz bands. Fortunately, there is a large amount of spectrum dedicated to unlicensed wireless usage, such as Wi-Fi. The FCC's 6 GHz Order (2020) cleared 1200 MHZ of spectrum for unlicensed use, which quadrupled the total amount of spectrum available for unlicensed devices, most notably Wi-Fi routers and Internet of Things (IoT) devices that use Wi-Fi. 

Charter, Comcast, and Broadcom Partner on Faster DOCSIS 4.0 Chipsets

At this week's Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers® (SCTE) TechExpo 2024, cable operators Charter Communications and Comcast announced an agreement with chipmaker Broadcom Inc. to develop chipsets compatible with both versions of the DOCSIS 4.0 specification: Full Duplex DOCSIS 4.0 (FDX) and Extended Spectrum DOCSIS 4.0 (ESD).

Network hardware and modems incorporating Unified DOCSIS chipsets eventually will enable downstream speeds up to 25 gigabits per second (Gbps) over existing hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) broadband facilities. In addition, they will leverage Artificial Intelligence and machine learning to improve network management and security.

FCC's Dated View Drives Dramatic Shifts in Video Strategies

In a recent post featured in today's Policyband newsletter (subscription required), Golden West Telecommunications Cooperative explained (and apologized to its customers for) a $4 per month price increase for video services. The reason put forth: rising cable programming and retransmission consent fees. Golden West even pointed out that "[o]ther telecommunications cooperatives in South Dakota have discontinued cable TV due in part to rising costs" – an exodus part of "a broader trend" that includes WideOpenWest and Frontier Communications.

I and other Free State Foundation scholars have documented extensively the rapid and relentless ascent of streaming services and the corresponding loss of subscribers by traditional providers subject to the FCC's statutory authority. We have argued that these seismic shifts demand an aggressive deregulatory response from both Congress and the Commission. We have implicated the latter's refusal to eliminate one-sided rules – and confounding desire to impose still more one-sided rules – as an exacerbating factor in the decline of facilities-based Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs). And we have explained how that decline harms competition and, in turn, consumers.

Not surprisingly, these marketplace trends are not slowing down. By way of example, Netflix days ago announced that it added 1.45 million subscribers in the United States and Canada during the second quarter, bringing its total to over 84 million. Traditional providers, on the other hand, experienced yet another "worst quarter ever" between January and March – an overall drop in pay television subscriptions that surpassed 12 percent – and analysts anticipate that second quarter results could be just as bleak.

Nevertheless, the FCC remains unwilling to remove its blinders and focus on the reality before it. Consequently, an increasing number of facilities-based MVPDs are adapting to the steadily more inhospitable competitive landscape by embracing an "if you can't beat them, join them" approach that deemphasizes their own legacy bundled offerings. Some, as noted above, are exiting the marketplace altogether and/or outsourcing their video operations to virtual MVPDs (vMVPDs) – WideOpenWest, for instance, has partnered with YouTube TV.

Others are striking deals with programmers and streaming platforms so that they can provide consumers the online alternatives that they prefer over traditional video packages. Examples include:

• Comcast is offering broadband customers the Xfinity StreamSaver™ bundle that includes Apple TV+, Netflix Standard with ads, and Peacock Premium with ads. As I noted in a recent post to the FSF Blog describing the available-at-retail Xumo platform, Comcast provides broadband customers with a Xumo Stream Box – which supports hundreds of third-party apps, including those of multiple vMVPDs that compete directly with its own legacy video products – at no additional cost.
• Charter gives subscribers to certain Spectrum TV® video packages access to Disney+ Basic and ESPN+. It also provides a free-for-six-months Xumo Stream Box to those that subscribe to Spectrum One Stream and add Spectrum TV.
• Altice USA last week announced the launch of Entertainment TV, a vMVPD service that offers over 80 channels for $30 per month and is available to broadband subscribers as part of its Optimum Stream product. As reported by Daniel Frankel, managing editor of Next TV, "[l]ike many cable operators, the company would prefer to leave linear video behind."

Traditional MVPDs find it increasingly challenging to win and retain customers in the vibrantly competitive battle for eyeballs that includes not just streaming alternatives, but social media platforms – particularly YouTube – and gaming. The FCC's dogged determination to saddle them with even more one-sided rules, such as unreasonable constraints on their ability to employ common billing practices, is exacerbating the situation and driving them to retrain their focus. As a result, consumer choice and overall consumer welfare are compromised.

Xumo Streaming Devices Compel the Sunset of Set-Top Box Rules

The Free State Foundation's recent comments responding to the FCC Office of Economics and Analytics' State of Competition in the Communications Marketplace Public Notice argued that "the Commission should follow its sound decision in September 2020 to terminate the 'unlock the box' navigation device proceeding and announce that the sunset provision set forth in Section 629(e) of the 1996 Act has been satisfied." Comcast's announcement on June 27, 2024, that Xumo streaming devices, which are available for purchase at retail and now support a fourth competing virtual Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (vMVPD), is a more than compelling reason to take that long overdue step.

Enacted nearly three decades ago in a context today wholly unrecognizable, Section 629 sought "to assure the commercial availability … of converter boxes … and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming … from manufacturers, retailers, and other vendors not affiliated with any" MVPD. The Commission effectively abandoned this misguided effort four years ago, but it stopped short of triggering the sunset provision set forth in subsection (e). Consequently, the regulatory requirement that cable operators make available "separable security" remains on the books (and imposes needless costs).

Source: xumo.com

The Xumo platform, the product of a joint venture that includes Comcast and Charter, provides consumers with access to three of the largest cable services – Comcast's Xfinity, Charter's Spectrum, and Mediacom's Xtream – as well as over 250 third-party apps.

Xumo devices can be obtained directly from these providers (in some cases for free) or – critically – at retail. The Xumo Stream Box can be purchased directly from the Xumo website, while Xumo TVs manufactured by Pioneer, element, and Hisense are available on store shelves at Best Buy, Meijer, and Walmart.

Consequently, the goal of Section 629 – to make it possible for subscribers to purchase a set-top box from a third party rather than lease one directly from their provider – clearly has been achieved. (The longstanding availability of app- and browser-based options to access MVPD services similarly satisfied that objective, notwithstanding the FCC's unwillingness to acknowledge that fact.)

But wait, there's more: not only does the Xumo platform foster device-based competition, it also facilitates service-based competition. As noted above, Xumo devices recently added support for Fubo, a vMVPD that competes with traditional MVPD offerings. And that's on top of existing support for popular vMVPDs YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV, and Sling TV.

Subsection(e) of Section 629 states that any rules adopted thereunder "shall cease to apply when the Commission determines that (1) the market for the [MVPDs] is fully competitive; (2) the market for [devices] used in conjunction with that service is fully competitive; and (3) elimination of the regulations would promote competition and the public interest."

Xumo devices singlehandedly satisfy the first two conditions, and the sunset of one-sided rules that unjustifiably impose compliance costs clearly would "promote competition and the public interest." All that is left is for the Commission to acknowledge – "determine," per the language of the statute – that which undeniably is true.

Ookla Releases Updating Ranking of U.S. Fixed Broadband Provider Services

On July 17, Ookla released its U.S. Market Report for the second quarter of 2023, which ranks mobile and fixed broadband providers according to speeds and other service criteria. According to Ookla's Speedtest Intelligence® performance metrics, for Q2 of this year, Charter's Spectrum cable broadband service had the highest median download speed among fixed providers, at 243.02 Mbps. In a July 17 article, FierceTelecom reported that this is an increase from Q1, when Spectrum's median download speeds were 234.8 Mbps. For Q2, Cox ranked close second in median download speeds at 241.78 Mbps, Comcast's Xfinity was third with 233.25 Mbps and AT&T Internet was fourth with 210.12 Mbps. AT&T and Frontier were the two fixed providers for upload speeds, at 166.86 Mbps and 164.84, respectively. Ookla's Market Report also ranks U.S. fixed providers based on latency, consistency, and video. The report includes regional comparisons as well.

Certainly, the numbers shown in Ookla's Market Report are an improvement over figures cited in the FCC's 2022 Communications Marketplace Report as well as in my January 2023 Perspectives from FSF Scholars paper that reviewed the Commission's report. Continuing steady increases in fixed broadband speeds are predicated on strong network investment as well as network innovation. Ongoing and near-future rollouts of fiber and 10G cable broadband enabled by private market investment and innovation also will significantly boost upload and download speeds, latency, capacity, reliability, and security. To ensure further improvements in broadband network performance, the FCC should maintain its federal market-oriented policy towards broadband Internet access services that defines them as lightly-regulated "information services."

The Latest on State Cable Bill Prorating Requirements

There have been two recent developments of note regarding legal challenges to state-level requirements that cable operators prorate customers' last-month bills – obligations that, as I argued in "State Cable Bills Prorating Requirements Clearly Are Preempted," an April 2021 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, constitute a form of rate regulation preempted by the 1984 Cable Act, not an otherwise permissible customer service standard or consumer protection law.

Both Maine and New Jersey require that cable operators – but not any of the countless other distributors of video programming, whether facilities-based (such as the two Direct Broadcast Satellite operators, DIRECTV and DISH Network, or telco TV providers, like Verizon FiOS) or streamed over the Internet (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, Disney+, and so on) – bill canceling customers on a per-day basis during their final month of service.

In "Maine Cable Law, Ignoring Competition, Is 'Unambiguously Preempted'," an October 2020 Perspectives, I reported that the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine had found the Maine statute to be "unambiguously preempted." The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, however, reversed that decision on January 4, 2022. For more information, please see "First Circuit Wrongly Concludes Maine's Prorated Billing Requirement Is Not Unlawful."

And last week, on January 9, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it had denied Charter Communications' petition for certiorari.

New Jersey's "virtually identical" rule likewise, and for similar reasons, was deemed preempted by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, in an October 15, 2021, unpublished opinion. I discussed this decision in "NJ State Court Concurs: Requirement to Prorate Cable Bills Equals Preempted Rate Regulation," a contemporaneous post to the Free State Foundation blog.

The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities and Division of Rate Counsel appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which held oral arguments on Tuesday (subscription required). Should the lower court decision be reversed, this case potentially could make its way to the Supreme Court.

A decision is expected as early as late next month.

Charter Announces Big Plan for Deploying Ultra-Fast 10G Broadband

According to news reports, Charter Communications is now implementing a three-year "10G" broadband network upgrade plan that will significantly expand multi-gig broadband service availability and enhance the market's competitiveness. The reported goal of Charter's plan is to make 5 Gbps download speeds available to 85% of its geographic footprint and to make 10 Gbps download speeds available for its top tier service. Charter will be upgrading its existing coaxial cable broadband network by implementing DOCSIS 4.0 technology. And it is reported that Charter will spend $10.65 in total capital expenditures next year, with $6.5 to $6.8 billion allocated for its network upgrade. 

The unveiling of Charter's "10G" plan follows Comcast's announcement of its own 10G deployment plan earlier this fall – as discussed in my September 9 blog post.

 

Cable broadband provider's "10G" platform is a competitor to high-speed fiber broadband networks. Free State Foundation Senior Fellow Andrew Long has written about the potential of cable's next-generation networks in his September 2020 Perspectives from FSF Scholars, "'10 G' Can Help Future-Proof Broadband Infrastructure" as well as in his October 2020 blog post, "Study Predicts that Cable '10G' Platform Will Generate Substantial Economic Benefits." Also, it is worth noting that cable networks are themselves fiber-laden. According to public comments filed by NCTA for the FCC's forthcoming 2022 Communications Marketplace Report, high-speed cable broadband networks "contain 550,000 route miles of fiber-optic cable. Using these fiber-rich facilities, data traveling to or from a cable customer is using fiber for 98-99% of the route." 

 

Notably, Charter is reported to also have a plan to expand its geographic footprint in 2023 and beyond. It is reported that Charter is reaching an additional 1 million new locations, backed by funding from the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. And Charter apparently has won grants from states for passing another 160,000 locations, with other potential grant awards soon to follow through programs such as the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment Act (BEAD) Program. For these rural buildouts, Charter reportedly is increasing its capital expenditures over prior years.

 

These significate private network investments – albeit supplemented by subsidies – will help reach unserved and underserved areas. Congress, the NTIA, and the FCC ought to continue promoting a pro-innovation, pro-investment, market-oriented environment by avoiding unnecessary new network management regulation, seeking ways to remove or encourage removal of local barriers to construction of new and upgraded infrastructure, as well as by conducting close and coordinated oversight of the many broadband subsidy programs to ensure that dollars are targeted to truly unserved and underserved areas in American. 

New Study Quantifies Huge Potential Losses Absent Revised Pole-Attachment Policies

An economic analysis commissioned by Connect the Future assigns a hefty price tag to the potential delays that utility pole disputes could cause in the deployment of broadband infrastructure.

"Advancing Pole Attachment Policies To Accelerate National Broadband Buildout," by Professor Edward J. Lopez and Patricia D. Kravtin, asserts that "broadband deployment is being inhibited or outright stopped due to the lack of effective pole policy to address problematic behavior of certain utility pole owners affecting broadband provider access to utility poles."

According to their analysis, this "hold up problem" could lead to substantial economic losses: between $491 million and $1.86 billion for each month of delay that results.

As I highlighted in a February 2021 post to the Free State Foundation's blog, Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter) has announced plans to invest $5 billion, including $1.2 billion in subsidies won via the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction, to connect over a million locations currently without access to broadband.

That initiative, however, hinges upon reasonable and timely access to utility poles. And in a post last week to the FSF Blog, I drew attention to two FCC filings in which Charter described several ongoing disputes that underscore the need for the relief sought by NCTA – The Internet & Television Association (NCTA) in a July 2020 Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling: (1) greater clarity regarding the proper allocation of pole replacement costs between attachers and owners, and (2) use of the Commission's Accelerated Docket to resolve pole-related impasses promptly.

Consistent with the NCTA petition, the study's authors conclude that "policymakers need to facilitate the streamlining of equitable access and cost-sharing arrangements between broadband attachers and pole owners" in order to realize the full economic potential of ubiquitous broadband coverage.