Per-foot fees on fiber laid underground are the single most disruptive local permitting policy for US broadband builds, according to a new study commissioned by the Fiber Broadband Association.

The analysis, released on October 1, 2026, narrows a long-running industry complaint to one specific charge. ISPs often cite local permitting rules among the leading reasons fiber projects slip on schedule and budget. The FBA-commissioned report ranks charges calculated per foot of fiber — rather than flat application fees, right-of-way rental rates or other municipal cost structures — as the most detrimental policy to broadband deployment.

The finding lands as operators across the country scale fiber rollouts funded in part by federal broadband programs and as state broadband offices finalize award decisions. Permitting timelines have become a focal point of industry lobbying in Washington and at state public-utility commissions.

What did the FBA actually measure?

The trade group framed the study around a specific question: which local permitting rules cause the most drag on fiber buildout? Officials with ISPs and contractors have long argued that fragmented municipal authority over rights-of-way adds cost without delivering public benefit. The FBA study attempts to rank those rules by impact, rather than treat them as a single category.

According to the report, per-foot fees come out on top of that ranking. The mechanism is straightforward: a city or county charges a fixed dollar amount for each linear foot of fiber the operator installs under its streets. On a multi-mile build in a dense neighborhood, that charge compounds quickly. A $1 per-foot fee across 10,000 feet of trench adds $10,000 to project cost on that segment alone — and any number quoted per foot multiplies across the full route.

Why does this structure hurt deployment more than other rules?

Per-foot fees scale directly with the size of the build, the trade group argues, while most other municipal charges — application fees, inspection fees, pole-attachment rental — are fixed or capped regardless of route length. The structure effectively penalizes operators for every additional home passed, which runs against the unit economics of rural and suburban fiber. The longer the route and the more sparse the housing density, the more disproportionate the per-foot charge becomes relative to the revenue opportunity.

ISPs have separately told regulators that inconsistent interpretation of the same rule across neighboring jurisdictions further complicates network design. An operator planning a fiber spine across two counties can face two different fee schedules, two different inspection regimes and two different restoration standards for the same trench.

What changes if the finding holds?

The FBA's ranking gives state broadband offices and federal program administrators a concrete lever. Permitting reform has been a recurring item in broadband-policy discussions at the Federal Communications Commission and in state legislatures, and a trade-group study ranking one rule above the rest gives advocates a single target.

A cap on per-foot fees, or a shift to flat municipal application charges, would change the cost curve on fiber without altering the underlying build scope. The trade group's framing suggests that even a modest adjustment at the local level could shorten deployment timelines measured in months.

What happens next

The FBA plans to circulate the study to state broadband offices and federal program staff as those bodies finalize award decisions under federal broadband programs. The report's emphasis on a single, rankable rule positions permitting cost reform as a discrete policy item, separable from broader right-of-way debates, going into the next legislative cycle.