September 26, 2025
Who Controls the Light Poles? Utilities or the FCC?
Major utilities call proposed FCC rule a "legal and practical minefield"
Pushback against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been unusually prominent lately. In a recent high-profile clash, the agency drew criticism over remarks by Commissioner Brendan Carr that some viewed as political pressure on ABC and its affiliates following controversial comments by Jimmy Kimmel. That controversy spilled into the headlines and led to renewed debate over the FCC’s authority.
But in a quieter corner of the FCC’s docket, another form of pushback is taking shape — led by some of the nation’s largest electric utilities, whose reach extends across much of the South and Midwest. Companies including Southern Company, Duke Energy, American Electric Power, Oncor, Entergy, and Ameren have formally objected to a proposal that would reclassify streetlight poles as utility “distribution” infrastructure under federal law. If approved, the change would give broadband providers streamlined access to those poles — and, in the utilities’ view, strip away the control and design oversight they currently maintain.
Streetlight poles, they argue, weren’t built for antennas. And they weren’t meant to be regulated that way either.
The Stakes of Reclassification
At the heart of the debate is Section 224 of the Communications Act. If the FCC classifies streetlight poles as distribution poles, telecom companies would gain rights to attach equipment — antennas, radios, cabling — with minimal oversight from the pole owner. That means accelerated timelines, capped attachment fees, and limited room for objection.
It's important to note that the FCC’s proposal applies only to poles owned by investor-owned utilities, not to poles owned by municipal governments or electric cooperatives.
The utilities argue that streetlight poles are different. They’re not designed for multi-use occupancy. They’re often governed by local agreements, with aesthetic, safety, and zoning considerations that don't apply to typical utility poles. “Street light poles are typically owned, operated, and maintained pursuant to contractual arrangements with municipalities,” the joint filing notes, “not utility customers.” They describe it as "a legal and practical minefield."
Blind Spots in the FCC’s Proposal
For lighting people and municipal engineers, the omissions in the FCC’s proposal may also raise concerns. There is no mention of maintaining required clearances over roadways. No provisions for preserving driver sight lines. No requirement to avoid interference with existing traffic signals or lighting systems. No specs related to added weight or wind speeds. Yet these are basic safety criteria for streetlight placement and pole configuration — particularly in high-traffic or pedestrian-heavy zones.
The danger isn’t hypothetical. Lighting poles are often installed adjacent to intersections or medians where visibility and uniform illumination are critical. Adding communication equipment to light poles may exceed original wind-load and structural design specifications, compromising safety. Additionally, large or externally mounted gear, could obstruct a driver’s view, block signage, or interfere with the functioning of coordinated traffic systems. And yet, the FCC’s proposal treats all poles as interchangeable assets, with little regard for what they already support.
Two Infrastructures, Two Timelines
There’s also a deeper regulatory friction at play. While the FCC is pushing for faster broadband rollouts through compressed application timelines and default approval rules, roadway safety and lighting systems operate under a different clock. Transportation and public works departments must still follow federal traffic control standards, undergo environmental review, and coordinate with multiple stakeholders before approving even minor changes to pole configurations.
This disconnect could leave cities in a bind. “The Commission’s proposed rules would insert broadband providers into these lighting-specific arrangements,” the utilities wrote, “potentially interfering with utilities’ obligations to provide reliable street lighting service and adhere to local design and safety standards.”
Even if the FCC succeeds in speeding up broadband deployment, local agencies may be forced to slow things back down — either to preserve safety or to untangle conflicting regulations. In the meantime, lighting manufacturers, specifiers, and engineers could find themselves caught in the middle, asked to modify poles or fixtures to accommodate hardware they didn’t plan for — and in some cases, aren’t allowed to block.
Infrastructure by Design, or by Default?
What’s playing out here isn’t just a legal disagreement over pole classification — it’s a collision of intent. Lighting poles were designed for public safety, visual consistency, and municipal control. The FCC sees them as vertical assets ready to be leveraged by boradband providers. And in the absence of clear boundaries, the infrastructure risks becoming whatever the last party to touch it wants it to be.
For now, the FCC says it is reviewing comments. The utilities are urging the agency to back off. “The Commission should refrain,” they concluded, “from expanding its pole attachment regulations to include infrastructure that Congress did not intend to regulate.”
In other words: just because a pole exists doesn’t mean it’s up for grabs.
