Permitting Reform Remains a Top Priority: BEAD Contractors Need to Obtain Over 86,000 Permits

In order to complete all of the construction projects funded by the $42.45 billion Broadband Equity and Access Deployment (BEAD) program, a new study projects that contractors will have to obtain at least 86,402 permits from a wide range of governing bodies. While some permit processes may go smoothly, others are already imposing significant costs and delays. Moreover, the estimate likely understates the scope of the problem, as the authors made several conservative assumptions in producing the report. Permitting reform is already a significant focus of both Congress and the FCC. It needs to remain a top priority as this report documents.

On August 5, 2026, Broadband Expanded issued a study and summary conducted by Alex Karras and Michael Santorelli to quantify the size of the permitting challenge that contractors face across the nation. They find that “BEAD-funded broadband builds face a broad, multi-jurisdictional permitting burden.” Looking at just the basics, the study covers 2,942,440 BEAD-funded locations within 3,783 projects and 126 federal, state, and local jurisdictions. This produced 6,933 project areas (a match between a single project and a specific permitting jurisdiction) and tries to measure the number of permits each will require. In total the study identifies 86,402 permitting “triggers.” The median project area faces 11 triggers and 8 permitting authorities.

 Who requires these permits? The study assumes that every project area will require at least one permit from each of the counties in which it is located. It also reports that 95.2 percent of project areas trigger a federal environmental review. At the state level, 75.5 percent of project areas require state-level permitting (mainly for highway rights-of-way) and 61.7 percent require municipal permits.

The authors made several conservative assumptions. As a result, the actual number of permits is likely to be significantly greater than projected. These assumptions include:

• Each permitting requirement is only counted once in each project area even though in many cases the jurisdiction may require more than one permit to complete the project.
• Due to data limitations the analysis does not include permits for infrastructure that is not physically close to a served household.
• The study omitted all satellite projects on the assumption that they require no physical plant and therefore do not need permits.
• Features crossed only by fiber or other infrastructure running between premises with no construction are not counted.

Other than counties (which are assumed to apply to all projects), the most common triggers for a permit are wetlands (89.4 percent of projects), flood zones (72.6 percent), interstate, U.S. and state highways (71.6 percent), impaired waters (64.6 percent), and municipal overview (61.7 percent).

Because they touch many projects with different responsibilities, some entities have a larger presence than others. The U.S Army Corps of Engineers covers 89.8 percent of project areas, the Environmental Protection Agency 83.2 percent, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency 72.6 percent. Since federal agencies issue 48.2 percent of all permits, permit reforms in these agencies will have an out-sized impact. The problem is not limited to government authorities. Private parties account for 15.7 percent of permits. Railroads account for 44.3 percent of all projects (as opposed to permits issued). Utilities and pipelines are also significant. 

Harras and Santorelli do a good job of summarizing the basic size of the permitting process. They conclude that “ISPs face a thicket of byzantine permitting processes at the local, state, and federal levels that could slow or derail progress towards meeting BEAD’s goals at scale." Given their assumptions, the figures are likely a lower-bound estimate of the true burden.

The problem is further complicated by the fact that each jurisdiction has its own timetables, requirements, and processes. In addition, the BEAD program contains time limits that contractors must meet once they have received government funding. Finally, many jurisdictions lack the resources to handle a sudden surge in construction. On the upside, the BEAD program currently has $21 billion in unspent funds. Free State Foundation scholars have supported using at least some of these funds to improve the permitting processes that currently delay broadband deployment.

Broadband Trade Associations Call on Congress to Pass H.R. 2289: The American Broadband Deployment Act

On April 13 a broad coalition of 13 associations representing different parts of America’s communications infrastructure wrote a joint letter to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives urging them to support passage of H.R 2289, the American Broadband Deployment Act (ABDA). The House Committee on Energy and Commerce passed the bill 26-24. The Rules Committee is scheduled to consider it on Monday, April 20.

The letter pointed out that, while Congress has devoted over $42 billion to the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment and other programs, builders continue to face persistent permitting barriers that delay deployment and realizing the full benefits of the funds. The letter makes several common arguments in favor of implementing permitting reform. First, the cost of delay due to inefficient permitting processes limits the reach of broadband networks and raises costs to consumers. Second, every dollar that is devoted to the permitting process is a dollar that cannot be invested in more efficient networking equipment. Third, broadband deployment supports America’s strategic position in the global contest to advance artificial intelligence because AI cannot function without connectivity.

 

H.R 2289 seeks to advance broadband deployment by establishing seamless, nationwide rules for obtaining federal, state, and local permits needed to complete broadband deployment. The ABDA codifies the FCC’s deployment streamlining orders and interpretations developed over the past two decades and builds on two current FCC efforts to speed permitting for wireless and wired deployments, respectively. The bill attempts to set out clear rules for state and local agencies, including streamlined review for deployments on existing infrastructure, binding shot clocks, and limits on the amount of fees and other conditions that can be imposed by agencies.

At the federal level, the bill provides that certain requests to modify an existing wireless tower or base station by collecting, removing, or replacing transmission equipment will not be considered a “major federal action” under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or an undertaking” under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). This excuses companies from having to undergo long and costly environmental reviews.

The letter notes that the House has already passed two pieces of permitting legislation on a voice vote. H.R. 1665 passed the House on March 16, 2026. It directs the Secretaries of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture to establish an online portal for the acceptance, processing, and disposal of forms seeking permission to use federal land for communications purposes. Each portal will be published on the website of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration for public use.

H.R. 5419 passed the House on March 3, 2026. It directs the Secretaries of the Department of the Interior and Agriculture to each conduct a study of programmatic or administrative barriers to the timely review of requests for broadband use authorizations, whether revisions to rules or regulations could improve efficiency with respect to reviewing requests for broadband land use authorizations, and whether there are processes for prioritizing the review of requests for broadband land use authorizations. Within a year the Secretaries must give a joint report to Congress describing the results of their respective studies, including any reforms described therein, together with a plan for providing the staffing necessary to ensure timely review of broadband land use authorizations.

It is notable that the focus on federal permitting efforts seems largely confined to reducing the requirements of the two major pieces of environmental legislation. This is consistent with two recent reports on federal permitting requirements. A 2024 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service process most applications from telecommunications providers to install communications use equipment or facilities—including for broadband Internet—on federal property. However, GAO found that from fiscal years 2018 through 2022, these agencies lacked accurate and complete data needed to determine the processing time for 42 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of their communications use applications. These agencies also lacked the necessary controls to ensure staff entered key information, such as start and end dates, in their electronic systems. A more recent study concluded that there are no recent data on the costs that wireless providers face when complying with NEPA and NHPA. Using data obtained through surveys and working sessions, it estimated that mobile wireless providers would spend over $2.2 billion on regulatory compliance within the next decade.

While H.R.2289 will certainly help companies obtain federal licenses faster and with less expense, state and local requirements may be less amenable to reform. The ABDA has generated significant opposition from state and local agencies. As part of its broader efforts to reform regulations, the FCC has initiated two important proceedings to eliminate unnecessary delays in broadband deployment imposed by state and local governments. These include a Notice of Inquiry focused on eliminating barriers to wireline deployments and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for wireless deployments. Both efforts attracted a large number of public comments including from trade associations detailing several projects experiencing cost and schedule increases that seem unrelated to the true cost of access to public land.

Permitting reform is much needed. Hopefully, the American Broadband Deployment Act and other related legislation implementing permitting reform will be speedily adopted. And, in any event, the FCC's own efforts will still be important.

Talkie's Preemption Petition Looks Persuasive

An item in today's Law360 Telecommunications newsletter, "Md. Gov't Agencies Oppose Talkie's FCC Preemption Bid,"caught my attention. [A subscription is required to access Law360.] The report involves a petition filed with the Federal Communications Commission by Talkie Communications, Inc., in January 2026, asking the agency to preempt Queen Anne's County in Maryland from enforcing what it claims are local zoning requirements that have the effect of prohibiting Talkie from attaching its communications equipment to a utility pole owned by Talkie.

According to Talkie, the county's bureaucratic permitting roadblocks are preventing it from providing voice, data, and cable services to Maryland residents and businesses. In recent years, Talkie has made significant investments to deploy its broadband services, including high-speed Internet services, in order to expand its competitive footprint.

 

Like many of the disputes between wireless and wireline communications providers and local authorities, there is a lot of back-and-forth, with assertions and counter-assertions. I haven't taken the time to independently investigate the facts of this dispute. But after reviewing Talkie's preemption petition, it looks to me like Talkie has presented a good prima facie case.

 

This is just one of many, many instances in which local cities and counties across the country implement onerous and often costly requirements, or engage in bureaucratic delay tactics, that prevent the timely deployment of new communications services and advanced broadband infrastructure. It's important that, when appropriate, the FCC grant meritorious preemption petitions. Talkie's petition looks like it may be just such a case.

 

The proper exercise of the Commission's preemption authority in a timely fashion is crucial to the full realization of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's important, much-needed "Build America" agenda.

 

House Orders Study on How to Speed Approvals to Access Federal Land to Build Out Broadband Networks.

Over the past year there has been a growing emphasis on expanding public access to broadband services. Although actual progress is slow, planning and evaluation seems to have gained momentum. One aspect of this is a growing focus on the amount of time it takes government agencies at all levels to approve the use of federal lands to install broadband systems. Fortunately, some progress was recently made.

On March 3 the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5419 by a unanimous voice vote. The Enhancing Administrative Reviews for Broadband Deployment Act was originally introduced by Rep. Tom Kean (R-NJ). It requires the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to study whether there are any programmatic or administrative barriers to the timely review of requests to access federal land to deploy broadband. The study will also identify whether regulatory reforms could improve efficiency with respect to reviewing requests and try to identify processes for prioritizing the review of requests. Within one year the Departments shall issue a report summarizing the results of the study. It should also include a plan for providing the staffing necessary to ensure timely review of broadband land use authorizations in the future.

 A 2024 report by the Government Accountability Office found that between 2018 and 2022 the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service lacked sufficiently reliable data to determine whether they were meeting the statutory requirement of 270 days to process applications to use federal land to extend broadband coverage.

Permitting delays, for whatever reasons, add directly to the cost of deploying broadband projects. Thus, any actions to shorten approval times have a significant effect on economic growth. Such actions by Congress are welcome and show that, even in an atmosphere of strong partisan dialogue, it is still possible to find bipartisan support for policies that improve American life.