Permitting Delays Block AI-Era Broadband, New ICLE Issue Brief Finds
PORTLAND, Ore. (Sept. 10, 2026) — Permitting and access costs can exceed the price of the fiber needed to build a broadband network, according to a new issue brief from the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE). The brief argues that delays, fragmented approvals, and unpredictable fees deter investment in the networks that AI and other next-generation technologies require.
“The Permission Layer: Clearing the Way for AI-Era Broadband,” by ICLE Senior Scholar for Innovation Policy Jeffrey Westling and ICLE Director of Innovation Policy Kristian Stout, examines the federal, state, local, and private approvals that a single fiber route may need.
“AI and other next-generation technologies require more than data centers, computing power, and electricity,” Westling and Stout write. “They also depend on communications networks installed underground, strung across utility poles, and built through corridors controlled by federal, state, local, and private landowners.“
The costs can be substantial. A mile of 144-strand fiber-optic cable costs about $5,000 to $8,000, while permitting and access to public rights-of-way can add $20,000 to $40,000 per mile. Make-ready work—the preparation needed before a utility pole can accept another line—can cost $600 to $6,000 per pole. Replacing an inadequate pole can cost $5,000 to $15,000.
The authors describe these expenses as transaction costs, which include finding the proper decision-maker, negotiating access, securing permits, and enforcing agreements. A route may require federal reviews, state highway approvals, local permits or franchises, private crossing agreements, and access to thousands of poles. Any gatekeeper controlling any one segment can delay or block the entire project.
Uncertain timing can also impose greater costs than permit fees, the authors note. Delays postpone revenue while financing costs continue to accrue, shorten an asset’s useful economic life, and increase the risk that new technology will make it obsolete before investors recover their capital. These burdens eliminate marginal projects first, especially rural and underserved routes with thin private returns but substantial social value, Westling and Stout argue.
The brief recommends categorical exclusions from federal environmental review for routine communications projects that reliably produce no significant adverse effects. It also supports programmatic historic-preservation agreements, cost-based fees, and firm deadlines backed by deemed-granted remedies, under which applications are automatically approved when reviewing authorities miss their deadlines.
For utility poles, Westling and Stout recommend extending federal access and cost-allocation protections to poles owned by municipal utilities and rural electric cooperatives. They also support one-touch make-ready rules that allow one approved crew to complete routine pole work; stronger dig-once policies that install conduit during federally funded roadwork; and a 120-day deadline for local cable-franchise decisions.
The authors also urge Congress to codify the durable core of recent agency reforms. Rules that a future commission or court could reverse provide a weak foundation for infrastructure expected to operate for 20 years. Statutory protections would reduce that uncertainty across every project.
“Reform should make approvals faster and more predictable while preserving legitimate environmental, cultural, public-safety, and land-management interests,” Westling and Stout write.
The full issue brief can be downloaded here. To arrange an interview with Westling or Stout, contact Jim Fellinger at [email protected].
About ICLE
The International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research center working with a roster of more than one-hundred academic affiliates and research centers from around the globe. ICLE scholars promote the use of law and economics methodologies to inform public policy debates. For more information, visit laweconcenter.org.